Making self-defense illegal is a bad idea, part four.

When I argue that people should be allowed to decide if they want to arm themselves, they usually misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that everyone should be armed and use weapons to solve all their problems. It would be an insane position to take. My message is that prohibition isn't the solution. What I am saying is that I think the world would be safer and better if no one was trying to use guns and laws to keep guns out of ordinary people's reach. I have written about questions 1, 3, 5 and 6 in previous posts. In this text, I will address questions 2, 4 and 9. You will find the questions at the bottom.

Almost all human problems are complex problems. There are so many variables and potential outcomes that sometimes we do not know what to do. Sometimes we don't see how we can reduce complexity. Unfortunately, some people choose to take their lives because it's the only way they can imagine to reduce complexity. We like simple solutions. It feels safe. We want order. Simple solutions, however, do not usually work on complex problems.

A simple "solution" to the problem that people can be shot and threatened by people with firearms is to prohibit firearms. Think about question no. 1. Why do some people want to ban grown-up mentally sane people from having guns for self-defense? One answer is that it is a simple "solution" to the problem. Since a simple solution to a complex problem is not a solution at all, we should ask ourselves question no. 2. If adult people who are mentally sane cannot take responsibility for themselves, then who will be responsible for them? Politicians and the police might you think?

Politicians and policemen are people. They thus fall into the adult human category. How could the police stop other people from owning firearms if they ware banned from having firearms themselves? As you can see, it is impossible to prohibit firearms. What happens when a firearm ban is introduced is that people are arbitrarily divided into two different groups. Those who are allowed to have firearms and those who are not. Then the problem arises, how should we ensure that those who would abusive weapons do not have them? By making it illegal to own firearms we only stop law-abiding people. Unfortunately, criminals tend to ignore laws. Violent criminals, tyrants, corrupt bureaucrats and police officers, have the most incentives to abuse firearms. None of these are disarmed by firearm prohibition. On the contrary, their power increases thanks to the firearm ban.

Violent criminals demand firearms. When they cannot buy these legally, a black market will arise. The supply will meet demand and the violent criminals will be armed. The same happens when alcohol or other drugs are banned. The actors responsible for supplying the black market can make a lot of money because the price of their products is raised to compensate for the risk they take. The risk that the police arrests them, the customs take their products or a competitor kills them.

Few people want to take these risks and use violence against others so the competition is lower than on the white market. The quality and safety of the product also drop. The consumer of illegal drugs cannot go to the seller and request compensation in the same way that it works on a white market. The high prices and the way we deal with addicts cause problems. The addict often races money by prostituting themselves, stealing or robbing. This costs society a lot of money. In the black market, violence is frequently used to resolve disputes because everything has to be done in the shadows. The sellers of illegal products have incentives to organize themselves, form cartels. This is how you get organized crime. 

What have the consequences of prohibition always been? The failed war on drugs serves as a warning example. The US prohibition of alcohol in the 20s and 30s is another. This quote by Lysander Spooner summarizes my view of what should be illegal.

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors that a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice towards others, and no interference with their persons or property. "

Organized crime usually leads to increased corruption of police officers, judges, bureaucrats and politicians. The only way to effectively combat organized crime is to remove all the bans on things that they make money on. In the US and Canada, the cannabis market is turning into a white market. This is bad for the Mexican cartels selling its cannabis on the North American market. How could they make money if the same was done with their other products? The opioid crisis shows that the ban does not solve the problem of addiction. In Portugal, drugs were decriminalized for personal use in 2001 with good results. Fewer young people become heroin addicts and fewer human beings die of drug-related causes.

1. Why do some people want to ban grown-up mentally sane people from having guns for self-defense?

2. If adult people who are mentally sane aren't allowed to take responsibility for themselves, then who will be responsible for them? Who does not fit into the above group?

3. What are the reasons for the prohibition of firearms?

4. How will you maintain the firearm ban and try to solve the problems that can be caused by firearms without creating unwanted problems?

5. What are the risks of introducing a firearm ban?

6. What is the root of the problems, what are the symptoms and how should the problems be addressed?

7. Can you achieve a situation wherein no one gets shot? If yes, what price do you have to pay?

8. Do gun ban advocates propose a violent or non-violent solution?

9. What have the consequences of prohibition always been?