Reader Phil in LA writes:
As I think about “gun control,” which we all know is a euphemism for outright firearm bans, I’m reminded of the last time the US Government attempted prohibition, and the unintended consequences of that action. I’m also reminded of the old saying “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Prohibition on alcoholic beverages began with ratification of the 18th amendment to the constitution in 1920. The 18th amendment was repealed by ratification of the 21st amendment, thus ending Prohibition in 1933 . . .
Interestingly enough, many other nations passed and ultimately repealed similar bans during the same time period. Of course the demand for alcohol remained. The unintended consequence was the growth of organized crime, which gained a revenue stream due to the illegal nature of the product: alcohol.
After alcohol, a similar ban was enforced on marijuana and other drugs. Again, demand remained, organized crime had a product to sell and business was good.
Over the past few decades we’ve felt a real push for the aforementioned “gun control.” It seems that by looking at analogies to previous and present prohibitions, we know that “gun control” or outright bans would indeed lower the number of firearms in circulation. But the demand would still be there and organized crime would step in for yet another revenue stream.
In other words, crime would thrive due to a monopoly on firearms. Just as the “War on Drugs” has made violent drug lords into billionaires, a “War on Guns” would net the same result.
Gun crime might decrease in the US with passage of such prohibitive gun laws, but overall crime would certainly increase. And all civilian firearms sales would fund organized crime.
As a side note: the USA is exceptional, not by birth, but by design. Sovereignty of the individual brings out the best work. But the US is still attached to the international community and fads and fashions inevitably cross the pond. We read about gun bans in other countries, and are mocked as a nation (or voting block) for defending the freedoms of the individual.
But note that prohibition was also an international fad: a fad that within a decade also went out of style.
I submit that “gun control” is another international fad that will fade away. Instead of following the crowd, I hope that we as a nation continue to lead by remaining steadfast in our resolve to defend the 2nd amendment, while waiting for the day the international community comes to their senses.
Plus, think of how silly the Constitution would look with repeats of the 18th and 21st amendments.