Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist and Patriot.
With Dan Mitchell who blogs at International Liberty and is a fellow at the Cato Institute, count on receiving and excellent well informed read with his usual wit.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.
by Dan Mitchell
A lot of people say Obama is anti-business, but there’s one part of the American economy that is delighted that he got reelected.
No, I’m not talking about bankruptcy lawyers or corrupt lobbyists, though those would be good guesses.
The real winners from Obama’s re-election are America’s gun manufacturers and gun sellers.
Not that I’ve looked at any data. I’m just basing this on the comments I’ve heard over the past few years and the up-tick in such comments in the past 36 hours.
But I’m quite confident that the overall firearms industry has profited from Obama’s tenure.
Anyway, the great economist Frederic Bastiat teaches us to look at both direct and indirect effects (or, as he put it, the “seen” and “unseen”), so I want to highlight a disadvantaged group that will suffer as a result of the Obama-induced increase in gun sales.
Yes, I’m talking about criminals.
To understand the point I’m trying to make, we’re going to do a thought experiment.
Start by closing your eyes and thinking about someone you know who has worked hard, saved some money, bought a nice house, and filled that house with nice things for the family to enjoy.
Now tell yourself, “I want those things as well.”
But you also think, “Damned if I’m going to wake up early every day like that chump and bust my rear end to earn a good life.”
Instead, you decide it’s okay to take things that don’t belong to you, even if it involves some coercion.
So what’s your next step?
No, this isn’t a thought experiment about voting for Obama. Besides, the election is over.
Close your eyes again and think about how you would obtain things that don’t belong to you and without using the government as the middleman.
What would you do? Well, you might beg the person to give you things.
But that might be a bit awkward or demeaning, and the person might say no.
That leaves burglary as your only option. Sort of a private sector version of income redistribution.
Now we get to the key point in our thought experiment.
You sneak up to the house with the nice things and you suddenly see a sign.
Here’s a quiz. What do you do after seeing this sign?
a. break into the house because you once heard a politician or journalist assert that gun ownership doesn’t deter crime?
b. decide after a bit of reflection about potential costs and benefits that it might be more prudent to find another house to rob?
If you need some help with the answer, think about the meaning of this cartoon.
If you’re still having trouble grasping the concept, this Chuck Asay cartoon might be worth a look. Or this post has some signs that may help your understanding.
And if you still don’t comprehend, then congratulations. You deserve a starring role in this video.