You can also listen to this article on The PonkaBlog Podcast!
Sometimes things don’t work out the way you think they should. You might end up getting where you want to be, you just take an unexpected path to get there. The Law of Unintended Consequences states that when you change a complicated system, unanticipated or unforeseen things may occur.
The unintended consequences can be grouped into three types:
Unexpected benefit: Something good happens
Unexpected drawback: Something bad happens
Perverse result: The opposite of the intended result happens
Keep that in mind, we’ll circle back to it in a bit.
A couple of weeks ago, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill, Assembly Bill-173, that would grant the UC Davis researchers access to certain information. That information pertains to firearm purchases in the State of California. The goal is to use the data to create policies that will reduce firearm violence.
That sounds like a good goal. And, I have no problem with researchers having some information. But do they need all of the information?
AB-173 allows the release of information including my name, address, place of birth, which guns I own, where I bought the gun and, my fingerprints. Yes, for some inexplicable reason, researchers require my fingerprints to draw their conclusions.
And that doesn’t only apply to researchers from the University of California. Any research facility can get the information simply by asking nicely for it.
But I should be safe from having all that information released to the public because the bill also stipulates that my personally identifiable information must be kept secure and can only be used for research. Well…that ought to do it. Because as data security experts will tell you, the most effective way to prevent unauthorized access to personally identifiable information is to tell a bunch of college kids that they’re not allowed to share it with anyone.
I have a knack for predicting the future so let me tell you what’s going to happen. Some Liberal idiot (maybe that’s redundant) is going to publish on the Internet all the names and addresses of all the gun owners in California. His or her goal will be to, I guess, “gun shame” me or something. As if any of us gun owners really give a shit about what anyone else thinks of us.
So, my information will be published for the world to see, and everyone will know exactly what guns I have. Well, at least they’ll know about the guns I have that the State of California knows about. But, keep in mind, the list also tells everyone which houses aren’t likely to have guns.
Now, about those unintended consequences.
Whether or not you have an unintended benefit or drawback depends on whether you’re armed or not. It also depends on whether your criminals are smart or stupid. I suspect it’s a little of column A and a little of column B.
Let’s first assume that the criminals are smart.
Once the information is leaked, the criminals will know exactly which guns are in which house. Well, not exactly, but close enough. If they’re smart, the criminals will know that they should stay away from the houses with guns in them. Because they might get shot. So, they’ll focus on anyone who isn’t on the list, because odds are that the people who haven’t bought a gun don’t have any guns with which to shoot the criminals.
So, an unintended benefit for me is that the criminals leave me and my stuff alone. An unintended drawback for my unarmed neighbors is that their houses are more likely to be robbed.
But, if the criminals are stupid…
Well, the stupid criminals are going to decided they want my guns, and break into my house to steal them. That’s an unintended drawback for me. And, since the criminals are breaking into my house instead of my gunless neighbor’s house, my neighbor will be slightly safer, which is an unintended benefit for him.
Now, about that stupid part…there’s a really good chance that the criminals are going to die after breaking into a gun owner’s home. Which is an unintended benefit for everyone…except the criminal.
However, there’s a chance that the gang banger won’t die. Maybe I’m away when he decides to rob my place. So, he successfully steals my stuff, including my guns. Now he’s armed. But remember, the criminals will also be armed with the knowledge of which houses DON’T have guns. So, once they’ve taken my guns, where are they going next? That’s right. They’re going to my neighbor’s house. Because they’re pretty sure he can’t protect himself or his family.
Which means any potential unexpected benefit to my neighbor is only temporary. Armed with the knowledge that my neighbor is unarmed, the criminals will soon enough find their way to his door.
So, whether we have smart criminals or stupid ones, as long as the criminals know where the guns are, my anti-gun neighbor will eventually always suffer an untended drawback.
The perverse result, which is the opposite of the intended result, is easy to predict. The intended result of this exercise is less gun violence. But the stupid criminals are going to break into a gun owners’ houses and they’re going to get killed. Which is technically more gun violence.
Since the criminals will be dying at the hands of law-abiding gun owners after breaking into their homes, this result is also temporary. As the number of criminals decrease, the amount of gun violence will also decrease. But we don’t need a study to tell us that. Because that’s exactly what gun owners have been saying forever.
You can listen to The PonkaBlog Podcast for free at PonkaBlog.com and on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Amazon Music, Rumble and Stitcher. Just search for PonkaBlog wherever you get your podcasts and subscribe today!
Did you know I publish a new article several times a week? I’ve started getting noticed by social media. Which, as you know, for a Conservative is never a good thing. I highly recommend you sign up for my free newsletter. That way you won’t miss anything the next time social media censors what I write.
