Many people who support the criminalization of private gun ownership are the very same people who support the decriminalization of hard drugs.
The case for decriminalizing hard drugs goes something like this: The "war on drugs" is an abject failure. Not only a failure, but counterproductive. Criminalizing drugs created a black market for drugs. It fueled organized crime, viz. drug smuggling from Latin American drug cartels–as well as domestic production (e.g. meth labs). It created a police state apparatus (e.g. SWAT teams; no-knock raids). And it had a disparate impact on minority communities. Minorities are more likely to be arrested on drug charges.
And I think that characterization is factually accurate. The question is whether the alternative is even worse. Both criminalizing and decriminalizing hard drugs will have dramatic tradeoffs.
But the purpose of this post is not to debate the pros and cons of that issue. Rather, this is my point:
The same argument which liberals use respecting the criminalization of drugs applies to the criminalization of firearms.
Now, gun-control advocates really want a national gun ban, along with gun confiscation. They don't admit that upfront. Rather, they pursue an incremental strategy. But restricting gun ownership to the police is their ultimate goal.
Suppose they got their wish. Suppose they succeeding in passing a national ban on private gun ownership (not to mention confiscation). What would be the result?
Wouldn't the predictable result parallel the "war on drugs"? It would create a black market for contraband firearms. So long as there's a demand, there will be suppliers to cash in on that lucrative market. It would foster organized crime. Gun traffickers. It would have a disparate impact on minority communities–where gun-related violence is rife. And it would expand the police state.