A lot of people think the best way to end gun violence is to take away guns.

They seem to forget it will require gun violence – or at least the threat of gun violence – to pursue this goal.

Many of the people who favor strict gun laws, including the prohibition of certain weapons, tend to couch their arguments in moral terms. They say things like, “If a law would save one life, it’s worth it,” or, “We just can’t allow people to have weapons capable of killing hundreds of people.”

Gun control advocates claim the moral high ground by invoking their desire to reduce violence and save lives. But they ignore the fact that their solution is steeped in violence. It will require force and coercion to take unapproved weapons away from those who already possess them. And it will take more coercion and violence to ensure people don’t get their hands on unapproved guns.

In fact, gun prohibition people aren’t really anti-gun, nor are they anti-violence. They just want the government to maintain a monopoly on guns and violence. They are fine with violence, as long as it serves their interests and as long as they don’t have to commit it with their own hands. They delegate violence to government agents and then preach against violence as if they have clean hands.

One always has to remember – every law is ultimately enforced at gunpoint.

In simplest terms, any ban on any kind of gun will immediately turn certain people into criminals. They will resist giving up their weapons, for whatever reason. Many of these people would never use their guns except in self-defense. Nevertheless, they will become subject to overt aggression by the state. If they get caught with their illegal weapon,  the state will demand they give it up. If they refuse, they will be locked in a cage. If they resist,  agents of the state will violently subdue them and possibly kill them.  This process is anything but peaceful and non-violent, and it erodes the moral high ground gun control advocates stand on.

As Mennonite pastor Ryan Burgett pointed out, gun control advocates are trying to solve a sin problem – violence – by action steeped in that very same sin. They are trying to solve violence with violence.

Burgett notes that people in the U.S. have more guns compared to people in other countries because they have relatively more autonomy and freedom. It will take force and coercion to change that equation.

“The only way for the government to reduce the amount of guns is to use violent force to reduce people’s autonomy and freedom. So, what is better? Individuals with guns? Or the government using guns to remove guns from individuals?

“I cannot accept that violence is a legitimate means of conflict resolution. There are still those who will use guns and violence for their own ends, but that is because they are wrong – because they are acting out of sin.

“Jesus said those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Violent means bring about violent ends. We who follow Jesus should be the last people to ever advocate using violence to try and fix the problems of society, whether violent or otherwise.”

Government solutions always involve violence. In fact, stripped down to fundamental elements, government is nothing more than an institution trying to maintain a monopoly on violence. By wrapping itself in patriotic symbols and convincing the majority of people within its sphere of influence that it possesses some kind of moral legitimacy, government hides its true face. But when you pull away the mask, government is every bit as violent as the man who shot up that Texas church, or the man who shot up the Las Vegas concert.

When the solution is the same as the problem, it’s not a legitimate solution. Violence won’t fix violence. You can’t hit peaceful people and claim the moral high ground. You are merely perpetuating the cycle of sin.