Let's talk a bit about symbiotic relationships. A symbiotic relationship is a relationship whereby each partner gains from the contributions of the other. The partners feed off each other in an orgy of mutual parasitism, and in the symbiology, each partner gains more than they lose. The benefits outweigh the costs.

An example of an unorthodox symbiosis is the way that the insurance industry benefits from burglary. (huh?) how is that possible? Well, let us think of it this way: What if there were no burglaries at all. None. Nobody burgled anybody else, no one stole from another, no one took what didn't belong to them. Ideal world? Perhaps, but if no one stole, why buy insurance? Why patronize a business guarding against doesn't happen? Indeed. Now you are beginning to understand the concept of a symbiotic relationship between antagonists. Neither side is overtly cooperating with the other, yet they need each other. If there were no burglaries, there would be no need for burglary insurance. If there were no burglary insurance, the consequences of burglary would increase to the point where they would drive the burglars out of the burglary business, then there would be no need for burglary insurance... and the cycle goes on. So the insurance industry needs for the crime of burglary to exist, for their own existence, but only to the level of where the crimes hurt the insurance company's ability to pay claims.

Another example of a symbiotic relationship between antagonists is the relationship between armed criminals and the gun control industry. If there were no crimes involving guns, there would be no need for gun control. If there were no gun control, then (theoretically) crime would rise to the point where gun control would be needed to curb crime.

If the symbiosis exists that would be the situation. In practice, things break down, illustrating that the control of guns is tangentially (if ever) related to the suppression of crime. Study after study shows that increasing gun control laws leads to an increase in crime rather than a decline. If you look at Washington, DC, you see a prime example of this paradigm on a statewide scale, and you can look at England, Canada and/or Australia to see this happen on a countrywide scale. Has there ever been an example of gun control resulting in a lowering of crime? If so, I am not aware of it. Yet why does high crime inspire more and more solutions of more and more gun control?

Perhaps less crime is not the objective. Perhaps there does exist a symbiotic relationship between crime and some sort of control? Perhaps some folks are using high crime and gun control as tools in a bid to exert more control over the population? When you look at the calculus of gun control versus crime, the numbers don't add up. It's a losing preposition. Gun control causes crime to rise. Period. The statistics show this as an undeniable fact, yet cries for more gun control continue. Why? And what lies behind this?

You take away an individual's ability (and thereby right) to defend himself against hostility by a criminal, and you also take away his ability (and right) to resist authority (government). By taking that ability away, you embolden the criminal, lower his occupational risks, lower the cost of getting into the business, and you open the field of criminality to more participants. If you make it easier, less costly, to become a doctor, then more people can and will become doctors. If you make it easier, less risky, to become a criminal, then more people will become criminals. More criminals require more victims to support them, which means more crime. More crime results in the government calling for more gun control, which takes away more people's ability to defend themselves, which lowers the risks and costs of becoming a criminal, and you have not a symbiotic relationship, but a vicious cycle. But to what end?

Other band-aid solutions to high crime are what? More police. More laws.