A new proposal making waves in gun control circles is drawing criticism from Second Amendment advocates after suggesting the government should financially incentivize Americans to buy rifles and shotguns instead of handguns.
The idea, floated by Megan McArdle, is based on a simple premise: since handguns are statistically used in more violent crimes than rifles or shotguns, perhaps the government should encourage first-time gun buyers to purchase long guns instead.
On paper, proponents frame it as a “moderate” alternative to outright gun bans. But to many gun owners, the proposal reveals a profound misunderstanding of crime, self-defense, and why Americans choose firearms in the first place.
The first major flaw is obvious: law-abiding gun owners are not driving violent crime. Even McArdle reportedly acknowledges that criminals routinely bypass gun laws and obtain firearms illegally regardless of restrictions placed on lawful citizens.
That admission alone undermines the entire premise.
If criminals already ignore firearm laws, why would making handguns more expensive or less accessible for lawful Americans suddenly reduce violent crime?
Critics point out that America has already run variations of this experiment for decades. Cities like Chicago, New York City, and Washington imposed some of the harshest handgun restrictions in the country — including outright bans in some cases. Yet those laws failed to eliminate violent crime because criminals simply obtained firearms through black markets and illegal channels.
Meanwhile, ordinary citizens faced the burden.
The proposal also ignores a basic reality known by virtually every gun owner: handguns are easier to carry for self-defense. They are smaller, lighter, easier to conceal, and more practical for everyday protection outside the home.
A rifle slung over someone’s shoulder at a grocery store may technically be legal in some states, but even many non-gun owners understand why that is not practical for daily life. Ironically, many jurisdictions place stricter scrutiny on openly carrying long guns than on legally concealed handguns.
For many Americans, especially women, elderly citizens, and those living in high-crime areas, a handgun is not a political statement. It is simply the most realistic self-defense tool available.
Second Amendment advocates also argue the proposal exposes a deeper philosophical problem increasingly common in gun control debates: the tendency to view lawful gun ownership itself as the issue rather than the criminals committing the violence.
As the original critique noted, the focus seems centered on reducing the number of guns rather than reducing the number of violent offenders.
Even politically, the idea appears dead on arrival.
Gun control activists generally oppose expanding firearm ownership in any form, while conservatives are unlikely to support yet another taxpayer-funded social engineering program designed to manipulate consumer choices.
And ultimately, the market itself already answers the question.
Americans overwhelmingly choose handguns because they are purpose-built tools for accessible self-defense — particularly outside the home. A rifle or shotgun may excel in hunting, sport shooting, or home defense, but it cannot realistically replace the role of a concealed handgun in everyday carry situations.
That reality is unlikely to change because of a government subsidy.
