I thought of this with all the new attention paid towards the gun control debate.
1. Say we make guns more expensive to obtain. Perhaps we tax guns, or limit their supply, increasing the firearm's price. We also tax bullets, increasing their price. Increase the amount of paperwork and regulations that a firearm dealer must comply with, so that it increases their expenses, and thus prices. Firearms and their accessories are now more expensive.
Now, the distribution of goods and services in the economy is based on willingness and ability to pay. If you can't afford it, you don't buy it. If you aren't willing to buy it, you don't buy it.
Now, we have made firearms and their accessories more expensive. Those that will be capable of purchasing them are those that are most capable of paying--those that are wealthier. Certainly, the poor would have much greater difficulty purchsing firearms.
So, now those that are wealtheir are the most well-armed, and we have increased their power.
2. There is a full ban on weapons. The government is the only entity capable of owning and using firearms legally.
Many ITF would say the government is bought and sold by corporations/the wealthy.
In banning guns and concentrating sole ownership to the government, haven't we really just provided a powerful tool for the wealthy? They have this monopoly on force over the rest of us?
EDIT: Assume that these control measures work as stated.
Gun control makes the wealthy more powerful.
Thread: Gun Control and Wealth