That’s basic economics.
Unfortunately, assuming anyone involved in the process making this policy understands basic economics might be a leap. They’re more interested in political grandstanding. “WE TOOK THE GUNS OFF THE STREET!”
I have a friend whose father was in the KSP. Years ago he showed off his gun collection and described where they came from.
The majority were firearms that “left the building” after whatever court cases were finalized or were forfeited by felons.
He had a bunch!
Th problem with that plan is that black market ivory is a commodity. Reducing supply invariably will increase demand and the asking price. So burning it increases motivation for the elephant poachers.
On the other hand, it could have been sold and the proceeds used to hire hundreds more game wardens, or modernize their equipment and methods.
It is not mere coincidence that the African nations with the best-kept elephants are those that license elephant hunting, only allow those in need of culling to be taken, and put the proceeds from the "trophy fees" toward protecting the rest.
Destroying guns only makes sense if there is a limited supply of guns. In reality, the supply of guns is unlimited. The reason to destroy a gun in this scenario is to propagate the ideology “guns are bad”. Such irrational ideology should be rejected and opposed at all levels of society.