Just when I thought I’d heard all the arguments on this issue…
Those opposed to gun control often argue that restrictions on gun ownership by definition disarm only law-abiding people. When laws restricting gun possession are passed, law-abiding people obey them and don’t buy or get rid of their guns. Criminals — who by definition do not obey the law — ignore laws against guns the same way they ignroe the laws against robbery, auto theft, murder, rape, and so on. After all, if someone is willing to violate the law against murder, what makes anyone think that person will obey a law against having the gun used to commit the murder?
So, the argument goes, gun control disarms law-abiding people and emboldens criminals, who know their intended victims are less likely to be armed. Since the victims are less likely to be armed, the “cost” of attempting a crime — in terms of probability of being injured or arrested — is lower. Thus, crime is more likely to pay, so criminals commit more crimes.
This all old hat, and has been extensively documented by John Lott.
But now, Capital Freedom has yet another argument, which is so obvious we all should have thought of it years ago. Because taking guns away from the law-abiding makes crime more profitable, and because it’s easier to commit certain crimes with guns, gun control increases the benefit to a criminal of having a gun. Since crime more “profitable,” a gun is more likely to be a profitable investment for a criminal. So criminals acquire not the same number of guns, but more of them.
In other words, gun control not only disarms the law-abiding, but actually encourages the criminals to obtain and use guns.