Groups like the NRA opposed to gun control laws will make the argument that criminals will get guns even if there are laws in place and therefore we should not pass laws restricting access to guns. This is a very disingenuous argument for two reasons.
1) Implicit in this argument is the notion that if some criminals get guns then obviously all criminals will get guns. I think any reasonable person will see that some criminals will get guns illegally; some but not all. This is where the argument gets murky. Since some can get illegal guns the law is not working and therefore why have the law. No proof is offered that some criminals are unable to get a gun. It is reasonable to assume that some criminals do not indeed get guns, and therefore are unable to commit crimes using guns.
2) A different question to ask is whether criminals are entitled to have guns; asking someone this who holds that gun control laws don’t work will certainly put that person on the defensive. Basically either they answer yes that criminals are allowed to have guns or they will be faced with the quandary that perhaps some things do need to be made illegal. Those who say yes will probably come back with the pat answer that everyone should (or must) have a gun. We see this viewpoint after a school shooting, arm the teachers, arm the students. This is an extreme minority viewpoint. Philosophically these people painted themselves into a corner, and the arm everyone argument offers the only way out. These people are saying laws don’t work; yet they probably as a group believe in laws against murder, rape, drunk driving. We could argue that drunk drivers exist in spite of having laws against drunk driving. I don’t see the advocates of no gun control pushing to get rid of other non-gun control laws; yet their logic would support eliminating all laws
Notes from Silicon Valley 