Disarmed criminals?

Some time ago, state, local and federal agents launched Operation Falcon, a nation-wide dragnet for violent criminals.  Among the 10,340 fugitives arrested, only 243 weapons were recovered.

Noting the usual hysteria from gun control activists about how easy it is for criminals to get firearms, From the Heartland wondered why the number of guns siezed were so small. 

A troll responded, attracting the formidable ire of Kevin Baker.

Kevin does his usual excellent job of covering the basic points, but he also leaves one out.

That is where we come in.

The argument that the low incidence of guns among these elite criminals may be taken as proof gun control is working.  Indeed, the Posse is pretty sure we'll see this in coming days and weeks as soon as the Sarah Brady clones can get their talking points drawn up.

Of course this argument is based on an assumption that could be hammered from many sides.  But for the sake of discussion, the Posse is happy to fight the battle on ground of the opposition's choosing.

It seems to us that if half of American households have guns but only 2 percent of criminals do, doesn't this completely, totally and utterly invalidate Tim Lambert's statement that disarmament makes self-defense possible?

Seems to us that odds are exactly where we want them:  heavily stacked in favor of law-abiding citizens.

Shall-issue laws and widespread lawful gun ownership mean that citizens are 25 times as likely to have a gun than a criminal.

We like those odds. 

Those odds indicate a considerable superiority on the part of the law-abiding.  That is as it should be.

What Lambert proposes is "levelling the playing field," something that would result in a massive improvement for the criminal element.

Again, the Posse freely acknowledges that this is largely speculation - though any study with a sample size of 10,000 wanted fugitives is worth examining in greater detail.

Nevertheless, if nothing else this does add yet another problem for gun control zealots.  If it's so easy for criminals to get guns, why weren't they more common?

If gun control is working, why mess it up by disarming more law-abiding people?  Are we not the point of diminishing marginal returns?

Criminals are (it seems) already largely disarmed.  So "reducing the gun supply" would actually disarm more potential victims than criminals.

Taking the gun control activists at their word then is proof that any more gun control will benefit criminals.

Comments

[staghounds]

Clever, Yebby, and I'm sure that these criminals possess fewer books, water color sets, and frilly dresses than a similar group of non criminals (More tattoos, though.)

Your analogy shows a failure to comprehend the point.

The ANTI GUNNERS say the reason for disarming decent citizens is to reduce the harm done by criminals with guns.

THEY say there is a link between availability of guns and criminal misuse thereof.

THEY say that the only way to disarm criminals is to disarm non criminals.

THEY say that current laws which prohibit felons from possessing guns are insufficiently effective.

This result demonstrates pretty effectively that, for whatever reason, their assertion that criminals are heavily armed is a crock. Maybe not, but the numbers are so extreme that they cry out the weakness of the bedrock anti gun assumption absent further explanation.

Oddly enough, they bear out my experience as a prosecutor for 15 years in a gun friendly state- thousands of cases-burglary, car theft, robbery, assault, rape, and murder - but almost never is the defendant found in possession of a firearm. It's clear that criminals don't arm themselves unless they have a use in mind for a gun, and this suggests that when they DO plan mayhem, they will find a way to get the tools.

[Yebby 61]

I'd give odds that those same 10,000+ wanted criminals have fewer golf clubs that the average American. The question that should be answered first is; how many of those 243 weapons were in the hands of the type of criminal that have or would use them to committ a crime? Few B&E's, smash & grab or even small time drug dealers have much use for a weapon of any kind.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for "shall issue" legislation across the 50 states, and I see nothing wrong for most "law abiding" American's to own a concealed weapon, and to be able to cross state borders wih it in their possession. But, using a 2% extrapolation in this case really doesn't pass the smile test.

[Yebby 61]

I'd give odds that those same 10,000+ wanted criminals have fewer golf clubs that the average American. The question that should be answered first is; how many of those 243 weapons were in the hands of the type of criminal that have or would use them to committ a crime? Few B&E's, smash & grab or even small time drug dealers have much use for a weapon of any kind.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for "shall issue" legislation across the 50 states, and I see nothing wrong for most "law abiding" American's to own a concealed weapon, and to be able to cross state borders wih it in their possession. But, using a 2% extrapolation in this case really doesn't pass the smile test.