'Decrease the Likelihood' Gun Control

It's 2 AM
The fear is gone
I'm sitting here waiting
The gun still warm
--Golden Earring

Radio host and former congressman Joe Walsh observes that laws won't stop motivated criminals from doing evil.

What the Left doesn't understand: There isn't a law anywhere in the world that can stop a bad man who is hell-bent on committing an act of evil.

All we can do is make sure good men and good women are armed and able to protect themselves. And protect our children.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) May 21, 2018

Although Walsh claims that leftists don't understand this reality, most leftists would probably disagree. Instead, many counter with the argument that laws, in this case laws restricting gun ownership, while not eliminating crime, would decrease the likelihood that a bad guy or would-be bad guy would obtain a firearm to commit a crime.

There is some validity to this line of reasoning. After all, when we lock our home or car doors, only the most naive would expect that doing so would stop hardened thieves. Instead, we would more realistically expect to deter less capable thieves who possess neither the skill, patience, or time to circumvent the lock.

But if leftists take this tack then they must be prepared for the corollary. If restricting gun ownership decreases the likelihood of would-be criminals obtaining guns, then doesn't it also reduce the likelihood of good people obtaining guns in order to capably defend themselves against those motivated criminals who ignore the law? Why is decreasing the likelihood of a would-be criminal getting a gun more preferable to reducing the likelihood that a would-be victim has a gun to defend against crime?

'Decrease the likelihood' gun control advocates must also account for the dynamics that subsequently unfold. If gun ownership is restricted, then is gun augmented crime also likely to decrease? There may be fewer marginal criminals with guns, but there would be fewer law abiding people with guns as well. To motivated criminals, hasn't the potential victim pool vastly increased? Why should we expect less crime rather than more crime as a result?

Moreover, black markets for guns will surely form to fill demand that has been forcibly restrained by law. Do increases in black markets typically lead to more or less violence? If the answer is more, then why should we expect differently this time?

The 'decrease the likelihood' gun control argument faces a difficult road toward truth.