Gun Bans and Disparity of Force

Daniel LaRusso: You really think I can beat that guy?
Miyagi: No matter. Wacko teacher attitude rest in fist. Stupid, but fact of life. Win, lose, no matter. You make good fight...earn respect. Then nobody bother.
--The Karate Kid

When they are challenged, gun grabbers sometimes dial back their claims from "banning guns would eliminate shooting-related crime" to "banning guns would reduce the likelihood of crime." At first glance, the latter claim seems more reasoned and valid. But upon further scrutiny, is it really?

Suppose we have two people, A and B. Both of them carry guns. However, their motivations for carrying guns differ. A carries a gun to facilitate acts of aggression on others (e.g, theft, murder, etc.). B carries a gun to protect his interests from unwanted, violent intrusion by others.

As an aggressor or potential aggressor, A has a general preference for picking targets that allow him to exploit disparity of force. Disparity of force means that, in a violent altercation involving two of more parties, one party possesses capacity for bringing significantly more force to bear on the situation than the other(s). Greater force implies higher likelihood of victory in the altercation.

Like many criminals, A realizes that a gun gives him great disparity of force--assuming, of course, that his target does not carry a firearm as well. Therefore, A will tend to steer clear of people like B, preferring instead to prey on unarmed victims.

B's gun serves as a deterrent to crime. It decreases, rather than increases, the likelihood of crime--at least that of A on B.

Now, consider the situation where guns are banned by law. B, being a law-abiding citizen, surrenders his weapon to authorities. On the other hand, A, having little regard for the law, keeps his.

It doesn't take A long to realize that disparity of force has tilted more in his favor. Many people who were previously carrying weapons are now walking the streets unarmed. This emboldens B to commit more crime.

Moreover, this situation likely incentivizes more people to pursue criminal careers as it appears that likelihood of successful criminal acts has gone up. Black markets for guns will also surely intensify, along with their criminal potential.

Rather than decreasing the likelihood of crime, banning guns is likely to increase crime.

Indeed, this is precisely what empirical evidence suggests (e.g., here, here).