ABSTRACT
The debate about gun control also is replete with claims of futility and perversity, many of them based on evasion. One common claim is encapsulated in what might be called the “futility syllogism”: gun controls apply, by definition, only to the formal market; criminals acquire their guns through informal means; therefore, gun controls will not pose any barrier to criminal acquisition of firearms.1 The syllogism can also be put into the service of the perversity argument: if the controls make it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire guns, then criminals will be less deterred, so gun controls aimed at reducing crime will actually increase it.
