Worth noting: "if X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" usually overlooks how many otherwise law-abiding citizens will legislatively become outlaws because they won't give up their right to X. (Current example: a registration/prohibition law in New York has turned about a million otherwise exemplary residents into "outlaws" as the SAFE Act has a compliance rate of about 4%.) Rather than solving the problem, legislators alienate & criminalize much of the population.

My favorite has always been: "Outlaws do X, but X isn't against the law. If we make X against the law, it will make it harder for outlaws to do X", when, in reality, outlaws weren't doing that thing legally (read: traceably) in the first place.

I always thought that part was understood. My interpretation of it has always (or for as long as I can recall) been that the "outlaws" are both actual criminals (ill-intent) and de facto criminals (no ill-intent, but caught by the current legislation for doing or possessing something that used to be legal or ignored by the law).