I'd also buy a Toyota or a Honda car, since it's less likely to break down while fleeing the police. Clearly, reliable automobiles are part of a pro-crime agenda.
I think your analogy is unfair. A standard car does make it harder but isn't being specifically modifed to make the action of police/TLA more difficult. A more appropriate analogy would probably be an armoured car or military humvee, possibly a tank. Should the public be allowed to buy a tank? It has got other uses than evading police but it makes the police's job much harder as they need to up their technology (bazookas and their own tanks) in order to handle criminal use of the tech in question.
Just to be clear I'm not commenting at all here on the question of limiting availability of crypto-lockers to the public.
So is that why the federal government poured our money into GM and Chrysler?
Oftentimes those with an anti-firearms agenda point out that Glocks are preferred among mass murderers. Glock is to guns as Toyota is to cars; reasonably priced and notoriously reliable.
There's so much stupidity in the gun debate on all sides. It's rare to see a cogent argument anywhere.
The basic idea applies to any dual-use technology, of course: criminals will prefer the better items for the same reason law-abiding citizens prefer the better items. Thus, "criminals prefer X" is not, by itself, any reasonable argument against X in a dual-use technology.
