It seems as though our theory on cities with relaxed gun laws providing guns to other cities may be justified by recent data provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. As a recap, we looked at cities, such as Camden, Washington DC, and East St. Louis, have gun problems but are located in states with strict gun laws. These have been used by libertarians who want to relax gun control laws more as examples of gun control laws being counter-productive. Instead, we said that the fact they are located right next to states with very relaxed gun laws (Pennsylvania, Virginia and Missouri respectively) meant that many straw buyers were buying guns legally and just walking across state lines to sell them illegally for a profit.
Now an article in the Economist reports that “in 2009 ten states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia) supplied almost half the interstate-trafficked guns recovered at crime scenes.”
But this is not all. The article goes on to state that: “90% of the guns recovered from crime scenes in Mexico and traced led back to American dealers.” It seems that having a next door neighbor with relaxed gun laws works on a more macro scale as well.
This does not show that gun control laws are useless. On the contrary, it shows that gun control laws need to be instituted on a very broad scale in order to be effective. If one county, city or state decides to make strict gun control laws while its neighbor does not, the laws will not be nearly as effective as they could and should be. We do not need to remind our readers that the US leads all industrialized nations in gun deaths.
As a poignant example, if you combine the populations of Japan, South Korea, England, Singapore, the Netherlands, Spain and Ireland you get a population slightly higher than that of the US. These countries combined have 946 gun deaths per year, while the US has over 31,000. Could this be because these countries all have stricter gun laws than the US?
I do not agree with the argument for stricter laws. We already have gun laws that are not being enforced. Where and how would you start? There are tens of millions of guns in circulation. Law abiding gun owners would be the first target. Making them more vulnerable. If it is true that so many recovered weapons used in crimes are traceable then we have the beginnings of the solution.
Yes you’re right in that the title of the article was somewhat imprecise. I just wanted to show that having strict laws in one state (or county) while having relaxed laws right next door pretty much nullifies the beneficial effects.
I think the beginnings of the solution you mention are exactly what may be happening. If we can see that the guns being used illegally in states with strict gun laws come from states with relaxed gun laws we can trace their itinerary and work to find a solution. I admittedly did not address possible solutions here, which would take up many more posts.
We are a Federal Republic. I would hate to see more Federal regulation to overcome State “deficiencies”. Local and individual freedom can be messy and imperfect and in defending liberty we do suffer some unfortunate results. Gun control seems to be a bellweather topic for this discussion.
Yes and again, this is one of the only points where I will differ from the libertarian point of view. While I do obviously believe in individual and state rights, I believe the federal government is needed for certain aspects.
Every time the federal government hands down a new law it restricts our freedom in one way or another, so I’ll always disagree with the government telling us what art can be exhibited, who can pray where, who can marry whom, who can gamble on what, etc. But I believe the government is needed for certain aspects, like national security and defense and making sure we don’t get shot while walking down the street.