I'm confused by the open borders argument

[95XL883]

Please help me understand the argument that state X, say Massachusetts, is experiencing increasing crime because buyers can just go across the state line and buy guns. This argument has bothered me for a long time.

To the uneducated that may sound perfectly reasonable but wait a minute. Residents in one state cannot legally go into another state and buy handguns directly. The purchase has to go through an FFL in the buyers home state. So the resident's state still controls the purchase.

So the argument of open state borders explaining the high crime rate in gun restrictive states is so obviously false how do they even make that argument? Or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance.

 

[hogshead]

Libs lie. Sheeple belive them.

 

[Sam1911]

There's not much logic to it, except to say if there weren't ANY guns in those other states, then our criminals couldn't go there to illegally get guns. SO, you know, you all in other states shouldn't have any guns so our bad guys can't come steal them or do illegal deals for them.

Like all these other gun control issues, it's just a cheap talking point that sounds good to the concerned citizens out there in TV land who don't know enough to call them on the facts.

 

[jamesbeat]

You're confused about it because you've actually given it more than a couple of seconds thought.
Even the slightest scrutiny reveals that this argument is nothing more than the ramblings of a halfwit.

It is simply the best excuse that the antis can come up with to explain why their gun bans either do nothing to decrease crime, or actually increase it.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear an anti say 'well, we tried these laws and it turns out they had the opposite effect to what we expected, let's repeal them.'

Of course, that would be the actions of a humble and honest lawmaker, but that's not what these people are.

 

[95XL883]

Thanks guys. I'm just amazed at what some people will say and like to be prepared when I get into discussions with anti's. That one is so far out there I just kept wondering if I was missing something.

 

[USAF_Vet]

A buyer from one state can buy a long gun from another, legally, if and only if that long gun is legal in the buyers state. So basically, a New York resident could go to PA and try to buy an AR, but since they are illegal in NY, the PA FFL should not sell the rifle. But, it could be argued (and i have no proof of this actually happening) that there are some rare extremes where the selling FFL does sell the 'prohibited' long gun.

It's these rare extremes that the antis are apparently targeting. But that's akin to burning down your house because you saw a spider in the bath room. Logic really doesn't come to play in their minds.

 

[316SS]

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Read this National Institute of Justice policy memo, specifically the highlighted part under "Universal Background Checks." Even the gubmint doesn't buy that argument.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Remember, the fight on gun rights is framed by the anti crowd (who gets lots and lots of money from this)

They use general confusion and IGNORANCE to advance their arguement
you point out that it's illegal -> most will go "HUH, but the guy just went to the other state"

Lies and purposely false misrepresenting laws and data, bigoted attacks (remember the NRA=KKK, ALL gun owners are white racist pigs (yes that includes all of us of a darker shade) Claims that the NRA is a terrorist org. arming crazy people and criminals....

this is their game, don't believe me, go check out the Democratic Underground, youwill be scared, these people have NO problem with the feds kicking in your door to take guns, taxing ammo out of existence and a system like Australia where you are so tightly controlled that you can be summarily jailed for possessing ammo in a caliber NOT on your registration card.

That's the future they look for, they DON'T CARE ABOUT CRIME

 

[Grey_Mana]

That one aspect of the argument is perfectly valid and logical.

As an analogy, the amount of illegal drugs being made in Massachusetts is trivial; the drugs are shipped in from other states. If the federal government, or the neighboring states, had the drug problem under control then Mass. could be a free rider.

If every gun in the US not in government hands magically disappeared today, it would literally take days before illegal guns crossed the US border and were being sold in Mass. and other northern states. It would take months, maybe a few years, before foreign gun manufacturers fully rearmed the civilian populace, and we'd have to settle for crappy weapons made in Mexico and China.

 

[JustinJ]

I don't have time at the moment to pull up statistics but i have read that a largely disproportionate amount of guns used in crimes in states with draconian gun laws are traced back to states with less regulation. By traced back i mean that the last time the guns were transferred through an FFL. It seems obvious to me that criminals living in a state that requires universal background checks could easily travel to an adjacent state that doesn't and acquire guns through private sales. However, i don't know what percent are acquired this way. It may be that states with less regulation are easier to perform straw man purchases in.

 

[316SS]

I don't have time at the moment to pull up statistics but i have read that a largely disproportionate amount of guns used in crimes in states with draconian gun laws are traced back to states with less regulation.

The policy memo I linked above links a NIJ-funded Rand Corporation study in LA County that found just the opposite.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR512.html

From the Rand study:

Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local—that
is, in-county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conven-
tional wisdom in the Southern California law-enforcement community that crime guns were
being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Ari-
zona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los
Angeles County.

 

[316SS]

If every gun in the US not in government hands magically disappeared today, it would literally take days before illegal guns crossed the US border and were being sold in Mass. and other northern states. It would take months, maybe a few years, before foreign gun manufacturers fully rearmed the civilian populace, and we'd have to settle for crappy weapons made in Mexico and China.

I don't suppose you can cite data to support this assertion?

 

[MachIVshooter]

To the uneducated that may sound perfectly reasonable but wait a minute. Residents in one state cannot legally go into another state and buy handguns [strike]directly[/strike] legally. The purchase has to go through an FFL in the buyers home state. So the resident's state still controls the purchase.

There.

The problem with anti-gun folks is this failure to distinguish between "it can't be done legally" and "it can't be done". They don't differentiate; they believe laws prevent crime.

I don't know how to fix them.

 

[316SS]

The problem with anti-gun folks is this failure to distinguish between "it can't be done legally" and "it can't be done". They don't differentiate; they believe laws prevent crime.

I don't know how to fix them.

Brain transplant? I have some more suggestions but none are "High Road."

 

[Shadow 7D]

there is a 98 study on where criminals get guns
these bought legally were either stolen
or... (and this is the tricky part)
BOUGHT BY THOSE WHO COULD PASS THE BACKGROUND CHECK...
now, tell me how does UBC crack down on this???

A criminal until convicted has no record, neither does their MOM, girlfriends or any other STRAWBUYER....

 

[MachIVshooter]

Brain transplant?

Brain implant, maybe.

I just can't follow their "logic". Discounting the progressive in politics, who care not about reducing crime but only about control, we're talking about people who truly believe that banning stuff magically disappears it, and that piling more laws on top of those already being ignored by criminals and not enforced by the justice system will suddenly turn criminals into honest citizens.

It's like having a problem with interstate travelers going 80 in a 55 and thinking that reducing the speed limit to 45 will suddenly make them comply. Oh, that didn't work, so we'll use gigantic, neon speed limit signs with stroble lights placed every 50 feet. Guess what? Speeders will just giggle at them as they fly by. The only thing that will actually slow people down are more traffic cops and stiffer fines.

If you want people to obey the law, you enforce it. If enforcement isn't getting the point across, you increase the penalty. They would have bipartisan support if their legislation was to increase minimum mandatory sentences for serious gun crimes, the crimes in which there is no possibility of ensnaring a non-criminal.

Commit robbery with a gun? 25 to life. Violent felon who knows he is prohibited from possessing? 25 to life. ENFORCE IT. And make these sentences consecutive, not concurrent. Now you'll actually have that parolee considering if 50+ years is worth buying that raven and robbing the liquor store.

Of course, no law is EVER going to prevent these suicidal maniacs from doing their evil. Nothing short of direct force can stop them. Believing otherwise is just imbecilic.

 

[316SS]

I just can't follow their "logic". Discounting the progressive in politics, who care not about reducing crime but only about control, we're talking about people who truly believe that banning stuff magically disappears it, and that piling more laws on top of those already being ignored by criminals and not enforced by the justice system will suddenly turn criminals into honest citizens.

Logic is simply one belief system among many. How dare you discriminate against Fantasylandian-Americans?

 

[Shadow 7D]

Remember this isn't about pesky facts
It's about demonizing a majority percentage of american, and severely alienating a minority.

In other words, this is politics
BTW, anybody notice that we go over OBAMA's (check it, he proposed it in 2011 to get spending increases)
fiscal cliff in less than 2 weeks?

Go read some of the articles on Genocide watch, you will be scared.

 

[browneu]

It confused me too until I read this thread.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Caliper_Mi]

One of the best responses to this argument is: then why don't they have the same crime problems in (place with less restrictive gun laws) ?

 

[Solo]

Because all their guns are going to NY, obviously.

 

[OptimusPrime]

One of the best responses to this argument is: then why don't they have the same crime problems in (place with less restrictive gun laws) ?

True. Or take it another step further; why do states with capital punishment still have murderers? You know you're gonna fry, and you know they'll do it, yet you commit murder anyway.
Some people are evil. Banning something doesn't make it go away.

 

[USAF_Vet]

If every gun in the US not in government hands magically disappeared today, it would literally take days before illegal guns crossed the US border and were being sold in Mass. and other northern states. It would take months, maybe a few years, before foreign gun manufacturers fully rearmed the civilian populace, and we'd have to settle for crappy weapons made in Mexico and China.

If cops and soldiers still had guns, we wouldn't need to see an influx of illegal guns come from Mexico and China. Criminals would steal guns from those who still possess them here in the US.

 

[hso]

Here's an analogy.

My family has a weight problem. Bad weight problem. Dangerous weight problem. Killing them.

My neighbor to the North doesn't have a weight problem in their family even though we shop at the same store.

My neighbor to the South doesn't have a weight problem in their family even though they shop at the same store.

My neighbor to the West doesn't have a weight problem in their family even though they shop at the same store.

Regardless of that, my family's deadly weight problem is my neighbors' fault, or the store's fault, or the food's fault regardless of the fact my neighbors who have the same food in their house don't have a weight problem.

The fact is that states with high murder rates are surrounded by states with lower murder rates in spite of the fact that those states have fewer restrictions. Why wouldn't the adjacent states with fewer restrictions have the same or higher murder rates if the even more ready availability of firearms was a factor? Obviously blaming an adjacent community for the violence rate in a different community is senseless.

 

[Ehtereon11B]

I did quiet a bit of research into this as an undergrad student in VT, which is considered one of the main states for "gun tunneling." I did find isolated cases of firearms being purchased in VT but used in a crime in another state, typically NY. But the only way those can be confirmed is the firearm left at the scene, which rarely happens during the commission of a crime. Thankfully the lack of gun registration makes how often gun tunneling actually happen a nearly impossible figure to determine.