Quote:
Originally Posted by PilotMan
The problem with attacking it at a local level is what you see in Chicago. People love to point to the gun violence numbers in Chicago, where guns are banned more or less, as a reason why controlling them won't work. But there aren't walls around any of these places.
Indiana and Wisconsin have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the US. Any state that would have lax laws would be a starting point for someone to get them. That almost makes the local ordinance completely useless because it can't control the 'spillover effect.'
True progress has to be attacked at all levels, any weakness is simply exploited for the opposition narrative.
|
It's not a perfect solution, but ignoring it because it will still have loopholes is a worse answer. Massachusetts has some very strict gun laws and the lowest gun homicide in the country. Is that why? Not entirely, there are definitely cultural factors at play too, but it certainly helps. And yes, of course progress should be pushed for at all levels, but I think the messaging is much easier and the actual effects are easier to put into law at state levels than federally.
Out of state purchasing and transporting across state lines is something the government actually tracks pretty obsessively (as CUTiger can tell you!) Indiana requires shipping back to an FFL in a purchasers home state. I assume Wisconsin does too, but I can't get their site to load right now. Chicago's issue would be that downstate people in Illinois want much less restrictive laws (and also that it's so far gone in that part of the city at this point it's borderline impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.) I also doubt very many of the guns used in Chicago homicides were legally purchased and registered - that's a different issue than a crazy 18 year old potential spree killer being allowed to legally walk into a store and walk out 15 minutes later with an AR-15.