Charles River Smugglers?

March 1st, 2012

Charles River Smugglers?
Why Does the State of Famous Smugglers not Have That “Gun Running” Problem?
by dischord
(distribution permitted and encouraged)

One of the more powerful theories that gun controllers have today is the claim that gun running from low control states undermines the effectiveness of gun control in places like Washington, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and thus we need national, umbrella controls like one-gun a month limitations. It’s a common-good, “pollution-upstream” argument.

Notice that I wrote “powerful” not “correct.” It is a powerful argument because it is plausible enough to avoid further inspection. They throw it out. It makes fairly good sense. No one questions it.

Well, I do question it.

Yes, I am well aware that crime guns in places like New York come from places like Vermont. What I do question is the defeatist excuses of officials that “If but for lax gun laws beyond our jurisdiction, we’d all be safe. Don’t blame us; blame those gun-nut controlled states like Vermont, Florida, Virginia and Texas.”

Why do I question it? Massachusetts.

It’s funny how we rarely hear about that state from the gun controllers. You’d think that it would be at the center of their arguments. It is the state-level equivalent of England or Japan ? high gun control, low murder. But, I suppose, it doesn’t fit their fear mongering about gun running. Are they purposely ignoring it, or are the too busy concentrating on New York, D.C., L.A. and Chicago? I have no idea. I’m not a mind reader, and I don’t want to wander into ad hominem attacks.

What I do know is that Massachusetts destroys the notion that certain nationwide umbrella controls are necessary to support the few places that have high gun control. From 1990 to 1998, Massachusetts cut its homicide rate more than half, from 4.5 per 100,000 to 2.0. It did this despite bordering on New Hampshire and Vermont and being an hour drive from Maine.

These three state regularly rank among the, ahem, “worst” when it comes to gun control. In fact, a recent ranking by the “Open Society Institute” (http://www.soros.org/crime/guncontrol.htm) gave those states these “grades”: New Hampshire (0), Vermont (-5) and Maine (-10). Maine came in 50 ? last place ? among the 50 states. Yes, those are a zero and two negatives.

So how did Massachusetts do it? How, oh how, with all this uncontrollable gun running, did they do it? It wasn’t because they increased their already strict gun control ? they did that in 1998, after the decreases occurred.

They don’t have less of a drug problem. They don’t have a lower population density. Boston’s socio-economic breakdown is not much different from those gems of failed gun control. They don’t have a less of a black market supported by organized crime.

It’s certainly not because people from Massachusetts ? and especially Boston ? are more docile and compliant than are people from other parts of the nation. They’re not called m*******s for nothing.

In fact, there’s nothing about Massachusetts that would make the demand for guns any less than in those states and cities that supposedly have failed gun control due to other state’s lax laws. Moreover, I doubt that Boston’s crooks (and scared citizens) possess illegal guns at a lower rate than in New York, D.C., etc. ? I doubt that Massachusetts gun control has controlled guns.

What Massachusetts did was use a combination of hard nosed policing (much like Richmond’s Project Exile) and smart community-level anti-violence efforts.

And that brings me back to what I always harp on. Despite huge gains against the violence problem in the U.S., it still exists. But why is it that we ignore what was behind those gains in favor of experimenting with further gun controls that are as destined to failure as were alcohol and drug prohibitions. Even “reasonable” controls of legal medicinal narcotics (far beyond the “common sense” gun proposals) have not stopped them from entering the black market in great scale. Why would things like registration and licensing of legal guns, or limiting sales to one a month, be any different?

Notice that I’m not even bringing up the issue of the right to bear arms. I’m simply pointing out that as a society, we have an ethical obligation to make a reasonable assessment of the effectiveness of gun controls. We have limited money, time and workforce. We cannot afford to waste them on programs that don’t work. Lives are at stake.

The goal is not gun control. The goal is saving lives.