Critics of the administration have pointed to Chicago and other localities with strong gun control laws to demonstrate gun control laws don’t work.

Earnest took the opposite view:

Quote

The city of Chicago is a good illustration of why allowing local jurisdictions to put in place these gun safety laws doesn’t work because it’s just too easy
for those with bad intentions to just cross the city line or just cross the county line and make a handgun purchase that they are prevented from making
in some other jurisdictions. Often somebody who is seeking to evade gun laws like that is somebody who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place. This is
somebody with a criminal record, somebody who may be the subject of a restraining order or maybe even somebody with a mental problem. Chicago
ends up being a pretty good illustration for why those kinds of national laws are important to the safety of communities all across the country.

Earnest did not have an update as to where things stood regarding possible executive actions on guns, which administration officials have said are pending.

I have heard that argument before, and while it is certainly possible that individuals wanting illegal guns to do illegal things do just cross state lines, I think they should have to prove that this is actually the case by showing that all the guns used in crimes are being bough from just over state lines.

On the mainland people will cross state lines to avoid laws/taxes so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Chicago gun crimes used guns purchased out of state.

It does go to the heart of the argument that 2A supporters often use, when people say look at Chicago with strict gun laws but lots of crime. It makes it harder to prove that the gun control laws have no effect since you cannot really isolate Chicago as a test study. I am not real sure how to respond to this argument.

Chicago: Murder On The Rise

If you want a perfect example of how politicians’ dereliction of duty costs innocent lives—and how politicians avoid blame by scapegoating your Second Amendment rights—just look at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s own hometown of Chicago.

Chicago today is a nightmarish hellhole of violent crime and victimization—the “Murder Capital” of the United States. Just look at the figures.

In 2012, Chicago was the only U.S. city to rack up more than 500 homicides—more Americans than were killed in Afghanistan that year. In fact, Spike Lee is currently working on a film about the violence titled, appropriately, “Chiraq.”

This year, in Chicago alone:

    82 people were shot, 15 of them fatally, over Independence Day weekend.
    Eight people were shot to death Sept. 2, the deadliest 24 hours in more than a decade.
    52 people were shot, eight of them fatally, over Labor Day weekend.
    More than 2,000 people had been shot, and 326 murdered, as of early September.


Yet instead of using existing laws to stop evildoers and protect innocent people, Chicago’s political class ignores the laws, frees dangerous predators again and again—and then uses the bloodshed that results to demand new laws to disarm more victims.

It's doesn't have anything to do with state lines.  City and County lines only.  Still in-state purchases.

Which means national gun control is a stupid solution for the WH Spokes man to even bring up.   It merely shows what their agenda is!! 

They should experiment with state gun control first to see how criminals don't go shopping in gun shops.  There was a recent study that 90-some percent of criminals using guns got them through friends, straw purchases, and bought on the street.  No new laws will stop that.  People will find a way around the laws.

Of course, Obama can't dictate Illinois State gun control, so they focus on what they can try and push, no matter how ineffective it is.

Ahh, missed that part but totally agree, they should start at the state level first.

The issue does make it difficult to debate the effectiveness of gun control, or any law for that matter. If one state tries to outlaw something that a neighboring state considers legal then it makes it difficult to really show whether the law has an impact and if so, what impact.

Ahh, missed that part but totally agree, they should start at the state level first.

The issue does make it difficult to debate the effectiveness of gun control, or any law for that matter. If one state tries to outlaw something that a neighboring state considers legal then it makes it difficult to really show whether the law has an impact and if so, what impact.

Gun control is not about solving criminal violence.  It's about incrementally reducing Second Amendment Rights little by little, since the anti-gun supporters have learned a full frontal assault never works.

The debate is over.  The facts are plainly demonstrated.  Guns will not ever be banned 100% in the US.  That fact alone means guns can be obtained by anyone with the means and desire regardless of what laws exist.

I know you don't "feel" this way, but it bears repeating .... Gun control is not about guns.  It is about control. 

No laws being proposed would have prevented a single mass shooting. 

The laws on the books today are not being enforced.  More laws will only impact the law abiding and have zero effect on crime.

None of that is debatable.  Comparing cities and states with opposite views of gun control are proof.  There is no correlation between strict gun laws and more/less crime.  It DOES have an effect on the victims' ability to survive when attacked.

That simply isn't true, just because you claim it doesn't make it so. You cannot make a blanket statement about the motives of all gun control law supporters. Sure, some want to see guns disappear but not all so don't pretend they are all out to completely eliminate guns.  You might like it to be some vast conspiracy but it isn't, these disingenuous arguments do nothing for the 2A movement.

When you study something scientifically you try to isolate it so that it is not contaminated. Fact is that since a neighboring city or state might have a different regulation does make it harder to use that city as an example to prove or disprove the effectiveness of a law.

Sure, we can use cities like Chicago as an example that strict gun laws don't work, but the argument is weakened by the nature and limitations of such gun laws being limited to that area. The only real argument that can be made with that example is that strict local gun laws don't work. The question of why needs to be answered, and fact is that fewer strict gun laws in neighboring jurisdictions are a possible explanation. If you don't bother to address that variable then you are just arguing a weaker argument.

You would be better off arguing this using places that can be more isolated. Individual countries or geographically isolated locations would provide for a better argument since there is less chance of contamination. Gun laws written only for the city limits of Chicago are obviously going to be limited in effectiveness if guns can easily be obtained outside the city limits but that is more of an issue with a law that is poorly implemented than it is for an overall argument that gun control doesn't work. If we are to accept that simple logic then opponents could easily defeat our arguments by saying "gun control does work, look at Hawaii"

It's now moving to the East Coast discussion.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gun-corridor-iron-pipeline-20151028-story.html

Beside him were tables laden with 74 newly seized illegal firearms, including six assault weapons, that undercover officers
bought from six men named in two criminal indictments. The defendants collected more than $52,000 in the sales, the indictments say.

Officials have not yet determined where the weapons originated, but the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., said if this
case was like most, the weapons would be traced back to the Southern states whose laws make it far easier for people to get access
to weapons.

It does go to the heart of the argument that 2A supporters often use, when people say look at Chicago with strict gun laws but lots of crime. It makes it harder to prove that the gun control laws have no effect since you cannot really isolate Chicago as a test study. I am not real sure how to respond to this argument.

No sense in waiting for the facts to trickle in.  Let's add them to the article and ASSUME they came from Southern states.  No way they came from, say, a failed DOJ/ATF sting operation!  That never happens!!

There is NOTHING scientific about human nature and crime.  People are good.  People are bad.  Some are good citizens.  Some are sociopaths.

You, my friend, are in denial of the truth.  There is nothing you can do to prevent crime, gun-related or otherwise.  The BEST thing you can do is be prepared in case it happens to YOU.  Anything else is semi-effective if at all.

I was about to write a lengthy response to eye's bullshit post, the kind of anti-gunner bullshit that I have to deal with daily on Facebook and real life interactions, but then I remembered that I was on a forum called 2ahawaii.com

Over the months threat after thread has been hijacked by this guy and I just don't see the fucking point in arguing with some fuck head that apparently just likes to argue for the sake of arguing.  There are other gun forums out there without this fucking lurking troll and I'll be spending my time on the interwebs there.

Peace out, I'll just be keeping an eye on the classifieds from now on.