I've found that the 'ol "Strict gun control laws would work if it weren't for people bringing guns from places with lax gun laws" argument to be absurd.
Gun control proponents always try this kind of crap when you point out murder rates in places with strict gun laws. Chicago is my favorite example. I always ask, "If gun control works, why is the firearm homicide rate higher in places that have sticter gun laws?".....and I invariably receive the reply, "Well, that's because of places with loose gun laws. People bring the guns in from places where it's easier to get them.".
HA! That's completely absurd!
If this were true, why doesn't this explain why the crime isn't greater in places where the gun laws are looser? Why would a criminal have to bring a gun from such a dangerous place with those evil lax gun laws (with a low crime rate).......to a place (with a high crime rate) where the gun laws prevent the very thing he's supposedly leaving?
This is like claiming M&M's candy causes cancer.
Well, if this is true, explain why the incidence of cancer is greater on Three Mile Island, where you can't buy M&M's, than in the Mars factory where they make M&M's in the first place.
"Well, it's because people bring them in to Three Mile Island from places where M&M's are easily obtained."
This answer does not explain why, if M&M's cause cancer, it doesn't do so in places where M&M's are prolific.
Just as absurd as the claim that guns are responsible for crime: If they did, why are the crime rates so low in places where guns are more prolific? Criminals bringing them into places where gun laws are strict from places where they are not fails the logical "smell test".