All across the nation, there are borders that separate anti-gun states from pro-gun ones. This creates a great deal of tension when it comes to gun control laws.

After all, anti-gun states routinely blame pro-gun states for their own issues with so-called gun violence. They figure that if the pro-gun state right across the border had different laws on the books, all their criminal problems would evaporate.

Or something.

Yet really, it’s not that simple.

A state trooper once told me that he assumes everyone is carrying a firearm in Idaho.  That was his rule of thumb when making traffic stops.  It’s an accepted part of the culture, whereas an old friend in the Seattle area wouldn’t even allow her son to play with toy guns.  She lost custody of him for 18 months because she was using illegal drugs at home.  Which do you believe is worse for a kid?

Idahoans, armed to the teeth, are the second least worried people in the nation when it comes to gun violence.  You can see the full report by clicking here.  We have the fewest shootings (adjusted for population) in the country.  Just one in 10 say they’ve lost any sleep over gun violence.  About the same number who said they knew someone involved in gun violence.

…

What liberals can’t fathom is that one size doesn’t fit all when it comes to their wants and demands.  They’ll claim that some of our guns end up on their streets.  It doesn’t bother them that some of their dope ends up here.

The ironic thing in that last paragraph?

They actually can fathom it, but only when it lets them get more gun control on the books.

After all, they make a similar argument when challenging preemption laws, saying that one size doesn’t fit all and that localities should be free to make their own laws regarding guns.

Yet there’s a significant difference that we must be aware of.

Ending preemption creates a nearly unnavigable patchwork of gun control laws that the law-abiding will eventually run afoul of despite their best intentions, all while the criminals out there remain unconcerned since there’s no chance they’ll worry themselves about the local government’s misdemeanors.

States trying to foist their own gun control schemes on another state, particularly via federal law, results in good, decent people being denied their right to keep and bear arms to some degree or another. The only variable is just how much infringement we’re talking about.

Meanwhile, criminals will still get guns…among other things.

I can’t understand why this is so hard for people to understand. It’s not just that criminals will break the law–we all know that’s going to happen with every law you care to name. It’s that gun control also prevents law-abiding citizens from doing something that may well save their life, all while doing little to nothing to protect them.

The infringement on our freedom is plenty of reason to oppose gun control laws, but the fact that they make us less safe is even more of a reason.

Anti-gun states, however, often want to foist their own failures onto other states, blame them from their own failings, often just to save politicians’ jobs.

That’s really not a good idea.