Who knew that states that allow the easiest access to guns would have the highest rate of handgun deaths? Or murdered police officers? Or the most guns used in crimes in other states? I’m sure the NRA has a good explanation for this:

States with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study underwritten by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors. […]

The report, which was obtained by The Washington Post, found that 10 states, including Virginia, supplied 57 percent of the guns that were recovered in crimes in other states in 2007. […]

“It’s only a small group of states responsible for interstate gun trafficking,” said John Feinblatt, criminal justice coordinator for New York City. “Not only do their guns victimize people from out of state, they have higher gun-violence rates themselves.” […]

The study, which will be released this month, found:

· The 10 states with the highest crime-gun export rates had nearly 60 percent more gun homicides than the 10 states with the lowest rates. The high-export states also had nearly three times as many fatal shootings of police officers.

· States requiring background checks for handgun sales at gun shows have an export rate nearly half the national average. None of the 10 highest export states, including Virginia, requires the checks, according to the report. Maryland does.

· States requiring gun buyers to get a purchase permit have a lower export rate. […]

· States requiring gun owners to report their weapons lost or stolen to law enforcement authorities export crime guns at less than one-third the rate of states that do not mandate reporting. […]

Nearly all guns recovered in crimes are initially sold legally, the report says. Many that wind up on the black market were stolen from homes, stores or vehicles. Others were sold without background checks, at gun shows by unlicensed dealers or by licensed dealers to “straw purchasers,” who purchase guns for those prohibited from buying them.

So, to sum up, the more you regulate all gun sales, requiring gun permits and checks of individuals seeking to buy guns, the less gun crime is likely to occur in your state, and the less likely guns purchased in your state will find their way into the hands of criminals in other states. Conversely, the easier you make it to purchase guns in your state, by not requiring permits or background checks at gun shows, the more gun crime will occur in your state, and the more guns purchased in your state will find their way into the hands of criminals in other states to be used in gun crimes there. What a shocker, eh?

Listen, I’m all for preserving our vaunted Second Amendment rights. However, like all rights protected by the Constitution, it should not be unlimited. Those states that allow anyone to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check are making it easier for people with criminal records, with mental illnesses, with a history of committing domestic violence and/or black marketeers to obtain weapons. Those weapons are being used to kill law enforcement officers and other people, both in the states which permit almost unlimited access to guns, but also in states which responsibly regulate gun sales.

By the way, for those of you who are interested, this study examined data compiled by the ATF. Information to which, until recently, the public and state authorities had been prohibited access. By law. Guess who got that law passed in the first place.

The study is the first of its kind and comes after the mayors and 30 law enforcement organizations successfully lobbied Congress last year to release portions of the ATF data. Public access to the reports had been restricted since the 2003 passage of the “Tiahrt amendment,” authored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and drafted with help from the National Rifle Association. Tiahrt said at the time that he was “fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers.”

Again, not a surprise that the NRA used one of its a bought and paid for politicians (in this case a Republican) to hide information detrimental to their agenda to allow unlimited access to firearms. That is after all what they do. In their view no restriction on gun sales and gun ownership is ever justified. It’s an extreme position, and one the majority of Americans do not agree with. But thanks to their efforts, and the money also provided by gun dealers and manufacturers, it permits the legitimate safety interest of the public in keeping guns out of the hands of people who will use them to commit crimes and murder to be denied. It allows these gun manufacturers and gun dealers to profit off the tragedies of thousands of families each year. It enables and assists a vast illegal black market in weapons by gangsters and thugs. And all this is accomplished in the name, and under the cover, of the most extreme philosophy regarding the pursuit of the individual liberty to own firearms.

We don’t allow someone exercise their first amendment rights to deliberately create a panic by shouting fire in a crowded theater, nor do we allow them to incite others to commit acts of violence. We don’t allow people to commit human sacrifice, or child abuse or even plural marriage in pursuit of their First amendment right to freedom of religion. The interest of the government in preserving public safety and of protecting the innocent in such circumstances is deemed to outweigh the right of the individual to say or do whatever he or she wishes.

Yet, many states allow anyone, including criminals, and to purchase guns for use by themselves or other criminals in other states. Guns that are used in crimes at a higher rate than guns purchased in states which do a more thorough job of screening out those individuals who should not have access to firearms. If we are allowed to responsibly regulate the rights of individuals under the First amendment, why can’t we require responsible regulation of the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment?

Clearly, as this study indicates, we have good reason to do so.