I'll summarize what I took away..
Their argument: The reason gun violence is so high in cities like DC, Chicago and Baltimore, cities with the strictest gun laws in the nation, is that guns are coming in from outside due to the lack of background checks and straw purchases made in places with less restrictive gun laws.
My new reply: Please tell me why those areas that you would cite as the source of your illegal gun problem have less per-capita gun crime than DC, Chicago and Baltimore. By what facts or what logic do you conclude that these low-crime, low-gun-control areas manage to keep crime down locally with fewer restrictions, while causing your city more crime? Are those same guns not available to be used locally in cities like Austin and Houston? Why then, does Austin and Houston, allegedly the source of the guns used in DC, Chicago and Baltimore, not have as high or HIGHER gun crime rate than DC, Chicago and Baltimore? If your argument were true, wouldn't lax gun laws = MORE crime? But what we see, in reality, is that the crime rate is LOWER in places that you would accuse to be the source of YOUR gun problem. Please explain that to me.
