It's hard to argue with this kind of logic

I'm reading an AP story on a report published by a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The upshot of the story is that a relatively small group of states, mostly located in the South and Appalachia, are net exporters of weapons used to commit crimes elsewhere in the country.

Now, i'm pretty much agnostic on most gun control stuff. To a large extent, it's a dead issue, and certainly the idea of running a campaign on a platform of making it more difficult to own guns has been shown to be a loser. I think liberals and progressives have come to understand that. (It would be equally worth while for gun rights advocates to come to understand that there might be some benefit to regulating the presence of handguns, automatic weapons, and other people killing devices in high population, urban settings, but that's another story.)

Here's the part i like the best:

South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts, an ardent gun rights supporter, said the state's high ranking doesn't surprise him. He recalled a burglary at his home, saying the thief stole about a dozen of his guns.

"It's not our lax gun laws. It's our high crime rate that causes the problems," said the Laurens Republican, a retired police officer and a National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses committee member. "What's happening is people break into my home, steal my guns and get a premium price by taking it to other states and selling them."

Emphasis mine.

One of the arguments constantly being made in favor of "lax gun laws" is the deterrent effect they supposedly have on crime. Criminals are theoretically less likely to act if they have reason to believe their intended victims might have superior firepower. Pitts pretty much, unintentionally, i assume, puts the lie to that idea in two ways. First, by acknowledging the "high crime rate" that accompanies his state's lax gun laws. And second, by acknowledging his personal contribution to both the rate of crime in his community ("people break into my home, steal my guns") and in the communities where his weapons stash is resold.

It gets better:

A spokesman for South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who signed a bill removing the one-a-month limit on how many handguns a person can buy, said state laws are not the problem.

"We think we have adequate controls in place," said Joel Sawyer. "Unfortunately, criminals are always going to find a way to circumvent the process."

You keep using the word "adequate." I do not think that word means what you think it does. Criminals, of course, are always going to be around. Does it follow, though, that the response our leaders should have is to throw up their hands and say, "Shit, nothing we can do. No matter how much we try, we'll never get a handle on this."

I mean, you'r ethe governor, right? Shouldn't you be making an attempt to, you know, govern?