An awkward question that no one has yet asked

[friendly_iconoclast]

John Rosenthal runs Stop Handgun Violence:

http://www.stophandgunviolence.org/

and was interviewed last night (2 December) on WBZ radio's "Nightside"
- the podcast is available here:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/12/02/nightside-another-tragedy/

I was listening to the first hour last night, and was struck by something

At 13:40, Rosenthal says that he has helped to pass strong gun laws, and that Massachsetts
has the second lowest gun death rate in the country (Hawaii is lowest).
These are both true. What's also true is that two states with some of the laxest gun laws
in the US are immediately next to MA (New Hampshire and Vermont). You can drive
to New Hampshire from Boston in less than an hour, and Vermont in two (traffic permitting)

The host, Dan Rea, points out at 14:12 that Chicago has really tough gun laws. Rosenthal
replies that (paraphrasing) Illinois doesn't, and guns are easily accessable in bordering towns
and in next-door Indiana.

Which raises the 'awkward question' of the subject line:

Why does the same condition that occurs in Chicago - lax gun laws within easy driving
distance- not cause the same claimed effect in Massachusetts?

I was driving, so did not call in and ask.

[TeddyR]

1. Because criminals misuse guns

Guns don't misuse themselves. Vermont has the most liberal gun laws in the entire country, and has since the country was founded. And Vermonters are going around killing each other or shooting kids in the face in gang-related murders like people are in Chicago.