Girl who performed at Obama inauguration shot dead in Chicago park

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Many civilized nations have gun bans like that. They don't devolve into lawless regions, nor do they seem to become a dictatorship (or whatever gun fetishists say it would become).

(nothing personal Mudcat, I just want to address this real quick)

I'm so tired of hearing this ridiculous meme touted out like there's some way to prove it.

Here's the thing: 1-It would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.

Secondly, comparing our nation and culture to other countries, is flawed. Each of our issues is very unique, and dependent on the others to function so to speak.

For instance, look at Japan. They've got next to zero guns, but yet their suicide rate is through the roof.

Gun are not the primary cause of violence and murder and suicide in the US. There's (IMO) most likely 2-3 factors that depend on each other, to cause this so called "perfect storm".

So, (again, not you specically) stop comparing the US culture to others, and think they'll react that same. That's illogical.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

...

Gun are not the primary cause of violence and murder and suicide in the US. There's (IMO) most likely 2-3 factors that depend on each other, to cause this so called "perfect storm".

...

For once you got it right.

This is a three-legged stool.

Remove any one leg and it collapses.

I know which leg I want to shorten to about an inch and I know how to do it.

You are free to work on the other two factors, and I wish you luck, but any time you depend on changing human nature or the nature of culture itself you have a tough row to hoe.

The most direct way to reduce gun violence in this country is repeal of the second amendment and the banning (no grandfathering) of any weapon which may be loaded with more than one round.

Not a total ban. Many guns people own today qualify. But those are not weapons you can shoot up a school or a theater with. Those are not weapons you want to do a "drive-by" with. But you can still hunt. And you can still target-shoot. And you can still have a derringer in your pocket if it makes you feel better.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

For once you got it right.

This is a three-legged stool.

Remove any one leg and it collapses.

I know which leg I want to shorten to about an inch and I know how to do it.

You are free to work on the other two factors, and I wish you luck, but any time you depend on changing human nature or the nature of culture itself you have a tough row to hoe.

The most direct way to reduce gun violence in this country is repeal of the second amendment and the banning (no grandfathering) of any weapon which may be loaded with more than one round.

Not a total ban. Many guns people own today qualify. But those are not weapons you can shoot up a school or a theater with. Those are not weapons you want to do a "drive-by" with. But you can still hunt. And you can still target-shoot. And you can still have a derringer in your pocket if it makes you feel better.

Can I have your magic wand when your done with it?

Explain the logistics here. How do you keep guns from crossing the borders? Coming into ports? Getting all 2+ shot guns out of the hands of everyone? What about the gangs? Finding the legal and physical resources to take the guns? What about the unregistered ones? Relics? Attic stashes?

You realize that the Beltway Sniper only ever fired once at a victim and moved on, right? Killed 10, injured 3. Better ban ALL guns, you can never be too safe!

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Ok, let's pretend for a moment that we can't ban the guns, because that ain't happening any time soon in the US.

How about we go about replacing gangs as the de facto families for the youth in the city and some of the surrounding area?

Stop locking up mothers and fathers for minor drug offenses?

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Stop locking up mothers and fathers for minor drug offenses?

Hey, I'm all for that too.

[jj]

You all don't understand. The white right has to have its guns so they can use them when they start the revolt, man.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

In Georgia there is a ban on fireworks. Yeah, I know, not quite the same thing as guns but work with me here.

In order to get around this people just cross over into one of the neighboring states to buy fireworks from shops that are quite literally right on the border to Georgia and take them back home.

I imagine this is how they work around it in Chicago.

But let's say for a moment that they pass a unilateral gun ban in the United States. What of it?

Many civilized nations have gun bans like that. They don't devolve into lawless regions, nor do they seem to become a dictatorship (or whatever gun fetishists say it would become).

What do you think would happen in police states like Cuba or North Korea or even Red China if everyone were armed?

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Other countries are perfectly capable of reducing the availability of guns, so why would this be impossible in the US?

Too many low life criminals in the US from which the law abiding need protection. Also, protection from a possible future criminal government, examples of which include Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[jj]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Too many low life criminals in the US from which the law abiding need protection. Also, protection from a possible future criminal government, examples of which include Waco and Ruby Ridge.

This is different than any other country, exactly how? Please be specific and show convincing, hard evidence for your insinuation that the USA has a worse problem than other countries in this regard.

Thank you in advance.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Right, he was aiming at all her gangbanging friends she was hanging out in the park with. The same friends who took off running after the shooting, not because they were afraid of the gunman (he took off in a car immediately afterward) but so they wouldn't be around to talk to police when they showed up.

As I write this not a single one of her "friends" has spoken to the police, I guess they figure they'll take care of it themselves. The no-snitch rule in action, which is why 80% of gang-related killings go unsolved here and why gangbangers are so emboldened to go out shooting at their many enemies.

Have you got a source for that claim? How is it that the police have a discription of the gunman? How could you know that he took off in a car?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Too many low life criminals in the US from which the law abiding need protection. Also, protection from a possible future criminal government, examples of which include Waco and Ruby Ridge.

And this is where people who talk about personal weapons as protection from government tyranny scare the heck out of the rest of us normal folk.

A couple of crazy S.O.B.s who agreed with your statement killed 168 people in order to protect us from our tyrannical government that carried out those acts. Oddly enough, we failed to appreciate their selfless bravery in fighting tyranny.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And this is where people who talk about personal weapons as protection from government tyranny scare the heck out of the rest of us normal folk.

A couple of crazy S.O.B.s who agreed with your statement killed 168 people in order to protect us from our tyrannical government that carried out those acts. Oddly enough, we failed to appreciate their selfless bravery in fighting tyranny.

And we can see that this type of "motivation" (scare quotes because I'm not sure that is the right word) can result in such terrible crimes even in countries which have comparatively stricter "gun control" laws. The tragic example that comes to mind is Breivik.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Can I have your magic wand when your done with it?

Explain the logistics here. How do you keep guns from crossing the borders? Coming into ports? Getting all 2+ shot guns out of the hands of everyone? What about the gangs? Finding the legal and physical resources to take the guns? What about the unregistered ones? Relics? Attic stashes?

You realize that the Beltway Sniper only ever fired once at a victim and moved on, right? Killed 10, injured 3. Better ban ALL guns, you can never be too safe!

Any changes will take time and they won't be 100% effective but we don't except that as a reason to not try an make changes in many other realms* so why should the "gun problem" in the USA be considered an exception to this?


*An American example of that would be your black civil rights movement, nothing was solved instantly and there are still many lingering problems but that hasn't stopped it being accepted by most Americans as something that had to be done.

[Dan O.]

Another shooting nearby: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...189350661.html

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Have you got a source for that claim? How is it that the police have a discription of the gunman? How could you know that he took off in a car?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6824507.story

Quote:

Most of those who were in the park were gang members, and those in the group did not stay on scene to help after the shootings, according to police. The shooting occurred around 2:20 p.m. in the 4500 block of South Oakenwald Avenue.

...Desiree Sanders said she heard six gunshots and called 911 after a neighbor told her that some teens had been shot. Neighbors told her as many as 10 young people had been hanging out at the small park, and most scattered after the shooting, though a few stayed behind with the victims.

Those in the group were not cooperating with police, however, and investigators had no detailed descriptions yet of either the attacker or the vehicle in which he left. Central Area detectives were investigating, and they had no one in custody as of about 8:20 p.m.

I'm guessing the neighbors witnessed the event.

[BenBurch]

Talk and you die.

Not hard to understand.

Nobody would be so afraid of these goons if they did not have the formerly-legal guns bought at retail without registration.

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Talk and you die.

Not hard to understand.

Nobody would be so afraid of these goons if they did not have the formerly-legal guns bought at retail without registration.

Evidence?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

You can't carry a gun big enough to protect your back.

You can strap a little person to your back to act as tailgunner/human shield. Problem solved!

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Peephole

Stop locking up mothers and fathers for minor drug offenses?

Stop locking up anybody for minor drug offenses. Hell, eliminate "minor drug offenses" as offenses in the first place!

That should be done regardless of what happens with guns. It would certainly cut down on crime.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Evidence?

Which part?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Stop locking up anybody for minor drug offenses. Hell, eliminate "minor drug offenses" as offenses in the first place!

That should be done regardless of what happens with guns. It would certainly cut down on crime.

Amen.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Giz

No no no! The problem is legal gun owners and we can make it go away if we make it illegal to put more than 7 bullets in a 10 round magazine.

What we need is to lift all restrictions on guns, that way there will be plenty of Frank Castles to eliminate the gangs....

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Have you got a source for that claim? How is it that the police have a discription of the gunman? How could you know that he took off in a car?

I think wildcat is onto something. I mean, if women stopped dressing so provocatively, rape would never happen......

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Too many low life criminals in the US from which the law abiding need protection. Also, protection from a possible future criminal government, examples of which include Waco and Ruby Ridge.

You think other countries don't have a criminals?

Also: what about the benefits when it comes to suicide prevention (since Belgium's new gun control law, gun suicides have dropped by 50%) or preventing slayings between family members?

And weren't Waco and Ruby Ridge cases of gun nuts gone berserk? Something less guns would actually prevent?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Peephole

You think other countries don't have a criminals?

Also: what about the benefits when it comes to suicide prevention (since Belgium's new gun control law, gun suicides have dropped by 50%) or preventing slayings between family members?

And weren't Waco and Ruby Ridge cases of gun nuts gone berserk? Something less guns would actually prevent?

Ruby Ridge and Waco were just as much cases of extreme unwarranted government violence, especially in the case of Ruby Ridge, where after a case of entrapment to sell a sawed-off shotgun, Federal agents showed up on Randy Weaver's property in commando gear and killed his dog, son and wife. The wife in fact was shot in the face by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi while she was standing in her doorway holding her infant.

Waco went down similarly as a commando raid with guns blazing under the guise of protecting abused kids (IIRC there was no evidence for this beyond "we just know.")

How has Belgium's new law affected overall suicides?

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Peephole

You think other countries don't have a criminals?

Also: what about the benefits when it comes to suicide prevention (since Belgium's new gun control law, gun suicides have dropped by 50%) or preventing slayings between family members?

And weren't Waco and Ruby Ridge cases of gun nuts gone berserk? Something less guns would actually prevent?

No. The Gun Nuts were on the other side.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by jj

This is different than any other country, exactly how? Please be specific and show convincing, hard evidence for your insinuation that the USA has a worse problem than other countries in this regard.

Thank you in advance.

AP/ February 11, 2009, 4:25 PM

The department's Bureau of Justice Statistics report offers a snapshot of racial disparities among violent crime victims. Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide.

Most of the black murder victims — 93 percent — were killed by other black people, the study found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3153497.html

and

In us by race, perentage for the year 2007

peer 100,000

White, non-hispanic: 2.7 per

Black 23.1

Hispanic, 7.6

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm

* * *

USA Population by Race

Black, 13.1

Non Hispanic White , 63.4

Hispanic, 16.7

Source: US Bureau of Census
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

It's all about the unique US demographic as you can see from the above cited stats. Blacks and Hispanics still comprise a minority of the population, but commit a much larger percentage of homicides.

[jj]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

AP/ February 11, 2009, 4:25 PM

The department's Bureau of Justice Statistics report offers a snapshot of racial disparities among violent crime victims. Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide.

Most of the black murder victims — 93 percent — were killed by other black people, the study found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3153497.html

and

In us by race, perentage for the year 2007

peer 100,000

White, non-hispanic: 2.7 per

Black 23.1

Hispanic, 7.6

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm

* * *

USA Population by Race

Black, 13.1

Non Hispanic White , 63.4

Hispanic, 16.7

Source: US Bureau of Census
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

It's all about the unique US demographic as you can see from the above cited stats. Blacks and Hispanics still comprise a minority of the population, but commit a much larger percentage of homicides.

So, you've failed to examine confounding factors like education, wealth, and social position.

Now perhaps you could take into account these factors, all of which are incontrovertably known to have enormous effects.

In short, you've left out the real issues, and blamed it all on race.

Is there some reason for this irresponsible behavior?

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And this is where people who talk about personal weapons as protection from government tyranny scare the heck out of the rest of us normal folk.

A couple of crazy S.O.B.s who agreed with your statement killed 168 people in order to protect us from our tyrannical government that carried out those acts. Oddly enough, we failed to appreciate their selfless bravery in fighting tyranny.

You also failed to appreciate the criminality of your government in murdering the innocents a Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[Elypsis44]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Ruby Ridge and Waco were just as much cases of extreme unwarranted government violence, especially in the case of Ruby Ridge, where after a case of entrapment to sell a sawed-off shotgun, Federal agents showed up on Randy Weaver's property in commando gear and killed his dog, son and wife. The wife in fact was shot in the face by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi while she was standing in her doorway holding her infant.

Waco went down similarly as a commando raid with guns blazing under the guise of protecting abused kids (IIRC there was no evidence for this beyond "we just know.")

It has never ceased to amaze me how the R.Winger/conservative/anti-government/gun-owning/Christian gunnutters love to choose idiots, psychopaths and felons as their poster children for whatever ills them at the moment. Yeah, Randy Weaver was a patriot, David Koresh was a 'victim', etc.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

For once you got it right.

This is a three-legged stool.

Remove any one leg and it collapses.

I know which leg I want to shorten to about an inch and I know how to do it.

You are free to work on the other two factors, and I wish you luck, but any time you depend on changing human nature or the nature of culture itself you have a tough row to hoe.

The most direct way to reduce gun violence in this country is repeal of the second amendment and the banning (no grandfathering) of any weapon which may be loaded with more than one round.

Not a total ban. Many guns people own today qualify. But those are not weapons you can shoot up a school or a theater with. Those are not weapons you want to do a "drive-by" with. But you can still hunt. And you can still target-shoot. And you can still have a derringer in your pocket if it makes you feel better.

Good luck with your dreams and fantasies. First, you'll need to get around Heller and McDonald. Good luck there. Then, you'll need to get a 2/3rds vote from the states, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

So, good luck with your fantasies.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

You also failed to appreciate the criminality of your government in murdering the innocents a Waco and Ruby Ridge.

It's true. I fail to appreciate that.

You might convince me that there was a wrongful death, but not a murder, at Ruby Ridge. I don't actually care enough to look up more information about it. Waco, on the other hand, is much easier to judge. I don't blame any government official for any of the deaths there.

However, it isn't really the topic of the thread, so if you want the last word, take it. I won't be debating it here. It's just a given for me that, as a background to gun control threads, people who say we need guns to protect ourselves against government tyranny end up defending the indefensible. For example, they end up saying that David Koresh was anything other than a lunatic.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Elypsis44

It has never ceased to amaze me how the R.Winger/conservative/anti-government/gun-owning/Christian gunnutters love to choose idiots, psychopaths and felons as their poster children for whatever ills them at the moment. Yeah, Randy Weaver was a patriot, David Koresh was a 'victim', etc.

Well.. they are gun nuts supporting the actions of gun nuts after all.

[Twiggett]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

For once you got it right.

This is a three-legged stool.

Remove any one leg and it collapses.

I know which leg I want to shorten to about an inch and I know how to do it.

You are free to work on the other two factors, and I wish you luck, but any time you depend on changing human nature or the nature of culture itself you have a tough row to hoe.

The most direct way to reduce gun violence in this country is repeal of the second amendment and the banning (no grandfathering) of any weapon which may be loaded with more than one round.

Not a total ban. Many guns people own today qualify. But those are not weapons you can shoot up a school or a theater with. Those are not weapons you want to do a "drive-by" with. But you can still hunt. And you can still target-shoot. And you can still have a derringer in your pocket if it makes you feel better.

Though I am dubious to the possibility that I am not wasting my time re-entering one of these gun discussions, I have some thoughts I want to share from the perspective of someone with at least a basic understanding of our Constitution.

Assuming the repeal would even be possible, something I find highly unlikely, I can see a few issues that would make for further difficulties. While initially it may (can't prove it one way or the other) have the opposite effect, I won't argue against that reducing the supply of firearms in this country would have a corresponding reduction in gun violence (I am including suicide in this btw) over time. But for a repeal of the 2nd amendment to be truly effective you'd also need to repeal the 4th amendment so the authorities can go ahead and conduct the necessary searches of pretty much every private residence and business and seizures of weapons found to be as sure as possible that those criminals and formerly law abiding citizens (however many there would be) who will not comply with the following bans don't just keep the unregistered weapons they currently have. Additionally, unless you are planning on spending several (hundred?) billion dollars to compensate legal gun owners for the 200+ million guns, associated accessories and ammunition they own you'd probably need to repeal the 5th.

Also, we'd probably have to take a look at the 6th since there would be a massive, albeit temporary, influx of new cases to an already overtaxed court system and people would be waiting for seemingly interminable lengths of time for trial unless the plan is to just grant blanket amnesty for anyone caught with illegal weapons for whatever time period until it is felt by the relevant authorities that enough of those weapons have been taken out of circulation. I'm sure I have missed some points but those are the issues that come to mind when I think of what effect repealing the 2nd could have on the problem of gun violence. Not that I think anyone is in favor of it or that there would really be grounds for doing so, but does anyone know if all of that could be addressed by a temporary declaration of martial law?

I'm not trying to make one those cliche slippery slope arguments where the government suddenly starts with the black helicopters and concentration camps as I have yet to see any clear cut evidence that such a situation is likely. The preceding was intended as my take on what it would take to be truly effective in combating all types of gun violence and not just a simple grab of firearms from otherwise law abiding citizens.

Personally I am in favor of taking hard looks at our current background check and mental health systems and the gaping holes in them plus I am willing to consider some form of licensing or individual firearm tracking systems provided they enjoy the same sorts of constitutional protections as other private information. I also think it is critical that we try to address the societal issues that can lead to all forms of gun violence be they entertainment related or other factors. What I do not, nor will I ever support are blanket bans on certain categories of non-NFA title 1 firearms (assault weapons) based on the opinion of some that there is no valid reason for private ownership and the understandably emotional response to their use in some of the most horrific crimes we have ever seen by mentally disturbed individuals.

Oh and just for the record, I am a current member of the NRA. While I find many of the methods of the leadership to be disgraceful and have communicated as such to them I feel like I have no choice but to continue my support when arguably one of the most prominent proponents of the more restrictive gun control side is Sen. Feinstein, someone who I think if she could have her way would see all firearms removed from private ownership. The day that the colleagues of people like her openly disavow total agreement with her (not just say they don't think her bills can pass) or if there were another group with the political influence they wield without the associated head-scratchingly stupid statements I would gladly go elsewhere but to my knowledge neither is the case. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" as it were.

[Dan O.]

The former president of the NRA offered a solution to the excess of guns in private hands that was universally cheered by the NRA membership. This solution required no changes to the constitution as it was a voluntary agreement to allow the government to seize the guns at a time when the owner no longer had a need for them. While perhaps not dealing with the issue as fast as many would like, it does solve the problem in our lifetimes.

The following oath should be appended to every application for a gun purchase or background check:

The government can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Renita Young Reuters 2/2/13

(Reuters) - Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and relatives of victims of fatal shootings in Chicago urged President Barack Obama on Saturday to come back to his hometown and address the gun violence plaguing the city.

Before a march on the city's South Side, Jackson, a former Democratic presidential candidate, said America's third most populous city needed more help than Mayor Rahm Emanuel and police superintendent Garry McCarthy could offer.

"When the president shows up, it shows ultimate national seriousness," said Jackson, a Chicago resident. He also called for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to help patrol the streets of Chicago.

Originally Posted by Chuck Goudie ABC 2/1/13

February 1, 2013 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- In this I-Team report, Chicago's rising murder rate in a new context, how the numbers of shooting deaths compare to the city's most notorious crime era, the one that has tarnished Chicago's reputation around the world for a century.

The surprising stats show the city is worse off now in the category of murder than at the height of the era that has driven Chicago's reputation for almost a century, Capone's "gangland" Chicago.

Let's compare two months: January 1929, leading up to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and last month, January 2013. Forty-two people were killed in Chicago last month, the most in January since 2002, and far worse than the city's most notorious crime era at the end of the Roaring Twenties. January 1929 there were 26 killings.

Even though the image of Chicago, perpetuated by Hollywood over the years, was that mobsters routinely mowed down people on the streets, the crime stats tell a different story. January 2013's bloodshed has caught the attention of Chicagoans, politicians, the White House and people around the world.

Forty-two people were killed in Chicago last month, the most in January since 2002, and far worse than the city's most notorious crime era at the end of the Roaring Twenties.

Even though the image of Chicago, perpetuated by Hollywood over the years, was that mobsters routinely mowed down people on the streets, the crime stats tell a different story. The figures from January 2013 are significantly higher than the January of Al Capone's most famous year.

Jesse Jackson is calling for the Department of Homeland Security to deploy to Chicago, Chuck Goudie notes that the month of January 2013 had more murders than January 1929, the month preceding the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. However here's a note from the second article:

Quote:

The 42 murders in January is nowhere near the most ever in a month, but even that figure is not from the rat-a-tat-tat years. It is from the early 90s, when police also said a mix of gangs and drugs fueled the tremendous number of killings.

In January 1992 there were 77 murders in Chicago. That is the January record. Most of the murders then and this year were with guns. That was also the case in 1929.

I recall seeing statistics that note that crime across the board dropped over the course of the nineties, one possible reason for that being the bulk of the baby-boomers moved into the age category where people generally commit less crimes. Another possibility was the crime bill passed by the 103rd Congress, of which the most famous provisions such as the 'assault weapons ban' were probably the least effective, but at 356 pages there's lots in there such as block grants to localities on the order of 70 billion dollars a year which appear to have run out in 2000. However that may have been re-authorized at some point, I vaguely recall it being an issue some twelve years ago.

Something else I came across that's interesting, and why I hilited 'drugs' above. If you go to (PDF) page 19 of this Center for Disease Control preliminary report on statistics from 2011 you'll find that the number of alcohol-induced deaths (~26k) is nearly that of deaths related to injury by firearms (~32k) and those induced by drug use to be 25% higher at 40k. At the same time the number of people incarcerated continued growing in the United States, until plateauing about seven years ago.

In the Twenties the Volstead Act was considered (at least in part) responsible for the rise of crime in the twenties and the rising prominence of gangsters like Al Capone. Others today suggest that the numbers killed by guns in this country is related to the illicit narcotics industry which it appears is responsible for significantly more deaths despite the plethora of people imprisoned for drug offenses, roughly a fifth of those incarcerated according to the Human Right's Watch source for that Wiki article.

The most ironic thing about this entire debate is that when split between rural and urban gun deaths, those attributed to homicide are far more likely (almost double) to occur in the most urban areas, whereas firearms contributing to successful suicides are significantly (~50%) more prevalent in the most rural areas. Thus were a concentration made on removing guns in urban areas and letting the ones (generally) most adamant about protecting their gun rights under the second amendment, the ones most likely to benefit would be Dems while those killing themselves off would be the more heavily GOP and NRA demographic!<sup>1



1</sup>

Originally Posted by Shane Goldmacher National Journal 1/14/13

As with so many American campaigns these days, the real fight is for the suburbs. Urban dwellers strongly prioritized gun control, 62 percent to 34 percent. Rural residents were aligned with gun rights, 64 percent to 33 percent.