no I am saying its the reason they want tougher laws...how many gang bangers you think they got jailed up for longer on tough gun charges that would have still been on the street? Fact is with easy access to guns there, murder rate would most likey be even higher...problem is like Mexico...you just leave Chi get guns and drive back and have them or sell them for a profit.
if city A has 1,000,000 people and City B has 1,000,000 as well
City A has 50 gun deaths, and 300 wounded
City B has 2 gun deaths and 6 wounded,
one city do you think will be more in favor of gun laws to restrict there use?
If Montana had there state filled with Gang Violence, and not open feilds and wild life...I am sure its gun views would not be the same..
If City A has restrictive gun laws already on the books, and City B doesn't, wouldn't that be at least some indication that perhaps restrictive gun laws don't work? Could it be an indicator at least that such gun laws could lead to more gun deaths?
Is it possible that allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves actually leads to less violence?