An innocent question from a European...

Why is the killing rate in the US the highest in the world (along with South Africa), whereas the Canadians hardly don't kill anyone at all? Anything at all to do with gun laws, perchance? Please discuss.

and decide for yourself.

Hint: We live in a society that is dominated by a right-wing campaign of breeding complete fear, insecurity and paranoia in the American public.

I'm merely trying to understand the arguments of the pro-gun people. It seems completely ridiculous to argue straight-faced that being in possession of a gun will make your life safer. Certainly if anything contributes to the generation of fear, it's the knowledge that seven out of ten people living on your street own a gun and could theoretically shoot you in the head at any time, surely? In Norway there were 33 homocides committed last year, in New York City alone there are around 40 homocides a day. I mean, what are the arguments? That's what I'd like to hear, because I cannot for the life of me understand them.

40 a day? 14,600 a year?


WOW, you do know you are off by 38 a day (or 14,000 a year), or so, dont you?

New York City had too many murders in 2002, but it was no where near 14,600, it was 575, which was down from 646 (excluding the WTC attack) in 2001.

as that case with the dead instructor in Atlanta shows...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nothing to do with gun laws.

Just look at Brazil, which has more gun violence than just about anywhere (more than the US by a good margin), and has some fairly strict gun laws.

I have no death figures handy for Brazil, but obtaining a gun and getting a licence to carry is not particularly difficult there, even if more so than in the US, I suppose. Even so, killing rates in the USA are beaten only by South Africa.

Of course economic and social factors play a part in rates of violence. But look at countries such as Romania, Moldova, Turkey, Russia or any other poor, European country (and there are plenty) where poverty is rife. Murder rates aren't anywhere near those of the USA. I know that the social disparity over at your end is extreme, but that still doesn't answer my question. Certainly I think arguing that gun laws are "nothing to do with it" seems an unqualified argument.

Where you get your numbers.

where do you get your numbers. I don't think your post is all that innocent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

Where do you get your numbers from, though?
And what's with the latent aggro, mate? Calm down, it's not good for your heart.

I'll dig up some more figures for you if you're interested (but not while I'm at work, as is the case now...)

Oh and did I write that Russia has a lower murder rate than the US? Well, that's bollocks; murder rates have exploded in the last decade with the rise of the Russian mafia. Obvious mistake, sorry about that. However, explain me the fact that the highly class-divided London, one of the world's biggest cities, has a murder rate eight times lower than your haven of tranquility, New York City, if you please...

Guns kill, don't think there's any getting around that...

that gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime.

And we have a loud tiny splinter group that devotes its time to shouting that fact down...

"Guns kill, don't think there's any getting around that..."
Doesn't stop a bunch of neurotics from trying, though....

then why didn't violent crime go down in england after they banned most guns?

Still peddling that "there's a bloodbath in England" crap? That's been shown to be horseshit here time and time again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=9808&mesg_id=9808

merely that their gun crime has risen since they outlawed guns. You said outlawing guns would make crime go away, and it hasn't happened.

"You said outlawing guns would make crime go away,"
Where?

"their gun crime has risen"
And how many hundred percent would it have to rise to meet the level we've got in Texas, refill?

"The plain fact is that gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime."

Your words.

You said nothing about Texas. If your statement is true and gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime, England should have seen a drop in violent crime after they banned guns. They didn't, they saw an increase. Your statement is patently false.

"The plain fact is that gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime."

Thanks for confirming that you badly distorted what I said. ""You said outlawing guns would make crime go away," is YOUR words.

"You said nothing about Texas."
I asked YOU, how many hundred percent violent crime would have to rise in the UK to meet the level it reaches here in just Texas...Bear in mind, as we saw in the "gun crime in the UK" thread, the level now is about the same as it is in just Fort Worth.

"I asked YOU, how many hundred percent violent crime would have to rise in the UK to meet the level it reaches here in just Texas"

Your statement that "gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime", if true, should mean that violent crime in England should have decreased after guns were banned. That didn't happen, it increased. Your statement is demonstrably false. Trying to compare apples to oranges just makes you look even more silly.

"Your statement that "gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime", if true, should mean that violent crime in England should have decreased after guns were banned."
Sez youu. And in fact, for a nation with a population three times as large as Texas, it has less violent crime than Fort Worth alone.

But then that's the same RKBA "logic" that causes "enthusaists" to scream "bloodbath in Australia when they banned guns!" becuase murders increased from 297 to 311 one year in a country of 20 million people.

If gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime, then why didn't England see a decrease when they banned guns? Wasn't that gun control?

"Wasn't that gun control?"
How much gun crime does the UK have again? Oh, right, much less than JUST Ft. Worth, Texas....despite having about 100 times the population of that one town in one of our states.

by trying to throw up a smoke screen. We see through it.

Answerred and dismissed your question.

"Your statement that 'gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime', if true, should mean that violent crime in England should have decreased after guns were banned."


How you can keep repeating such idiocies is beyond me.

Would you agree that sometimes, just sometimes, there are OTHER FACTORS that affect outcomes?

My garden hose works spectacularly well to water my garden. But NOT if there is a hole in it, NOT if the city water supply shuts down, NOT if I forget to pay my water bill ...

NO ONE is saying that there are not OTHER factors that affect the outcome when it comes to violent crime rates. The plain meaning of statements like Benchley's is that, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime.

In real life, we virtually NEVER have "all other things being equal" situations. In year-to-year comparisons, there will have been changes in the economy, in the age/racial makeup of a population, in population density patterns, in policing, in all kinds of FACTORS that AFFECT violent crime rates.

When making comparisons, some account has to be taken of relevant factors. NO ONE is saying that there are not OTHER factors in the US, for instance, that influence the violent crime rate outcome and result in higher rates than elsewhere in the most comparable societies on earth: other western, industrialized, stable liberal democracies.

NO ONE is saying that firearms control will REDUCE violent crime rates UNLESS ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL. What is being said is that firearms control appears to prevent violent crime rates from rising to the level that would be expected if there were no firearms control measures in place. Is this really all that difficult for you to understand?

There are OTHER FACTORS that operate to INCREASE violent crime rates. Firearms control is ONE FACTOR that operates to REDUCE violent crime rates. When those factors are all operating at the same time, violent crime rates may indeed RISE.

NO ONE is saying that firearms control is a panacea, the only thing that is needed in order to reduce violent crime rates.

It is YOUR repeated bleating that the availability of firearms has NO influence on that outcome that is purely and simply bizarre.

Have YOU got some theory for why the violent crime rate in the US is so high when compared to the UK? When compared to any other "comparable" country on earth?

Yes -- income disparity is a factor, systemic racism is a factor, blah blah blah. NO ONE denies this. NO ONE.

The question is -- why do YOU deny that firearms control measures are a factor in lower violent crime rates? why do YOU deny that the availability of firearms is a factor in higher violent crime rates?


"Your statement is demonstrably false. Trying to compare apples to oranges just makes you look even more silly."

I'm ever so sorry to tell you, but people who address extremely complex issues like violent crime, which are the product of many, many factors and of the interaction of those factors, with so little of a clue about the subject (or so little desire to address it genuinely) as to say:

"Your statement that 'gun control works spectacularly well to cut down violent crime', if true, should mean that violent crime in England should have decreased after guns were banned."

are the ones wearing the dunce cap for all the world to see.

Garden hoses work spectacularly well to water gardens -- if true, that should mean that my tomato yield increased after I bought a garden hose. But not if I didn't pay my water bill, or tomato worms infested my garden ...

If there were no firearms control, and if at the same time economic disparity grew, the drug trade expanded, racial tensions rose, school and social welfare budgets were cut, terrorist groups intensified their activities ... then *I* would expect to see violent crime rise MORE than it would if there were firearms control.

I mean, I give up. Are you saying that firearms control made violent crime rates rise in the UK? Are you saying that it had no effect on violent crime rates? Do you have any idea how silly (or disingenuous) you would sound if you said those things?

Perhaps not.

.

on the web made the shocking claim that murder rates in some Australian city (Adelaide?) increased 200% in one year when guns were taken away. And so they had...from one murder to two (both poisonings).

What say you to that, MrB?

as watching the RKBA crowd spin their desperate nonsense.

Especially one who claims to be a progressive or liberal. Very sad.

Hahahahahahahahaha....

Too bad you haven't contributed anything constructive to this thread.

I'm not the one throwing around phony accusations of bigotry, either.

It's self-evident to anyone who reads your contributions. I suggest that you are so blinded by your hatred of guns and gun owners that you are unable to see your own charade.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think you mean to say people kill? You are just like the rest of the media absorbing anti-freedom lovers of this country.

once upon a time the powers that were worried about too many people with too much wealth and too much time on their hands getting out of control and turning into wild eyed commie sympathizers so it was decided at the lowest levels (Social Nationalist American Consumers Partay; SONATACOP) to make a permanent game of "cops and robbers" the central organizing principle of "our" society. The only thing our government is any good at is manufacturing crime.

American society itself is the cause. We are raised on competition, not cooperation. This competitiveness expresses itself in everything from sex to shopping to driving. In short, we are insane. If we didn't have access to guns, we'd kill each other with safety scissors, or incantations (if we knew where the hell to get dragon scales). Guns are simply a very good tool for the job. It is the fact that we feel the job needs doing that is the problem, IMO.

The second sentence in your reply is very true, but do you really believe that your murder rates would be the same <b>without</b> the access to firearms?

I don't know, but I suspect it wouldn't be much different. We are an aggressive (and not infrequently angry) people.

look at the number of homicides committed in the US without guns. If it's guns that are the problem and they somehow "cause" homicides, why is our murder rate so high for weapons other than guns?

eh, refill?

the large number of homicides that occur in the US without a gun are proof that there's a problem, and that guns are not the cause of the problem.

<sarcasm>There's a GREAT argument for MORE guns...."We're ALL violent nutcases trying to kill each other!"</sarcasm>

Amazing what passes for RKBA "logic."

There are a small number of violent nutcases, and they shouldn't have guns. The rest of us might want a gun in case we run into one of the violent nutcases.

You're the one making claims about our murder rate....now you want to back off.

there are fewer than 50,000 murders a year in the US, with a population approaching 300 million. That's still pretty rare. It's not as rare as it is in some other places, but it's not even close to 1 in 100...And I made a specific statement...that the problem isn't guns, because if guns caused homicide, our homicide rate where guns were not used wouldn't be so high.

"the problem isn't guns, because if guns caused homicide, our homicide rate where guns were not used wouldn't be so high."
And this by you is an argument for LESS gun control? Ho-kay....I guess that's what passes for RKBA "logic."

not the symptoms. Get rid of poverty, inequality, the racist drug laws, the lack of educational opportunities, and address the real needs of people who are at risk to become criminals, and our violence problem will go away.

instead of taking a relatively easy step that would cut down on violence, we have to attack ALL of the root causes.

Hahahahahahaha.....

And of course, bearinn mind that the main body of those bleating for "gun rights" are those people dedicated to INCREASING poverty, inequality, racism, the lack of educational opportunities, etc....

where passing a gun control law demonstrably caused crime to decrease. Please remember, I asked for causal proof.

"Since enactment of the Brady Law in 1994, crimes with firearms are dropping faster than violent crime overall.
According to this year's FBI Uniform Crime Report, the use of guns in crime rose significantly from 1985 to 1993. However, since implementation of the Brady Law in February 1994, there has been a significant drop in the percentage of violent crimes committed with a firearm. A study by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence showed that, since it's enactment, the Brady Law background check kept handguns out of the hands of over 312,000 prohibited purchasers - including 113 felons a day."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/bradyred.asp


"It sounds like a no-brainer, but like any new information in the battle over gun control, it’s bound to ruffle a few feathers: Registration and licensing requirements deter criminals from buying guns. That latest bit of data in the gun control debate, courtesy of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins University, indicates that stricter guidelines for gun purchases mean fewer firearms end up in the hands of criminals. States with the lowest incidence of criminal gun activity are those with both licensing and registration guidelines. And the best results of all, according to the Hopkins study, come in states surrounded by other states with similarly tough gun laws, so that criminals can’t simply slip over state lines to replenish their supplies. "

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,173301,00.html

"Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.
Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.
Firearm-Related Homicide
"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.
Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA. "

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

"The study was conducted by public health researchers at the University of California-Davis and published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The researchers assessed the impact of a 1991 California law that made it illegal for individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors to purchase or possess handguns.

The researchers examined the criminal records of 1,654 people who has been convicted of violent misdemeanors and subsequently tried to buy handguns in California between 1989 and 1993. Researchers then compared criminal activities before and after the 1991 law and found that those individuals who purchased guns before the law took effect were 29 percent more likely to be arrested for another violent or gun-related crime than those who tried but were unable to purchase handguns after the law took effect."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=177

where is the elusive causal link?

More guns less crrime...oops, that's total horseshit.

Tell you what, refill, YOU pretend therse studies aren't adequate, and I'll stick with real scientists.

To MrB anyone who has a used gun to sell is part of the giant Gun Industry Conspiracy to cash in on all the violence and death in America.

that people selling guns aren't really doing so, and so no background checks are needed in many cases...

Get a clue, Benchley. My positions on these issues would be clear to you if you'd bother to read what I write and ignore the little voices inside of your head telling you it's all a big conspiracy.

Where is it exactly you were telling us the gun show loophole ought to be closed?

"My positions on these issues would be clear to you"
You mean you think I have any doubt? You were trying to pretend that private sellers aren't part of the gun industry.

My program to close the misnamed "gun-show loophole":

- Make the National Instant Check System (NICS) available to unlicensed sellers so they CAN check up on people to whom they wish to sell a gun or three. It would be a crime to use NICS for any other purpose, and everyone who gets checked would get notified by snail mail to help prevent abuse.

- Use of NICS by individuals would be discretionary, not required per se. You would not have to run a check on your spouse before giving him or her a gun as a gift. In no case would running a NICS check be required, HOWEVER...

- If you chose not to use NICS and the person to whom you sold a gun turns out to be a prohibited person (convicted felon, under a domestic violence restraining order, etc.) you can be prosecuted. IOW if you DID use NICS, the person came up clear at that time and later turns out to be prohibited, the fact that you used NICS would be a definitive defense against any charges brought against you for the sale.

And to further enhance the system, I am strongly in favor of getting all relevant state records of criminal convictions, restraining orders, and adjudications of insanity online. NICS has some big holes in it that can be addressed mostly by technical fixes.

Any questions?

MrBenchley continued with this little jab:

You mean you think I have any doubt? You were trying to pretend that private sellers aren't part of the gun industry.

Is someone who has a used shovel to sell part of the garden tool industry?

"Use of NICS by individuals would be discretionary, not required per se."
You'd be for keeping the loophole wide open.

Been to many shovel shows lately,have you?

Please try again. My proposal would create FULL ACCOUNTABILITY for any private individual who sells a gun to another private individual, thus addressing the core of the so-called "gun-show loophole".

I have an extra shovel you can borrow if you need it to continue your absurd stream of denials, distortions, and distractions.

Now all you have to do is convince your fellow "enthusiasts." I'll wait right here.

I've been studying and thinking about the issue for many years. I think I've made a practical proposal that addresses objections from both sides. It creates accountability for private individuals who sell guns without requiring pointless and burdensome checks on friends or family members or requiring creation of a national gun registry.

And let's see your plan while we're at it.

I'm calling your bluff, Benchley.

and then I'll think about it.

But I don't agree with making background checks voluntary according to the seller's whim.

But I don't agree with making background checks voluntary according to the seller's whim.

Go back and read my proposal again. You still don't get it.

Whether or not the seller makes a check would be based on the seller's willingness to hang his or her exposure to criminal prosecution on the reputation of the buyer. That's far from any definition of "whim" I've ever seen. If you trust the buyer, you don't run a check. If you aren't sure, you run a check.

Simple, accountable, and workable.

let's see you sell it to the bullets for brains crowd first.

There are som details that would still need to be worked out, like how the NICS would be accessed and where.

I agree some details would need to be worked out. Basically it would be by Web interface or telephone. The names and physical addresses of both the buyer and the seller would need to be collected. I can see charging a small fee to offset the actual costs of operating the system.

As a potential gun seller I would welcome a way to make sure I wasn't selling to a known violent criminal.

more palatable the trading it in at the gun store/pawnshop and only getting half of what it is worth.

"My proposal would create FULL ACCOUNTABILITY for any private individual who sells a gun to another private individual, thus addressing the core of the so-called 'gun-show loophole'"


Who the fuck cares????

And, if I may be so bold: what the fuck does this FULL ACCOUNTABILITY of yours MEAN?

I doubt very much that you are proposing that someone who sells a firearm to someone else without doing the background check in question be accountable for any harm done by that person with the firearm.

If the purpose behind the action taken is to reduce harm, exactly what good is your little proposal?

(Hey -- I don't presume to know what *your* purpose is. The purpose for which *I* advocate reducing access to firearms is to reduce the harm that is caused by people using firearms.)

Are you proposing a fine, maybe, for not doing the required background checks? Then, if I may again be so bold, exactly how does your proposal differ from mandatory checking??

Seriously, my dear; you CANNOT hold someone legally "accountable" -- e.g. fine him/her -- unless s/he has broken a law.

Here is what you said initially (emphasis added):

Use of NICS by individuals would be discretionary, not required per se. You would not have to run a check on your spouse before giving him or her a gun as a gift. In no case would running a NICS check be required, HOWEVER...

- If you chose not to use NICS and the person to whom you sold a gun turns out to be a prohibited person (convicted felon, under a domestic violence restraining order, etc.) you can be prosecuted.

Prosecuted FOR WHAT? Do you know nothing about the rule of law??

Nulla poena sine lege -- you cannot punish anyone unless s/he has broken a law.

Ah ... perhaps I get it. You are proposing that someone could be prosecuted for selling a firearm to a disqualified person ... but that it be left up to the vendor to decide whether to inquire into that question or not.

And like I said ... horses, barn doors ... .

What do you imagine that the purpose of background checks is? Do you think that it just might be to keep firearms out of the hands of persons disqualified from possessing them? Can I presume that you think this to be a legitimate purpose?

Can you offer some explanation for your proposal that vendors of firearms not be required to use the most effective available method for achieving that purpose, and instead be permitted to use their own "discretion" in deciding whom to sell to? Some reason why the most effective available means of preventing firearms from being sold to people regarded as most likely to cause harm with them should be rejected, in favour of ex post facto "accountability" that would only kick in once the harm had been caused? (That, of course, is obviously the only time when the sale to the disqualified person would come to light -- although in many instances the harm would be caused without the illegal sale ever being detected, since the firearms used to cause harm are obviously not always identified.)

Sure, they're going to be deterred from making the profit they're lusting after by the possibility of being held "accountable" for making the wrong choice. Sure.

Well, maybe ... if the "accountability" involved a long term of imprisonment ... which somehow I doubt you'd be proposing.

And still all I see is barn doors flapping in the wind.

.

This discussion doesn't pertain to you, so stay out of it. You've already demonstrated that your understanding of present US law is so lacking you are probably incapable of understanding my proposal anyway.

Too many long words for you?

I don't advocate that people unable to grasp concepts, or unwilling to discuss concepts in good faith, be rounded up and shot.

I do advocate that they stifle themselves, in everyone's interests.

Just a general observation, pet. Don't get yourself in a fret over it.

If you happen to want to answer my questions -- skim through my post, they're the things with the question marks ("?") after them -- feel free.

As usual, I won't fret if you don't. I knew you couldn't when I asked them.

.

It's not worth my time to wade through all of your childish insults to find the few questions that might be deserving of an answer had they been presented in a civil manner.

You're welcome to try again, but I will not respond to your rude tirades.

It is the nature of the people. Most of use left a country because we could not get along. We would have stayed if we could have.We are a country with this history. It took about a hour for us to start fighting the Indians. Force to get our way is a way of life, and look at our families if you do not believe it. Do not have the data but I willing to bet we are high on list of people who beat wifes and children. We 'state' kill people in large numbers.We are the arms dealers of the world.We have a great army. We rioted to get work right, civil right, women rights.It is the American way to do as you wish and killing falls into that I fear. You hear it in every day talk. 'I will kill that guy if he steps on my land'as if land could be that important. I have been stopped on a drive way with a man with a gun and I was only turning around. This was in Alaska. It is our nature and more guns just make it a little more easy. PS I am a grandmother who has never picked up a gun.

Bowling for Columbine dispelled much of the conventional wisdom about the difference between violent crime in the US v. Canada. It's not the TV, videogames, guns, economics, or racial tension. There's something in US society, deeper in our culture than what kind of movies we watch, that makes some of us treat each other badly.

Maybe it's because so many of us came here under duress. Our ancestors either left their homelands to escape oppression or we were dragged here as slaves.

Crime Index Tabulations - Table 16, “Rate: Number of Crimes per 100,000 Inhabitants1 by Population Group, 2001”
MURDER RATES PER 100,000
GROUP I; 69 cities; 250,000 and over; Rate 13.5
GROUP II; 157 cities; 100,000 to 249,999; Rate 7.8
GROUP III; 353 cities; 50,000 to 99,999; Rate 4.3
GROUP IV; 636 cities; 25,000 to 49,999; Rate 3.2
GROUP V; 1,448 cities; 10,000 to 24,999; Rate 2.8
GROUP VI; 5,227 cities; under 10,000; Rate 2.9
SUBURBAN COUNTIES 1,121 agencies; Rate 3.8
RURAL COUNTIES; 2,117 agencies; Rate 3.6
SUBURBAN AREA; 5,407 agencies; Rate 3.1

Canadian Homicides 2001
Homicides by census metropolitan area; Rate per 100,000
Population 500,000 or more; Rate 1.83
Population 250,000 to 499,999; Rate 1.06
Population 100,000 to 249,999; Rate 1.35
Population less than 100,000; Rate 1.94

The lowest homicide rate that this list shows for the US is:

GROUP V; 1,448 cities; 10,000 to 24,999; Rate 2.8 <per 100,000>



Canada's OVERALL homicide rate is barely over 1.8/100,000.

I don't see much "like" there.


Winnipeg topped the lowest US group rate (Winnipeg: population 673,218, 19 homicides, rate=2.82 and in 2002 rate=3.41; a city where the racism and drug abuse and alcoholism and poverty and family breakdown and unemployment and homelessness and inadequate housing and school drop-out rates experienced the First Nations ("native") community rivals the US inner city experience of African-Americans, as well as having an unusually extensive street gang phenomenon), as did Sudbury (population 160,401, 5 homicides, rate=3.12 -- hardly statistically significant, of course; the rate in 2002 was 1.26).

Canada's 2001 homicide rate in the largest cities in the country was 1.83/100,000 -- very slightly higher than the overall national rate of 1.78. The rate in small cities (100-500,000) was lower than the national average, and in census metropolitan areas of under 100,000 was higher than the average.

(You're very welcome for the link I provided a couple of days ago to the recent Statistics Canada release, jody.)

So yup, Canada's just one big small town, I guess. Despite the fact that it has cities like Montreal and Toronto, with millions of people living in them, extremes of cultural/racial/ethnic diversity, and a fair bit of organized crime/gang activity. And 2001 homicide rates in those two cities of 1.60 and 2.23/100,000 -- lower than the rate in the least-homicidal population grouping in the US (2.8).

And the exponentially greater availability of firearms in the US has NOTHING to do with that fact, nothing at all ...

.

You'd almost think the RKBA was deliberately trying to be publicly misleading...(snicker)

This thread has become a back-and-forth series of personal attacks. If anyone wishes to re-post the question, I encourage them to do so.

Thanks for your understanding.

FlashHarry
DU Moderator