Do not quote "actual evidence" without citing sources. One need only look at the murder rate in Chicago to see that incredibly strict gun laws do not by definition make a population safer. I'm sure you could find a rural area with an above-average per capita murder rate than other rural areas too.
It's almost as if the mere act of owning a firearm has little bearing on one's overall safety.
Chicago's problem is that their guns laws only affect the city itself. If a criminal wants a gun he need only drive out of Chicago, buy the gun, and drive back home. In fact, a recent article (don't have the link on hand, sorry) pointed out that a large percentage of guns used in crimes in Chicago were bought from a single store just outside the city limits.
The point is that cities don't have monitored borders, and so they have a hard time regulating the influx of guns. A country-wide ban would actually stand a chance of working.
> In fact, a recent article (don't have the link on hand, sorry) pointed out that a large percentage of guns used in crimes in Chicago were bought from a single store just outside the city limits.
I haven't heard this but it certainly sounds plausible.
To me, it says one of a few things are happening: (A) The people buying the guns are not criminals at the time of purchase, and shouldn't be prohibited from buying them in the first. Whether they go on to commit a crime with the gun or the gun is stolen and then used in a crime is mostly irrelevant; (B) The people buying the guns are criminals at the time of purchase, and the NICS check didn't alert the owner properly. This would be more a failure of the FBI than anyone else; (C) Least likely, the people buying the guns are criminals at the time of purchase and the owner of the shop knew this and either did not perform the NICS check or performed it with fraudulent data.
I should also point out that since it's illegal to purchase a gun in Chicago it's not at all surprising that guns in Chicago happen to come from gun shops immediately outside the city borders.
Do you still stand by your claim about stricter gun laws not making people safer though? Clearly the gun laws in Chicago are irrelevant to the point. This is the problem with so many arguments we see from the gun lobby, they technically can claim to have some highly legalistic version of the truth, but with little bearing on actual reality. This does not need to be the case.
I do believe a large majority of Americans would be fine with high gun ownership levels, if only there was a safe, healthy, well informed and responsible gun ownership culture to go with it. Many gun owners do meet that description, but far too many don't and any attempts to rectify that or even provide evidence based advice are blocked at every turn.
It's almost as if the mere act of owning a firearm has little bearing on one's overall safety.