I like this one more because it tells you who the victims were: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

Here is another from the washington post about the common law ideas that are thrown around.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.467d9d981ca4

Not sure I agree with that article, or the premise that reducing guns won't prevent gun deaths.

Well gun deaths sure. Of course. But violent death?

Chicago guns aren't bought in Chicago. Are you crazy it is to hard for criminals to buy guns there.

According to the FBI, roughly 60% of guns used in crimes in Illinois were from out of state.

So yes you can do some good with laws...this proves it. Can you totally eradicate it...NO, but saying you can't make it better is a bare face lie.

++++++EDIT+++++

If you want to do something about the gun violence in Chicago or in any big city for that matter you can lower the numbers of guns on the street quickly and easily...Make trafficking in weapons carry an equal weight in crime for whatever those guns are used for.

You sell a gun illegally and it is used to kill somebody you too could be facing life without parole an armed robbery 15 to life...an assault 1 to 3. My guess you won't be able to find an illegal gun and if you do you won't be able to afford it.

Now this law would not effect any legal gun sale or use...just the ones sold without a FIOD card and background check. But I bet we don't get any support from activist for that one any more than they will support just keeping track of how many people get killed by them. All record keeping is done privately now.

"Bump Fire" Stocks I still want somebody to defend these pieces of crap. Nobody hunts or defends their home with these things. They are offensive weapons designed to get around the automatic weapon law.

Personally, I strongly advocate action for stronger laws at a state level, and I do that for 2 reasons.

1- 90% of gun regulation is done at a state and local level. Yeah, you need a Fed dealer license, but what you can buy and what you can do with it are ABSOLUTELY state and locally regulated. States and localities have huge power to regulate commerce and other things in their own jurisdiction, and concentrating on Federal action is just what the NRA wants. It is VASTLY easier to get state laws of most kind passed than it is to get Federal laws passed. If enough states take action, the Fed will be irrelevant.

2- Federal action on guns simply will not happen. Ever. Give it up as the wasted effort that it has been and concentrate on something that can happen. Saying that it should happen is feckless.

The conservative "Alec Project" literally started with school boards in the early 80's and led the charge to elect Republicans.

I think that gun control advocates can and should learn from this.

Chicago is proof that that won't work. Gun runners would make a lot of money is all that would do. And I think federal action is out of the question with this congress and President. This is not a voting issue on the left but boy howdy is it one on the right. and until that changes I don't see any even common sense things like background checks passing. I expect a lot of talk about bump fire stocks but don't even think that will get a vote.

To which I say SO WHAT. Again, action in the individual states adds up. Change the laws in the exporter states and the problem is effected. Background checks are always a fucking joke. The idea that you can sieve out the "bad people" and give guns only to the good is childish fantasy.

Treat them like cars. Title and insure as anti-trafficking and sieve for diagnosed loons. Titles would help catch gun runners and then you penalize runner and, if it can be proven that they knew, the seller. Make penalties for unsecured weapons being "stolen" or for transfers without paperwork. Insurance companies have skin in the game and are more likely to say no than any government check ever will be.

ALL of this can be done at the state level with the stroke of a pen. The fact that it might not work perfectly is no reason not to try, unless you are looking for a reason not to try.

FOR FUCKS SAKE different states have different laws on DWI and they do not work perfectly. Same with child abuse. Shall we just stop trying?

Oh I don't want the states to stop trying...It just won't have the desired effect. This is a national problem. Stopping trafficking is the biggest problem to that, but I doubt anything will be done.

NY State estimated that they had over 1 million rifles that accepted box magazine that could hold more than some arbitrary amount of ammo.

They passed the safe act after Newtown that forced registration of those military style arms.

Only 44,000 were registered... Basically only 4% of gun owners chose to comply. The rest chose willful disobedience for what they felt was an unjust law. They are waiting for SCOTUS to shoot down several of the Safe Act provisions.

Several police and sheriffs departments vocally broadcast that they would not enforce the new law. To date there has been less than ten arrests for possession of unregistered rifles or what they deem to be high capacity magazines.

All this does is reinforce that more laws do not have the outcome you desire and more importantly, this one was done at the state level.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

Bullets don't kill people. Organ failure and blood loss kills people.

Solve the real problem, Congress!

Tax breaks for the rich! Problem solved!

Problem not solved! We've done that so much that there are no more breaks left to give. We're just all going to have to give them a percentage of our salary.