Here are some sobering facts:
1) Washington D.C. has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. They also have the highest murder rate by firearms in the nation
2) There were more murders by firearms in the city of Chicago in just the last 2 weeks of March (26 dead, 80 wounded) than there were in any ENTIRE STATE
3) The entire state of Colorado averages 5 gun-related deaths per month. The CITY of Chicago averages 35 per month.
If a person actually checks the true statistics nationwide, they will find the the highest number per 100,000 population for gun-related deaths are in the same places that have the strictest gun control laws. Meanwhile, states with minimal or no gun control laws (ID has a rate of .077 per 100,000 - almost NO gun-related deaths) have the lowest murder rate by guns.
Examples - lax gun laws:
Compare to strict gun laws:
It is also interesting to note that on Dec 11, 1990, there was a multi-car pile-up in Calhoun, Tennessee that claimed the same number of lives - 12. I did not hear anyone on the left calling for a ban on automobiles. In fact, more people die in auto accidents than from all firearms.
Gun control has unintended consequences. First and foremost, criminals are more apt to perform their acts where they know the general public is unarmed. After all, crooks don't want to get shot and prefer easy targets, and gun laws create easy targets. In addition, criminals who would kill a person are not going to sweat gun laws, and gun laws will not stop them from having guns - just look at Chicago or D.C. Ergo, gun control does not stop gun crime, and only serves to make the rest of us easy prey.
Take note - predators always pick on the easy prey - the old, the sick, the weak. Criminals are predators, and an unarmed populace is seen as weak. Prey!
As a side note of concern, though I am not surprised that ABC's first thought would be to try and tie this shooter to the Tea Party (they had to actually CHECK on that), I am disappointed that the mainstream media no longer has any sense of objectivity. Brian Ross first reported that Holmes appeared to be a Tea Party member, but later retracted that. But the concern lies in the fact that they would have to actively check the Tea Party membership rolls. Why? The only reason to do that is a hope that they could tie him to the Tea Party. After all, if they were being objective, they should have ALSO checked to see if he was with Occupy Wall Street, but that was never checked because they did not want to tie him to that.