Interesting, but not surprising, seeing as how two of those states are (MI and AR) are the two poorest states and the other two are also on the Top 10 Poorest States.
As opposed to all those wealthy, conservative, gun-loving bastions, yes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, but not surprising, seeing as how two of those states are (MI and AR) are the two poorest states and the other two are also on the Top 10 Poorest States.As opposed to all those wealthy, conservative, gun-loving bastions, yes?
I'm not sure I follow.
All I know is that here in northern New England, people are generally pro-gun, not desperately poor, and don't shoot each other half as much as the rest of you barbarians.
Youre right, one's usuage of one's rights is limited. One cant yell "fire', just like one cant murder people. What we dont do is straight up ban certain words from ever being spokenActually we can and do... in public spaces, such as media. ergo the Seven Forbidden Words for TV and Radio.
And again, the Second Amendment does not address bacon, and I really don't care to address strawman hypotheticals. This is the text of the Second Amendment.
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In both versions the right to bear arms is specifically defined as being justified in the keeping of a "well regulated militia". You can't selectively ignore that part of the Amendment. The Amendment was never written with private ownership and carriage being it's primary target.
I don't generally give a f&~! about the Constitution, although I do like the Second Amendment, but I've never understood this.
It does say that a well regulated militia is necessary, that is true, but where does it say that people have to belong to the militia in order to own guns? And doesn't it say, right there, that the people have the right to keep and bear arms?
|
Supplemental: The text of the Second Amendment refers to the right to bear arms in the context of a militia. It's generally an accepted fact that militias are units that have commanders and presumably rules and regulations attached to them. So it can be argued that the Second Amendment DOES provide not only a doorway but a reason for background checks and other regulation of firearm posession.
There have been several laws associated with militia, going back to the 18th century. The current system is the Dick Act (no, I'm not kidding), which is over 100 years old. The Dick Act identifies all able-bodied male citizens aged 18-45, as well as a few other categories, as the militia. It distinguishes between the organized militia (basically what is now the states' National Guard, plus some historical units in the east), and the reserve militia. The act provides funding for arms and other logistical support for the organized militia, but not for the reserve militia. Historically, militia provided their own arms. The reserve militia is expected to bring their own. I'm unclear with the degree to which the Dick Act is still in force or has been modified by subsequent legislation, but as far as I tell with a couple of hours of research a couple of weeks ago, it still is the underlying document regarding the current militia.
The historical context for the Dick Act is that it was in response to the poor showing of the militia in the Spanish-American war of 1898. To a certain extent, I think the Dick Act can be seen as an effort to return the militia to the status of well regulated, in the sense of having operational effectiveness, through the federal funding of the National Guard, otherwise known as the organized militia. One way to interpret this is that self-armed militia was no longer seen as being a useful military asset in the state of warfare c. 1900.
As for the self-armed militia, I think, but am not positive, that that the reserve militia concept is still on the books. If so, then if called, no arms are guaranteed. Bring your guns if you got 'em. If not, bring your pitchfork, Louisville Slugger, or a rock.
Personal defense is often where the verbal wars in this debate are fought. Ultimately, however, I think that the heart of gun rights debate is this reserve militia. Some see it as anachronistic and laughable. Others see it being a cornerstone of freedom. That's a pretty substantial gorge that needs to be bridged.
|
|
Hoplophobia,
So you're basic argument is that Americans are just more violent and bloodthirsty than the Swiss which is why your crime stats are so much worse, even though they also have guns. So it's not the guns that are the problem, it's that Americans have them. Ok, I can go along with that but I don't think it's helping your case that much.
|
|
That's an irrelevant question. However the militia got it's weapons the key phrase here is "well regulated" which means a militia that's policed with rules regarding usage and conduct.
From a US perspective, SCOTUS stated, "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." Wiki sources this to the court's opinion on the Heller case, 2008.
Contrast with some examples of historical use, which has a broader meaning: examples Note: source is the Constitution Society; I'm not certain of how representative the examples are.
|
|
And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?
And of course, we all known that Switzerland which lets young men carry home fully automatic assault rifles, subsidizes the sale of ammunition to the civilian populace and sponsors gun clubs, the gun murder rate in Switzerland is off the charts! Bern is even worse than Chicago!
Oh wait...except, it isn't. Strange that.
And on this day, Hoplophobia single-handedly dismantled the gun control movement by mentioning Switzerland, which had definitely never been done before!
Globally, lax gun control and widespread firearm ownership are positively correlated with levels of violent crime.
Oh yeah! Gosh darn those inconvenient facts getting in the way of my anti-gun arguments! We'll just ignore those, and anything else that complicates the issue. A nation with a strong gun culture of ownership, with that 'paranoid' militia concept that seems to be despised so much by Caineach.
And then we'll make a definitive statement with no sort of evidence to back it up, about those evil black folding stock barrel shroud assault banana clip weapons do evil evil things, and nothing bad would ever happen to anybody if we just gave a little more of our rights to the government to deal with this one *emergency*.
And then, for the next *emergency* well, then we'll have to have permanent detention without trial in a place like Guantanamo. And then maybe we'll have warrantless surveillance, or extrajudicial drone killings of US citizens without trial.
I mean, the government would never abuse the power it's been given, obviously. That's never happened before in human history, or say within the last ten years. Nope.
Switzerland is very different from the US, and trying to claim that they are the same is rediculous.
1. They are not paranoid with their militia. They give training through mandatory service to the military for use of their firearms, and are not an unorganized citizen mob, like it would be in the US.
2. The citizens are considered an active part of the national defense. The US has a national defense force in its standing military. Switzerland's neighbors could realisticly field enough forces to attack them, and an armed mobilizable infantry would be useful.
In the US, first none of our neighbors can field a significant threat to our military. In fact, it would take a combined global effort with years of manufacturing to do so. If a hostile nation invested enough resources to do so, the US would notice and be able to mobilize its active military, and if necessary recruit into its active military, long before any threat that a citizen militia could influence could actually surface.
Next, you bring in the argument that an armed citizenry could do anything against a government that has stepped out of bounds. Short of assassinating leaders, which would only justify the anti-gun laws to most people and solidfy the government's power grab, no, we cannot. The only hope we have to prevent such a power grab would be if the military itself defects away from the government, as has happened in pretty much every revolution in the past 100 years. If they don't, any armed citizen wouldn't stand a chance. It is delusional to think that citizens armed with the trivial weaponry that they can afford would be able to be much more than a speed bump to the modern military.
Finally, you bring in the rediculous slippery slope argument. In case you haven't noticed, having gun rights hasn't prevented bad things like indefinete detentions or warrantless surveillance. The government is proceeding with ever encroaching powers in other areas regardless of if you have guns. Those are different battles, and ones I will gladly be on your side for, but we do not need guns, nor do they help, in arguing for those rights.
And how is mental health related to guns? Are you suggesting that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed? Wouldn't that be an infringement of the 2nd amendment akin to backgroudn checks? And wouldn't it further stigmatise those with mental health issues as being all dangerous lunatics when that's far from the truth?That actually already exists, my friend. Many many states bar persons found to be some degree of mentally ill from firearm purchases. The exact wording depends on your state, but many are for a person who has been admitted to a mental health institution, willingly or unwillingly. However the detection and preventative mental health measures are awful.
Often, a person goes untreated for so long and self medicates with things like drugs or alcohol, which only makes the problem worse. So when it finally boils over it is much more likely to be a catastrophic event than something that can be treated and dealt with.
And many states don't send records to the national database. And the NRA fought long and hard to keep those checks as weak as possible. Though, in the wake of Newton, they're pushing it as a panacea, probably to forestall any more serious measures.
And of course, private sales are excluded. And no records are allowed to be kept.
No, you are wrong. NICS is reported to when a person is adjudicated as mentally defective, or has been committed to a mental institution. Psychologists and Hospitals as well as other state agencies call into NICS all the time to report a person.
My first job was selling firearms, and more than once I've had NICS not give authorization to sell the person a weapon.
How does your argument that your state laws on firearm sales in whatever 1 state you are from negate his argument that many states do not require background checks for firearms? Because many states have no significant laws on firearm sales, especially when not through a licensed dealer.
I'm not sure I follow.Interesting, but not surprising, seeing as how two of those states are (MI and AR) are the two poorest states and the other two are also on the Top 10 Poorest States.As opposed to all those wealthy, conservative, gun-loving bastions, yes?
I was just pointing out that the list of conservative, rah-rah-gun-rights states which are also wealthy is a pretty short one.
Conservatives are very fond of pointing to states like New York, California, and Illinois as supposed examples of restrictive gun control leading to high levels of gun crime, while ignoring the fact that these are heavily urban areas (which are their own huge contributing factor to gun violence), and the fact that many conservative, gun-loving states with few or no gun controls have much higher levels of gun crime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah! Gosh darn those inconvenient facts getting in the way of my anti-gun arguments!
I'm the one who pointed out that lax gun control and widespread firearm ownership are positively correlated with levels of violent crime, globally. That's an actual fact, supported by actual statistics. Switzerland is an outlier (for like eight reasons, all of which you probably already know but are choosing not to mention because to do so would mean you would no longer have an example of a safe country with guns everywhere).
Do you want to ignore that correlation, Hoplophobia? How do you reconcile that? What kinds of mental gymnastics do you need to perform to have it line up with your preconceived idea of how the world works?
We'll just ignore those, and anything else that complicates the issue. A nation with a strong gun culture of ownership, with that 'paranoid' militia concept that seems to be despised so much by Caineach.
Nevermind, it's now entirely possible that you don't know enough about Switzerland to be dishonest about it.
And then we'll make a definitive statement with no sort of evidence to back it up,
The University of Pennsylvania put forth a study in 2011 that found a positive correlation between firearm availability and rates of homicide across an index of high-income nations.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center found similar results in a 2004 study, both across high-income nations and between states within the United States.
There is a body of literature on this very topic, stretching back to the beginning of the 90's.
You should already know this.
This is basic, fundamental information that absolutely must be understood before entering into the gun control debate. To put forth your inflamed opinion as supportable without doing even the barest of research is irresponsible.
So when I tell you that they're positively correlated, the reason I don't provide evidence is that, by asking for evidence, you demonstrate a void of requisite knowledge.
I mean, the government would never abuse the power it's been given, obviously. That's never happened before in human history, or say within the last ten years. Nope.
Even if your right-wing fantasy came true, and the United States government decided to take widespread, overt military action against its own people (mind you, this will never happen), your AR-15 will not save you. It will not save your family. The only thing it might accomplish is making you just barely enough of a threat for such a violent, totalitarian government to want you dead.
It's really hard to have a reasonable conversation when people don't even know the facts and make wild statements
Tell us about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I want to hear about is something we can do to reduce the sale of guns to criminals here in this country.
I think you're the one arguing for an abridgement of rights. So you're going to have to bring some real evidence, and not just name some studies and provide an interpretation of them for us, and not give us access to these studies you are positing as proof for denial of rights.
I didn't provide an "interpretation" of them. I paraphrased what was actually said in the articles' conclusions.
For instance, it might do you good to actually read an entire scholarly article and not just quote the splashy byline that is on Brady webpage.
I don't use the Brady Campaign when I hunt down scholarly articles.
For instance, actually reading say...the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.p df
Is a real good start.
Yes, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Run by students, dedicated (explicitly) to exploring the conservative and libertarian side of legal issues. What an incredibly balanced article you've found. Kates and Mauser represent a tiny minority viewpoint on the subject - the journal they chose to publish in (or the journal which chose to publish them) is telling. Don Kates used to teach and conduct research at The Independent Institute, a conservative think-tank. He now works as a civil rights lawyer representing complaints against gun control. Mauser's academic pedigree is a little more balanced, but that may just be my own bias speaking. He and I are products of the same Criminology department at UCI.
What's important is that the academic community has come to a clear consensus on the subject. The fact that four or five researchers (with obvious ties to overall conservative ideology) disagree doesn't change anything.
I wouldnt. I would make it so that there would be less criminals to begin with.
End the black market?Okay, so I ask the question: How would you reduce access to guns for criminals?
I'm willing to talk about other issues, such as poverty and education. I'm HUGELY in favor of trying to address those problems. I've been writing papers on things like welfare reform for over half my life.
Right now though, this topic is about managing criminal access to firearms. All I'm getting from you is a giant sidestep. You seem unwilling to do anything to try to prevent criminals from getting guns. We have criminals in this country, no matter what there will always be some level of criminal activity. Do you think criminals, not ordinary citizens but criminals, should have free and unfettered access to firearms?
No, I do not. With the same caveat as earlier, about volent felons mostly. If a guy or gal was caught urinating in public or somesuch, I really dont think that should disqualify one.
Like Ive said, and keep saying, you come up with a way that doesnt infringe upon civil liberties, and Ill be all for it.
many conservative, gun-loving states with few or no gun controls have much higher levels of gun crime.
Maybe they should try moving, then.
So, not even bothering to read it, or to point out flaws in their arguments.
I only have a Bachelor's degree in Criminology. I'm not qualified to carry out a critique of someone else's literature on a casual basis. That would have been a significant project for me back in school, but not something I'm interested in doing at the moment. It's enough to know that the theories presented in the article are largely rejected by the rest of the field. A consensus exists, and it is not on the side of Kates and Mauser. Their article exists for the same reason that peer-reviewed, published articles exist which supposedly disprove evolution, or disprove anthropogenic climate change. Nothing more.
Just throw a little mud, since they believe differently from you any evidence they quote must be wrong, and not worthy of review or consideration.
It has already been reviewed. I don't need to re-review it. Their findings contradict the overwhelming majority of literature on the subject. Why would their one study make anyone change their minds?
No, what is important is that you've neglected to refute anything, or to bring a substantial burden of actual proof in arguing for an abridgement of rights. Instead it's dismissing any proof, be it Switzerland, the studies of murder rates in European countries cited in that review, or anywhere that a position held dear *might* possibly be wrong.
See, here's the thing, Hoplophobia: Everyone here knows exactly what you're doing. Everyone here has seen dozens of people exactly like you before. You are following a formula of behavior, whether you realize it or not.
We're not dismissing "proof" (the word you're looking for is "evidence", and you're damned right we're dismissing it; it's awful evidence, and is made impotent by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary - which I and others here have done you the courtesy of presenting, even though an intellectually honest person would have done their homework themselves before deciding to chime in with an inflamed opinion).
We're not neglecting to refute anything, because there is nothing that we need to refute.
You show up, post something like five posts which are actually wrong (and which incredibly patient people take the time to explain to you), insist that we haven't shown you anything (even though we have, repeatedly, and on demand), and then post one paper written by fellow ideologues, and expect that to matter to us somehow. That's not how this works.
I keep telling myself I have to stop posting on these forums. It's not worth the time or the effort. Have a good day everyone.
See? Formula.
Maybe they should try moving, then.
many conservative, gun-loving states with few or no gun controls have much higher levels of gun crime.
I'd argue that they'd just take the problem with them.
A few things I believe about the Second Amendment:
-I believe that if it was ever intended to provide for a US armed citizenry capable of mounting a military campaign against the US military, it has been largely obsoleted for that purpose by the advance of technology. When the Constitution was written, the level of military gear affordable by a common citizen, a rifle and perhaps a horse, was comparable to that fielded by a standing national military. For a first world modern military this is no longer the case due to exponential increases in both cost and capability of military hardware. I therefore do not believe that an armed homeowner turning out to battle the US Army would represent a threat to the Army on the same level that armed colonist militias did to the British in the Revolutionary War. Rather, instilling respect for our society and democratic ideals in our soldiers, so that they would themselves resist tyrannical orders, is the best way to protect the country from domestic military-enforced tyranny. This is something we already do to a large extent, so... great!
-I also believe that if it was intended to provide for a citizen militia in order to defend against international threats, this purpose too has been largely rendered obsolete for similar reasons. This is supported by the guy earlier in this thread who found that nobody has even bothered to update our hilariously named militia law in over a century. Even the very concept of an enemy attempting an unexpected amphibious invasion of conquest of the continental US is militarily obsolete and has been for more than a hundred years. And even were it not, an untrained citizen militia lacking the tools of first-world warfare would no longer be of significant help in resisting such.
Therefore, I believe that the Second Amendment is of limited if any practical utility in assuring the freedom of ordinary United States citizens from tyranny, domestic or international.
And following from that, I do not believe that more effectively regulating the access of violent criminals to guns actually comes at the cost of increasing the country's vulnerability to tyranny.
And following that, I'm willing to see more effective gun regulation passed.
I wouldnt. I would make it so that there would be less criminals to begin with.
End the black market?Okay, so I ask the question: How would you reduce access to guns for criminals?
I'm willing to talk about other issues, such as poverty and education. I'm HUGELY in favor of trying to address those problems. I've been writing papers on things like welfare reform for over half my life.
Right now though, this topic is about managing criminal access to firearms. All I'm getting from you is a giant sidestep. You seem unwilling to do anything to try to prevent criminals from getting guns. We have criminals in this country, no matter what there will always be some level of criminal activity. Do you think criminals, not ordinary citizens but criminals, should have free and unfettered access to firearms?
No, I do not. With the same caveat as earlier, about volent felons mostly. If a guy or gal was caught urinating in public or somesuch, I really dont think that should disqualify one.
Like Ive said, and keep saying, you come up with a way that doesnt infringe upon civil liberties, and Ill be all for it.
We've had multiple threads about gun control, unless I'm mistaken you haven't liked any of the 'liberal' suggestions.
One of the things I don't like about eating out with a group of people is when we don't have the restaurant picked ahead of time. We end up in a long discussion about where to go. Usually a couple of people make most of the suggestions, but one guy always has to veto everything, but never makes any suggestions.
You've been vocal about how a lot of things aren't acceptable. Show me something that would be.
Do all those things that I keep suggesting that would actually be effective in reducing gun violence that you keep dismissing as sidestepping. Although opposed to a registry, I really have no problem with expanding background checks for handguns as well as forcing greater reporting to the NICS system. I just dont pretend that theyre Constitutional. I would love to see an actual liberal suggestion, one that restores power to the people, not taking it away.
What we ought not to do is pass a bunch of laws that create even more criminals.
I'm not sure I follow.Interesting, but not surprising, seeing as how two of those states are (MI and AR) are the two poorest states and the other two are also on the Top 10 Poorest States.As opposed to all those wealthy, conservative, gun-loving bastions, yes?I was just pointing out that the list of conservative, rah-rah-gun-rights states which are also wealthy is a pretty short one.
Conservatives are very fond of pointing to states like New York, California, and Illinois as supposed examples of restrictive gun control leading to high levels of gun crime, while ignoring the fact that these are heavily urban areas (which are their own huge contributing factor to gun violence), and the fact that many conservative, gun-loving states with few or no gun controls have much higher levels of gun crime.
Yeah, that's also interesting, I suppose, although why you would point it out to me, since I'm not a conservative, I'm not sure.
Anyway, NYC had 237 gun murders last year and Chicago more than 435.
Meanwhile Arkansas, Mississippi and South Carolina had: 110, 138, 223. Louisiana had 402--and it appears that over half of them occured in New Orleans.
I would imagine that that is why there is hue and cry over NYC and Chicago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't generally give a f@%* about the Constitution, although I do like the Second Amendment, but I've never understood this.
It does say that a well regulated militia is necessary, that is true, but where does it say that people have to belong to the militia in order to own guns? And doesn't it say, right there, that the people have the right to keep and bear arms?
Learn to "give a something" about it, because it's the foundation of the laws by which you're governed by.
The Second Amendment's primary purpose was not to arm individuals but to lay in the foundation for a People's militia. It's for that purpose that the right to bear arms is granted. That's because during that time the U.S. had pretty much jack and crap for armed forces during the early years of it's existence.
It does not say that the right to bear arms is absolute any more than the First Amendment granted an absolute right to speech.
Since I hate the laws that govern us, why would I give a f&#+ for the Constitution? Which isn't the same as not knowing anything about the Constitution.
For example, Patrick Henry, at the Virginia Constitutional Convention opined "“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Richard Henry Lee, also a member of the VCC, who helped initiate the Declaration of Independence, and a member of the original Senate (which I also hate) opined, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
And, finally, New Hampshire, the best state in the union, wrote in its ratification statement, "It is the Opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alteration in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this State & more effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government — The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution. 'Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."
I, of course, stand with William Lloyd Garrison who burned the Constitution on the Boston Common as a "a death and an agreement with Hell," but please don't try telling me that the Founding Fathers didn't suppot the right of free, white men (and some black ones in the north) to keep and bear arms.
It is true that most of the deliberations on the Second Amendment concerned a People's Militia, because they correctly viewed a standing peacetime army as an instrument of tyranny. That's one of the few things upon which I agree with them.
Vive le Galt!
OTOH, the per capita murder rate looks a little different:
NYC: 237/8,244,910 = 0.0000287
Chicago: 435/2,707,120 = 0.000161
Arkansas: 110/2,949,131 = 0.0000373
Miss: 138/2,984,926 = 0.0000462
SC: 223/4,723,723 = 0.0000472
Lousiana: 402/4,601,893 = 0.0000874Looks like Chicago is really bad, but that NYC is safer than the other states.
Yes, everyone who has been following Stop and Frisk knows that NYC's murder rates have been diving for over 8 years now.
Yes, everyone who has been following Stop and Frisk knows that NYC's murder rates have been diving for over 8 years now.OTOH, the per capita murder rate looks a little different:
NYC: 237/8,244,910 = 0.0000287
Chicago: 435/2,707,120 = 0.000161
Arkansas: 110/2,949,131 = 0.0000373
Miss: 138/2,984,926 = 0.0000462
SC: 223/4,723,723 = 0.0000472
Lousiana: 402/4,601,893 = 0.0000874Looks like Chicago is really bad, but that NYC is safer than the other states.
Well over 8 years and with little relation to S&F as you know.
It's really Chicago that's the outlier, IIRC.
If I gave the impression that I think Stop and Frisk led to a declining murder rate, I apologize. I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet.
Do all those things that I keep suggesting that would actually be effective in reducing gun violence that you keep dismissing as sidestepping. Although opposed to a registry, I really have no problem with expanding background checks for handguns as well as forcing greater reporting to the NICS system. I just dont pretend that theyre Constitutional. I would love to see an actual liberal suggestion, one that restores power to the people, not taking it away.
What we ought not to do is pass a bunch of laws that create even more criminals.
It's also a chicken and egg problem. An increase in relative poverty increases crime, but an increase in crime can also reduce economic activity, which costs people their jobs increasing poverty.
So a comprehensive solution would be to try to reduce both poverty and crime at the same time. Since this is a gun thread, lets talk about reducing gun crimes. By that, I mean reducing the flow of guns to criminals.
Yeah, that's also interesting, I suppose, although why you would point it out to me, since I'm not a conservative, I'm not sure.
The first paragraph was for you, the second was for anyone who cared to read it.
Anyway, NYC had 237 gun murders last year and Chicago more than 435.
Meanwhile Arkansas, Mississippi and South Carolina had: 110, 138, 223. Louisiana had 402--and it appears that over half of them occured in New Orleans.
I would imagine that that is why there is hue and cry over NYC and Chicago.
Arkansas and Mississippi both have a total population of 3 million people. South Carolina and Louisiana have total populations of about 4.5 million.
Meanwhile, the Chicago metropolitan area alone holds 9.5 million people. The New York City metropolitan area is home to 19 million.
And, again, urban environments are an excellent predictor of gun violence. Regardless of the status of local gun control, you should absolutely expect a much higher per capita murder rate in cities like New York and Chicago than in largely rural states like Arkansas.
EDIT: Go figure that thejeff had already made the same argument.
Well, I'm not really sure if we're arguing or agreeing anymore, but some of the articles that I read indicated that one-half of Louisiana's gun murders occured in New Orleans and one-third of Arkansas's occured in Little Rock.
And this LA Times article suggests that most Southern gun crimes occur in Southern cities.
So, yeah, cities are dangerous. What else is new?