Chicago has a total ban on firearms.
Yet, so far in 2012, 500 homicides were committed with about 95% of them being committed using firearms.
Surely gun rights promoters would say that banning guns within the city limits has had no effect on homicide rates. Perhaps they are right, but only because the US has too many divergent laws on gun permitting, trading, and licensing.
Also, there are no limits on the number of guns a person can have or trade. 'Divide and conquer' appears to me the motto of the gun rights activists.
The same people who support gun rights as a fundamental human right must realize that anybody from Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, and other surrounding communities can legally buy guns, without many limits on the quantity or type.
So, if, say, I lived in Wisconsin, close to Chicago, and were perfectly able to buy guns legally, I could buy 100 Beretta 9 MM guns at $450 each, file the serial number off, and then sell them to gangsters or psychos in Chicago for $700 each. Nobody would have a clue where the guns came from. I could easily make $25k, just like that. I do not live in Chicago and would not have any guns on me while I travel to Chicago. Police surely cannot be everywhere at the same time.
Certainly, -almost- all illegal guns everywhere on any American city street started up as legal guns. So, gun ownership illegality is 100% derived from perfectly legal gun ownership. Legal gun ownership is the source of all homicides committed by firearms.
Then, what is the point of a firearm ban in a locality surrounded by other localities with free flowing firearms? It is totally pointless. A localized firearm ban would work only if all localities would have the same symmetrical bans. This would imply a national ban, and, given the US realities, that cannot happen.
I think the only viable solution to addressing divergent gun laws across localities would be to make gun and ammunition ownership be direct object of taxation.
Each gun owner should declare the guns and ammunition they own, by type, and be assessed a federal excise tax depending in gun/ammo type, caliber, customization, etc. We do that for our home(s), retirement accounts, car(s), pet(s), boat(s), RV(s) ownership, etc.
The IRS should create a new 1040-GUN form to allow for itemization of all the guns and ammunition.
Where I live I have to pay $25/year to 'license' a single pet. Why can't we legislate the need to pay a yearly gun licensing fee as a source of quasi fiscal revenue to the federal government?