Sorry, but that article (especially consdering that it's quoting a study from Mother Jones of all places) is complete garbage. You can't have a "discussion" about these topics if the "facts" you use to make your point are misleading, out of context, and ignore other relevant facts (i.e. the fact that the violent crime rate involving guns is on a constant decline over the last 30 years, and that cities with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest crime rates). I agree that this is a polarizing issue, and that as a result few legitimate solutions to the problem can be found in such an environment. I also believe that the pro 2A crowd need to take the lead on increasing awareness around crime and sensible gun ownership, including making safe gun storage one the commandments to safe gun ownership. But I also feel that each time a mass shooting occurs those who don't like guns stand on the graves and wave the bloody shirts of the victims to make use of an opportunity to get rid of the thing they don't like. For example, none of the legislation passed in New York would have any impact on preventing Sandy Hook. I also believe that each time new gun legislation is suggested that the anti-gun legislators stand on their boxes asking for "common sense" reforms and for a "compromise" to improve public safety. The problem is that their compromises only include infringements on the right, and no enhancements. For example, I'll give you universal background checks if you defund/disband the ATF. Now there's a compromise. Or I'll give you improved mental health reporting into NICS if you make all class 3 weapons fully legal and unrestricted. Unfortunately when it comes to compromise, the only comprimising that's ever suggested if for law abiding gun owners to compromise a RIGHT (not a privelage) that is guaranteed by the constitution. So yeah, consider me polarized.