Good question. Two aspects to the answer.<p>1) Let&#x27;s say the article was about people who fell to their death because there was no fence at the top of the Grand Canyon. Let&#x27;s further suppose that this was a pattern and it has been happening with increasing frequency of late, but it is still rare because the random gusts of wind that push people over the edge are rare, and further that the people falling had no idea that it was a risk posed by touring the Grand Canyon. And then you posted that in fact 294 people fell to their deaths every year but that number includes all the people who were out climbing mountains for sport. That number might be horrific, but the mountain climbers understood the risk and chose to take it. The tourists at the Grand Canyon thought that what they were doing was safe.<p>2) The solution for the one problem likely has nothing to do with the solution for the other. If many of those 294 deaths are because of gang violence or criminal activity, magically removing all guns might reduce that number, but it probably wouldn&#x27;t reduce it much. Someone who is out just to shoot up as many people as possible may well not try to kill anyone if he can&#x27;t get a hold of a gun. But someone who needs Guido dead so that he can&#x27;t rat him out, he is just going to move to the next best weapon for the job. A crossbow, or a knife, or a poison dart, or a baseball bat, or a rock, or something.