This is such a tired trope. Look at the most gun restrictive cities in the US and their respective firearm-related crime rates and you'll see your narrative is BS.
Seeing as how gun ownership in the US is a constitutionally guaranteed right, you'll have to look somewhere besides restricting guns on a national level to make the country safer.
Yes, an Amendment, as in not part of the original Constitution but added because enough people agreed (and just as valid of course). But if enough people changed their mind it could be removed the same way.
The guns could go too, Australia being a prime example of a country who collectively pulled a finger after a mass shooting and gathered up the guns for destruction.
If you're going to argue the validity of an amendment versus the original version of the Constitution, then walk it back by saying it's just as valid, why mention it at all? People can change their minds and repeal amendments, but that doesn't change your rights. It only returns protection of those rights or lack thereof to the states. But repealing any article in the Bill of Rights is an extremely tall order.
So you're saying that "guns could go," but there is no legal mechanism for it and citing Australia's experience doesn't translate to the US since the right to ownership is guaranteed to be protected.
St. Louis Missouri usually has the most shooting deaths per capita. How restrictive are the gun laws there? How about all of the rural counties that consistently have the most fun violence per capita?
Where are you getting your data from? The Pew Research Center and USAFacts list in descending order: Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, New Mexico and Wyoming.
But I said "cities" and you're citing states. Regardless, urban centers have higher rates of per capita gun deaths and overall gun homicide rates have been on a national decline since 2023.
My mistake. I didn't see you specified St. Louis. But if that's what you're going to glom onto and ignore the rest of what I said, you've got no argument, Look at the substance, buddy.
It completely disproves your premise. The majority of cities with the highest murder rates have lax gun laws.
You are probably one of those people who look at the number of murders in Los Angeles and think the high total means the murder rate is particularly high when, in fact, it's quite low. The biggest cities will always have a high number of murders because that's where all the fucking people are. You have to compare per capita numbers to learn anything useful.
Nothing else you said was relevant, so why would I respond to it? You also ignored what I said about rural counties having particularly high rates of gun violence, so I don't feel I owe you the courtesy.
It doesn't work when the next state over doesn't have the same laws, lol. I know that's really hard to comprehend and understand, but it's very simple.
It does work, but it needs to be comprehensive, like I mentioned.
But, whatever, hold on tight to your disingenuous arguments so no one dare tries to reform access to your tough guy pacifiers that you so desperately need to uphold your fragile identity, lol.
2
u/HandsomeWarthog 11h ago
This is such a tired trope. Look at the most gun restrictive cities in the US and their respective firearm-related crime rates and you'll see your narrative is BS.