>>19435639I think the problem is that the cat's already out of the bag, so if you tried banning guns you'd only take them away from their legal owners, while all the illegally-possessed ones (which make up the vast majority of gun-related crime) will still be in circulation.
I remember seeing a giant reddit screenshot from an AMA of a politician who wanted to ban guns, and it contained some pretty interesting information about guns, and for example how legal guns are used A LOT to stop crimes, so even without the obvious deterrent (criminals think twice before fucking with someone who might pull out a gun and kill them), restricting gun ownership would somewhat reduce the supply to criminals, but it would drastically increase the amount of crime being committed, both from people not being able to stop crimes with their own guns, and from criminals knowing that they're the only ones with guns and their victims are unarmed.
You'd first have to eliminate the illegal guns and "solve" armed crime, before attempting to regulate legal ownership.
Then there's the elephant in the room which is the race issue.
We all know that a huge part of that gun crime is from black people (mostly killing other black people), so trying to improve their situation so that crime is no longer so prevalent in their communities, as tall of an order as this is, would also drastically reduce gun violence.
