Would you support a targeted form of gun control? For instance, if statistically it could be shown that 13% of the population were responsible for >50% of all gun crimes, wouldn't it make sense to focus on removing access to guns on that group first?
No, that would conflate socioeconomic factors with race and be unconstitutional, for good reasons.
I would get rid of the second amendment. There may have been good reasons to introduce it back in the day, but at some point it's time to move on. As I said civilized countries don't need this.
Not sure what you mean. Please elaborate your thoughts...
> and be unconstitutional
Guess what else is unconstitutional?
Surely you must realize that the practical way forward with gun control is to slowly increase restriction over time?
Jumping directly into an outright ban / constitutional amendment situation is a waste of effort.
Having said that, shouldn't these increasing gun restrictions seek to reduce gun deaths by their maximum ability? For instance, I would imagine you support restricting drunk people from driving as a sensible way to reduce car-related deaths? Therefore why would you be against targeting specific groups who produce a majority of the gun-related deaths?
What chance of government-mediated genocide does it take before accepting an extra ~8000 murders/year makes sense? Not very high, in my opinion. (And that assumes that half of all gun homicides go away, and aren't replaced by other weapons)
One genocidal government killing 0.5% of the US population every 250 years is 8000 deaths per year if my math is correct. With how everyone seems to be complaining of the US's recent descent towards fascism, I find it rather disingenuous to argue that a genocidal government is less likely than that.
