Once we start down that road, we have to just keep banning more and more things forever, despite the fact none of those things are covered by the second amendment and could be banned right now if we actually wanted to.
First: Yes, that is the way things work. We’ve seen that happen in other countries. Moving outside of guns specifically, that’s happened with abortion rights; first it was just some abortions, then all of them (depending on the state), then the right to travel to another state, now they’re working on banning birth control and overturning no-fault divorce.
Second: No, 2A doesn’t specify guns, it says arms. So if you wanted to ban knives and swords because they’re arms, then there’s a 2A argument against it.
Meanwhile, guns account for 81% of those homicides because they’re more lethal,
That’s not the argument you think it is. Yes, people use the best tool that they have available. If that tool magically didn’t exist–and there are more guns than people in the US–then people would switch to a different tool, and you’d be talking about how people used X because it’s better than Y, and so we need to ban X.
People in other countries have these same debates, trying to create ever stricter security measures to prevent crimes, even though they have far, far lower rates or murder. The argument is that there needs to be ever more invasive gov’t control, because that’s the only way to make people feel safe and secure.
Sure. Let us know when you’re done building that utopia so we can look at actual crime stats that actually exist
Much like your utopia where guns don’t exist?
Until then, why do you staunchly oppose measures designed to reduce the number of murderers
Why do you resist the social changes that would reduce violence across the board, and not just one specific subset using one tool? Why do you want society to stay sick while eliminating a single manifestation of that sickness?