That's a false choice. Why does it have to be one or the other? You continue to approach this as though it's a binary problem. We can address gangs, repeat offenders, drugs, mental health issues and social dysfunction while also implementing sensible firearm regulation. In fact, that's exactly what many developed countries attempt to do. The flaw in your argument is the assumption that because guns are not the sole cause of violence, that the focus ought to be on solving society issues - without addressing gun control because of 'rights' (the Second Amendment). To borrow one of your favourite forms of argument; equivalence: seatbelts don't prevent reckless driving, but we still require them because they reduce the consequences when things go wrong. Firearm regulation can be viewed in much the same way. Address the root causes by all means. Tackle gangs, drugs, repeat offenders, mental health and social breakdown. But also address firearm regulation and the extraordinary number of guns in circulation. The two approaches are complementary, not contradictory. One seeks to reduce the causes of violence. The other seeks to reduce the lethality of the outcome. Given the scale of firearm deaths in the United States, it is difficult to argue that both don't deserve serious attention.
Create an account or sign in to comment