Problem with that is in places that have very strong guns law happen to have rampant gun crime. Go figure.
This is demonstrably untrue. Here are several highly reputable reviews of per capita gun violence by state. Per capita rates should be used as it helps to normalise data, given the most crime of any kind is going to occur where there are the most people, so you can’t base comparisons on nominal rates of crime; i.e. New York is going to have many times the total instances of gun violence than Wyoming because New York City alone has 13x the number of people than the entire state of Wyoming.
The states with very strong gun laws generally have to lowest per capita rates of gun violence. The states with very weak gun laws generally have the highest per capita rates of gun violence. There are a few exceptions, but nonpartisan researchers have attributed relatively higher rates of gun violence in those few states with strict gun laws to gun trafficking (illegal activity, which ironically often starts with legal gun purchases in states with week gun laws) and organised crime (which is aided by state-by-state gun laws, rather than federal-level laws, allowing bad actors to source guns from states where they are easy to acquire and hold, often en masse).
While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.
www.pewresearch.org
www.cdc.gov
Gun violence in 2024 was highest in Mississippi, followed by Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, and Montana.
www.statista.com
Additionally, states (and countries) that have the highest rates of gun ownership also generally—and unsurprisingly—have the highest rates of gun violence. Here is a rundown of the phenomenon from an Ammo supplier (which is fairly accurate, unfortunately)!
Which states have the highest rates of guns per capita? This article breaks down gun ownership by state.
ammo.com
As a side bar some mope tried to carjack judge sotomayors security details vehicle. He got shot for his trouble. Ironically, the judge is a strong advocate of gun control ie anti gun in citizens hands. Yet another case of rules for me but not for thee.
Any politician/celebrity who advocates banning guns should not be able to have any and that goes for their security detail as well.
That incident actually highlights the need for stronger nationwide gun laws, as the person who shot the carjacker (who was an untrained civilian) was part of Sotomayer’s security detail (trained member of security/law enforcement). Even the federal gun laws that the most progressive Democracts want to pass would not restrict gun possession by trained members of law enforcement, government security, or military personal engaged in official duties (unless they have been disqualified due to illegal activity in the course of their duties or private life, like in cases of convictions for domestic violence or instances of gun crime).
It is not a case of “rules for me but not for thee”—Sotomayor and other progressive Democrats support strong gun laws for civilians that have no need to own or use a gun as they are not a member of a “well-(state)regulated militia”.
Perhaps if the US had implemented stronger federal gun laws two decades ago, the attempted assassination of Trump would not have occurred.