Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings.
> depriving tens of millions of citizens a right guaranteed to them by the constitution for no fault of their own
If you actually cared about the constitution itself not the fairly modern interpretation reinforced by lobbying group paid with money from gun manufacturing industry, you'd be strongly advocating for the state governents to have right to equip and maintain armed forces independent of federal goverment. Bacause that was the letter and the intention of the second amendment while it was written.
It was not about citizens owning guns. It was about states owning sufficient army to counter federal governemnt if it descended into tyranny.
> Mass shootings, while horrific, are a tiny fraction of the total number of homicides in this country. We definitely must address mass shootings, but our plans must be both realistic and not compromise the safety of many thousands more.
However mass shooting are a thing that very large percentage of people is not willing to accept as the cost of increased security. Especially since any security benefits of having country drowning in guns and ammo are very hard to prove conclusively.
> The places in this country that have the worst homicide rates also have the strictest gun laws.
It doesn't really matter if a person can cross state border with a gun that is easily and cheaply available with zero hassle on the other side of the border.
