Siegel M, Ross CS, King C 3rd. The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981-2010. Am J Public Health. 2013 Nov;103(11):2098-105. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409. Epub 2013 Sep 12. PMID: 24028252; PMCID: PMC3828709.
"Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."
This took 12 seconds. The article is freely available. There are other reasons to ban guns from homes, such as accidental fatalities due to guns. See below.
Vaishnav A, Smith GA, Badeti J, Michaels NL. An epidemiological study of unintentional pediatric firearm fatalities in the USA, 2009-2018. Inj Epidemiol. 2023 Jun 26;10(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s40621-023-00438-5. PMID: 37357309; PMCID: PMC10291813.
As well as relationship with DV... Below also cites studies that tell you guns are now the leading cause of child death in the US (as opposed to vehicles, which was suggested earlier in this post). But again, iirc vehicle related child death Vs. gun related child death tends to be a close call and they tend to switch roles every year or so.
Lockwood K, Rowe C, Sager E. Policy Recommendations to Address the Nexus of Domestic Violence and Gun Violence. N C Med J. 2023 Jul;84(4):233-237. doi: 10.18043/001c.81269. PMID: 39302302.
Where have you ever seen anyone argue that the 2nd amendment should be amended (word choice intended) to prevent having to hold people accountable for their actions?
You can decrease the risk of events happening - AND hold the culprits of such events accountable. It's an option.
You argued for armed guards in front of schools. This is done in zero western countries. Is your "potential to deflect a possible detrimental event" with your 2nd amendment, really worth denying that gun prohibition.. simply works, lol?
Carl Sagan has made an argument about how much investment is worth what kind of detrimental event, and used this argument to compare the cold war costs for the US (enough to buy 100% of the materialistic content of the US, and US property outside the US, with exception of the US land itself) with the investment being made to the detrimental event of natural catastrophies due to humanity's influence on the environment. The cold war fear of Russian invasion never happened, but it was argued that one must be prepared for such an event and one must be willing to go to great financial lengths to enable this preparation, for the unlikely event, because of the severity of this unlikely event.
I posted it below, it's an interesting monologue for either side of the political scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C6co5qXEE4
/e I also personally believe that posting guards will only incite more mass shootings at schools, but I haven't data to back this up and can not be fucked to look it up. That'd be a longer search and argument, and I am not going to write a thesis of how certain barriers to an event actually incite the event. Too much unpaid work ^^
My point was that democrats just use kids as pawns to pull at people’s heart strings. If they really cared, they would protect schools AND try to legislate guns, not just stubbornly obsess over legislation. Criminals break laws - no amount of laws will stop a criminal. Even if guns are completely outlawed, what we have now will be in rotation for the next 50 years. If they cared about saving lives, they would take an “any means necessary” approach, not their “my way or the highway” approach.