I am more than happy to accept that poverty is a major factor in violence. Not a problem at all. Other factors include gangs, the trade in illicit drugs, racism, and de facto segregation.
You seem to have a fixation on southern cities, which bothers me because some of the worst violence happens outside of the deep South. See the chart below:
The town or city with the highest violent crime rate in the United States is the city of Industry, California with a rate of 42,857.14 per 100,000 population.
If I relied on my age as proof I am correct, I’d be a fool and you’d be a fool to believe me. When I said I had data, I wasn’t kidding.
Here are the murder rates by state. You associated the Southern states with being more “gun friendly” but I have have to ask, “More friendly in relation to what?”
In the chart below are the murder rates for every state. The states with the red borders are what’s known as constitutional carry states. In these 16 states, there is no permit required to carry a concealed handgun. Kind of hard to get much more gun-friendly than that. The states with blue borders are considered the “Deep South.” Only Mississippi is both a permitless carry state and one of those considered to be in the Deep South.
States such as Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming probably have some of the highest legal gun ownership rates in the country.
As for the combination of poverty and rates of murder, California, Kansas, Montana, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia all have higher-than-average poverty rates and lower-than-average murder rates. Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia are certainly gun-friendly states. West Virginia has the fourth-highest poverty rate in the U.S.
It’s fair to challenge your thesis that making guns harder to get legally will benefit the people in poorer communities. Criminals and gangs have little trouble obtaining firearms and prices often aren’t as much of a barrier for them as they might be for regular citizens. So instead of saving lives, you might simply be creating more victims.
Contrary to popular belief, criminals don’t get their guns from gun shows or by taking them from their victims. The overwhelming majority of the guns come from a supply network that includes a thriving black market, friends and families, and straw purchases. More enterprising criminals have gone into the wholesale end of the business, robbing or burglarizing gun stores and even intercepting shipments of firearms from manufacturers to dealers or distributors.
And how many new criminals are you going to create? If you respect the Second Amendment, these people have every bit as much right to have a gun as anyone else but you want to deny to the less affluent the means with which they can defend themselves against malefactors who not only have no regard for your proposed measures, they have no need to have any regard for them because the source of their guns is outside the normal channels of commerce.
In its recently filed majority opinion in Duncan v. Becerra (№19–55376), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez that California’s ban on large-capacity magazines was unconstitutional. A paragraph from the appellate ruling is worth quoting here:
While the political branches enjoy latitude to craft legislation to stamp out gun violence, their powers are not limitless if they encroach on an enumerated right enshrined in our Constitution. Moreover, the Second Amendment is more than just a right guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. As the Supreme Court has held, self-defense is a “fundamental” individual right that is “necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” See McDonald, 561 U.S. at 778. It is also pre-existing. “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). In short, the right of armed self-defense sits atop our constitutional order and remains rooted in our country’s history. Any law that limits this right of self-defense must be evaluated under this constitutional and historical backdrop.
With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the civil liberties protected from federal meddling by the Second Amendment were also made binding on the states.
But you want to restrict that right, or price it out of the reach of those who arguably have the most need of it, despite the fact (and it is a fact) it will not protect those who are often the most vulnerable because those who prey upon them will have guns and they won’t.
Bull! They will have guns. They will simply go to the same sources and buy them regardless of whether or not it violates state and federal law.
There is an old saying about gun control laws: “It’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”
Witness the surge in gun sales in the past five months. I compared the total estimated firearm transfers for March, April, May, June, and July in 2020 to the same period in each year going back to 2000.
Chances are that if officials in certain states had not ordered gun stores to remain closed or if permitting offices had not been closed or hopelessly backlogged, the total would be even higher.
COVID-19 and the civil unrest in numerous cities and towns, combined with reductions in the availability of police and the release of inmates from jails in order to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, produced a buying frenzy that left stores, distributors, and manufacturers with empty shelves and depleted inventories.
Millions of Americans joined the 100 million or so citizens who already owned guns.
So why should millions more Americans be left out? Especially since a fair percentage of them are Black or Latino?
Ida B. Wells, who was born a slave, believed somewhat differently.
While the five states that comprise the Deep South do have a high murder rate, they are no more gun friendly than many other states.
Your diagnosis, to put it mildly, incorrect: Your prescription is even worse.