Couldn't owning more guns contribute to threats in life at a greater rate then they protect individuals?

if people truly have guns to protect themselves, why aren't there more stories about people using them that way than there are about people using them offensively?

And that's not why the second amendment exists, it's not for personal protection it's to form a well regulated militia to fight the government should it become tyrannical.

And a militia is pretty much a gang, so I guess we're back to square one.

So we're just dropping the whole well-regulated militia part of that civil right? They didn't really mean that part right?

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental civil right in the US

The pro-gun community has wasted the last 20 years demonstrating that they're unwilling or incapable of addressing gun violence and they use the second amendment to prevent others from addressing it.

Eventually, the people you've sold out will have no other choice but to repeal it. Pro-gun groups will throw an almighty tantrum but so what? They have no room left to escalate because we already have to listen to them endlessly bleat about guns, we already have to constantly fight them politically and we already live under the threat of being murdered by a far-right extremist with a gun.

access to the means of self-protection is a human right

Sure, if you can prove you're not what we need protection from because you've been sold a gun. Nobody is opposing legitimate self-defense -- that's why they're not banning door locks, burglar alarms and MMA classes.

But just because a weapon could be used in self-defense, doesn't mean it should be sold in corner stores to anyone who wants one. Landmines could be used in self-defense but we all know they'd be used 1000 times for terrorism, arming cartels and killing the family members of reactionary idiots for every 1 "noble" use.

I think that correcting the underlying issues that lead to gang activity would have more benefits overall than trying to ban a constitutional right

Let's take you at your extremely dishonest word and say that gun violence is 95% social problems and 5% access to firearms.

Well the overwhelming majority of the actual people you've grouped as "enemies" support both gun-control and social policies designed to combat inequality, which addresses 100% of the problem. It's literally the progressive platform.

For you to actual have an argument, they would need to support gun-control but oppose progressive social policies -- and those people simply don't exist in significant numbers outside your imagination.

But what about your "allies"? Well the majority of them support neither gun-control nor progressive social policies, for a grand total of 0% of the problem fixed. This tracks with the last 20+ years of them not solving any of these problems. It's literally the Republican platform.

However you're happy to be dishonest so you pretend they all belong to a group that only opposes gun-control while still supporting social reforms. Sure, people like that do exist, but not only are they a clear minority of the pro-gun community, they're still only fixing 95% of the problem

While gang activity exists in all countries, countries with fewer social problems and lower economic inequality have far less of a problem with gang activity.

All of them also have restrictive gun laws, making them far more closely aligned with gun-control advocates than pro-gun groups. They didn't have to endlessly argue over exactly how much gun access, culture, poverty, mental health services and the media contributed to violence.

They just did it all and by your own admission, it worked.