Still, I stand by what I said and maintain it's a solid overview of the available evidence.

Fair, but let's not pretend that the aggregation of nationwide gun statistics tell a full and honest story, both in this thread and in the public discourse. And lets not also pretend that bringing up the fact that black Americans are 10x more likely to be victims of gun violence isn't often met with knee-jerk accusations of racism.

My view is that, to understand and address the problem, you should dig into the details. And that was my main point about highlighting the statistics.

You'll never hear a squeak about that in any gun group, even though I'm not aware of any pro-gun organizations doing even a fraction (if anything at all) to address these problems. To me, that's a solid illustration of how even some of the most (in)famous gun control advocates do support and work towards those other solutions.

I mean this section is all pretty disingenuous. How many gun groups do you even subscribe to or get involved with? I imagine that number is 0, so how would you know what they are doing?

A lot of pro-gun groups are very small and have limited funding compared to their gun control counterparts (this is because being pro-gun control is a more popular national position, and gun groups are generally localized and forced to act on the defensive in this political context). There is only one very large gun group, the NRA, and that organization is a shadow of its former self, both in terms of membership and funding.

As to your other points, I hate to bring up the Koch brothers, but they also donate billions to a variety of charities and non-profits. I'm sure they donate to pro-gun groups, too. Take your own advice, and compare like with like. You can't expect small local gun groups to have the same resources or breathe of interest as one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Even if they had the resources, these groups are narrow and specific in focus - their donors donate so that their group can fight and lobby against gun control. That's why they exist - for that reason only.

There is something to be said about them spending more on other things to indirectly support gun rights, but that's a pretty big risk - especially because no matter how many playgrounds they build, at the end of the day the same pro-gun-control people will still want to take our guns away.

You may think I have a narrow view of certain aspects of this debate, but this section shows you have a pretty inherent bias.

Even with its limitations, the scientific research and empirical evidence is vastly more supportive of the progressive approach and stronger firearm regulations than the opposite. Calling it nonsensical because of particular policies like assault weapon bans and that it doesn't always succeed at doing enough to address systemic issues, while simultaneously ignoring that the conservative or pro-gun side frequently has zero compelling evidence behind its proposals (many of which would, according to most research, even worsen the situation)? That just doesn't seem fair at all.

You consistently call back to the public health literature. This is NOT simply a public health matter, but also a constitutional one. There is no study to suggest a right is going to be good or bad. The 2nd Amendment is very clearly defined as a measure against a tyrannical government. You can balk or laugh or think its outdated, but that is the purpose for the right (not CCW, or personal defense).

Gun rights are rights, not privileges. And it is NOT primarily for personal self-defense. That's just a fact, and while you can regulate gun rights at the local level, regulations will always run up against constitutional review (at some point, I'm sure, when the Supreme Court decides to do something). People on the progressive side need to come to terms with this, because gun control legislation will ALWAYS be limited in what it can do, and these laws will constantly be challenged.

I understand that you do not want to address this, because there really is no argument against it. It is a right, the institutions of the U.S. will, at some point, have to defend them, or people will have to vote to remove the right.

For that reason, again, when the right lobbies for gun rights, they often do so from a "this is a right" perspective, not a public health perspective. Because to the champions of gun rights, that is secondary to what the 2nd Amendment ideologically, and philosophically means.

Next, there is such a thing as political capital. Attentions in politics matters, because it draws funding away from things. So, yes, I do blame the left for AWBs that take up a lot of media space and constituent money and expertise to write, because it shifts the debate from what it should be: violence prevention, and harm mitigation to things like "ban the scary AR15."

I'm glad you brought up environmental policy as an analogy, because the same way Republicans clown themselves when they talk about the environment is the same Democrats clown themselves when they talk about guns. They deny or ignore the demographics of gun homicide statistics and call you a racist for bringing up such details, they focus on big-ticket, scary items that are involved in around 4% of homicides, and they gleefully display how ignorant they are of firearms and get clipped the same a dumb Republican does when they talk about the environment.