It does seem somewhat circular.
cameron burgess

The problem wiht your analysis is that is glosses over the “ease of access to firearms”. Yes, inner-city gangbangers can easily get access to firearms. The fallacy is that adopting laws will change that.

Criminal gangs are, by definition, made up of people who don’t care about obeying the law. Murder doesn’t bother them. Why should violating a law about illegally owning a firearm? That’s comparatively minor.

Criminals also have easy access to firearms, but not in the same way that law-abiding citizens do. Criminals don’t go into a gun store, negotiate a purchase, fill out a BATF Form 4473, submit photo ID, and pass the required background check before walking out with their gun. They don’t even go to gun shows and deal with private sellers. (A dealer at a gun show is still bound by the requirement to conduct a background check. Private sellers not only are not; they are prohibited from running background checks.) They walk up to someone they know on the street and purchase a gun. That seller is likely not allowed to possess the firearm himself. What makes anyone think that merely passing a law would stop that transaction when it’s likely already illegal?

Passing laws that restrict the availability of guns will only affect the law-abiding citizen. That’s punishing him for the transgressions of the products of inner city thug culture. It’s not the tiniest bit surprising that he’s going to object, loudly, and push back hard.