> If you look it up, the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas that have the most gun laws.

Highly populated areas tend to be Democrat-run. People commit crimes so places with more people = more crimes. More gun crimes cause people to push for more gun laws. Gun laws limited to cities (or even states) have limited impact when it's trivial to get guns from neighboring areas without those laws. Gun laws with limited impact can still be helpful.

It's not as if we don't know for a fact that legislation works (since it works for many many other counties) but a patchwork system of laws that only applies to some areas and not others is bound to perform worse than federal systems. Even federal systems need to be smart and actually managed and enforced correctly to work well.

> Disarming people is an unacceptable solution for many reasons.

Disarming people is an acceptable solution for many reasons. We already do it to all kinds of people in many circumstances. It's just a question of when/how much is appropriate for which circumstances.

> The best solution to gun crime is to arm the law-abiding.

Only if you're a gun/ammo manufacturer. Real world evidence has shown over and over that the best solution is laws placing legal regulations on firearms. We can point to nation after nation whose gun problems are drastically lower than ours because of the laws they enacted.

On the other hand, there exists only fantasy world evidence that giving every man woman and child a gun would solve the problem. Arguably it's already been tried in the US and the result was complete failure.

> the most gun crimes occur in Democrat-run gun-grabber areas

The most full stop, yes. But that's not surprising, is it? Since densely populated places disproportionately vote blue.

But not the most per capita:

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116676/documents/...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/04/28/red-s...

https://xkcd.com/1138/