Well that's one extrapolation, but it isn't the only one. The lawmakers might have tried to contain the gun crime problem by implementing restrictions. For example, consider a small town community - somewhere like Victor, Idaho. (picked at random) Not much crime there, so the powers that be have seen no reason to vary the gun rights set out by the 2nd amendment.
Then consider a much larger city (you pick one) where gun control has been introduced. You're saying that gun control doesn't work because the crime is still high in that city. But have you considered that if
nothing had been done, the gun crime might be even worse?
It's difficult to draw an analogy, but here's something: Imagine a middle class town, where everyone owns their own home, and is full of old farts in their 50s - people like us - who drive safely. There'd never have been any calls for a seatbelt law, and probably little or no need for one. But then consider a larger anarchic settlement, where people drive like idiots in busted up cars. TPTB mandate compulsory seatbelt usage to counter the carnage. It helps to a degree, but still a few people are killed - side impact, car overturns, whatever. The erroneous conclusion that could be drawn from that is that "seatbelts don't work and don't save lives".
Just a thought...
SOB - because I often exercise my right to leave Britain and visit the US, and I need to consider my personal safety! Still, the lady from the car rental agency says I'll be OK.
