Honestly I’m a bit shocked that you don’t think a 10% reduction in gun deaths would be a big deal.
I don’t recall saying anything about it being a big deal or not, just that 50% would be definitely significant.
I tend to be careful about matters regarding the enumerated rights. Since history doesn’t record many cases of governments giving rights back to the people after absconding with them.
Politically — as I’m sure you’re aware — repealing the 2nd is completely impossible.
So your suggestion that any ‘significant’ reduction relies on this step could quite easily be read as “let’s not do anything about gun control”.
I think preventing 3,000 deaths is significant. It wouldn’t even be that pricey.
See? It just depends on how your define “significant”. It’s a subjective term, after all.