And the vast majority of black men who die by gunfire, die at the hands of other black men, not someone of another race. That is a cultural problem. (I am including historical and economic issues under the greater heading of culture.) It is dangerous to imply that the rights of one race must be curtailed, because members of another race are unable to stop killing one another. The argument would still need to be rejected out of hand, even if the killing were exclusively across racial lines - one race being almost exclusively the victims of another race. If the killing is across racial lines, where race A is killing race B, then (1) the members of race A still need to be able to defend themselves from one another, and (2) the members of race B need to be able to defend themselves against both race A, and race B. In the end, everyone's rights get curtailed, and the killing continues.C: “I’m not talking about what we do to protect the city. I’m talking about the fact that as a black man I am 3 times more likely to be killed by a gun than you”
Q: “He’s got a point”
We already know what it looks like when the rights of one race are curtailed so that another race won't have to address its systemic cultural issues. It was called Jim Crow. Whites disarmed blacks because whites didn't want to confront the concessions they needed to make toward a more egalitarian society. Today, we look at blacks who wouldn't surrender their guns back then as heroes of the gun rights movement. If the shoe were on the other foot today, whites who wouldn't give up their guns should be viewed the same way.
Curtailing the rights of the population at large is never the right answer to bad behavior from individuals.