...Nah. I mean, sometimes, it's definitely a racial thing, but not so often anymore.

Mostly you hear gun control arguments because of a perpetuated cycle of 1) lack of knowledge, 2) misplaced fear, and 3) ignorance. Let me explain. It starts with lack of knowledge- and this is understandable. Guns are far more complex than most people realize, and I don't expect everyone to be able to wax poetic about direct impingement versus piston driven or know the difference between .223 and 5.56. But we fear what we don't understand. And this is also perfectly reasonable! Guns should be respected and feared in the same way that we should fear getting behind the wheel of a car or climbing the stairs- two much less glamorous things that are much more likely to kill you this year. The problem arises when people are more afraid of the gun than they are of the violent person behind it. When they misplace that fear, and they decide to villainize an inanimate object, that's when you go full semiautomatic. That's when you start to spread fear of the shoulder thing that goes up. That's when you make an ass of yourself claiming that a ghost gun can shoot a 30 caliber magazine clip in half a second. In short, that's when you only pay attention to and make up the facts that back up your assertions that guns are bad. All of this is in direct contradiction to logic (obviously) because what you need to fear and control in this equation is not the gun, but the asshole wielding it. A person without regard for- or perhaps even intending- mass collateral damage is not restrained by choice of weaponry. It's the creative and patient psychopath who is more dangerous than any one man with a gun. If the intent is mass casualty, nothing is stopping you from manufacturing explosives, poison gas, any number of lethal devices in your basement. A bomb will kill anyone nearby indiscriminately. A person who's only intent is to defend themselves and others has a more limited range of options. A ranged unidirectional weapon with adequate continuity of fire is the only responsible option. I can build a flamethrower, or a bomb, or a grenade launcher, or etc, etc, etc, but I can't stop a mass shooter at the mall with it- at least, not without massive collateral damage which would probably include human lives. The only thing any person can pick up and use to instantly be on equal footing with an attacker, while minimizing the potential for collateral damage, is a firearm. People prefer to conveniently ignore this fact because it forces them to face their fear of firearms, and to realize an even more dangerous threat- a violent person who can't get their hands on one, and begins to realize the benefit of patience and omnidirectional weaponry. This ignorance in the belief that by disarming you have not only disarmed your opponent but rendered them harmless, compiled with the hope that you will never find yourself in a violent situation (and that if they do, the belief that everyone can be reasoned with or that a good guy with a gun, i.e. a cop or soldier, will arrive in time) is why we have people arguing for gun control, and I feel sorry for the poor sheep. There are things that we could be doing to reduce violence in this country but we're focused on removing people's basic human right to self preservation in extreme situations. Mainly what we need to be doing to break this cycle is to start at the beginning and give people necessary facts, to educate them as to why firearms are necessary in modern society, and break taboos by having firearm safe handing courses in public schools. Knowledge of the subject can only be beneficial to the general public. These are not the only things that we can do- better mental health care, tax deductible purchases of safes and safety courses, all of these things would help tackle the problems of violence without implementing any gun control whatsoever.

But no, I don't see it as an inherently racial thing, usually.