While it's true that many other nations don't have the same issues with gun violence as the U.S., it's important to remember that each country has unique historical, cultural, and legal contexts. For example, Switzerland, a country with a high rate of gun ownership, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Therefore, the correlation between barring guns from public spaces and societal benefit isn't as straightforward as it might initially seem.

Regarding your proposal to freeze the manufacturing of new firearms, it's important to consider that the majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. Therefore, such a measure may not significantly impact crime rates, but it would likely affect legal gun owners who use their firearms for protection or sport.

As for implementing a firearm tax, while it could potentially disincentivize gun ownership, it could also inadvertently create a system where only the wealthy can afford to exercise their Second Amendment rights. This could potentially lead to socio-economic disparities in self-defense capabilities.

I agree with you on the importance of strict background checks and training certifications. However, I'd argue that these measures should be complimented with efforts to tackle the root causes of gun violence, such as social inequality and lack of access to mental health services.

Could you explain how we can ensure that these stricter regulations, such as a firearm tax or freezing the manufacturing of firearms, do not disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens or create socioeconomic disparities?