There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:
Indeed.
So, what's more effective?
Reducing the scope of those seeking to commit such atrocities to a small fraction of those now, or hoping for improvement via symptom whack-a-mole?
I see we're projecting in our assessments. I can understand how being confronted with proof one's opinion is wrong, may you deal with it with grace in the future.
Right, like bringing about constitutional amendments requiring a majority of states and Congresspeople instead of a change which simply requires a majority of Congresspeople.
So much more feasible.
Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful.
You seem to be close to a moment of understanding here but not quite getting it. You seem to recognize that there are other tools available to affect such disastrous outcomes we'd be doing nothing to address, but to also pretend that there's no indication nor chance anyone would use any of these other tools.
You seem to recognize the futility of the whack-a-mole game while recognizing its existence.
Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.
It really isn't. How much effort do you believe will be required to bring about an amendment to the constitution of the United States?
How much less effort will be required to bring about simple legislative changes? By simple comparison of the two vectors of change, one of them is unquestionably easier than the other. Spoiler: It isn't undoing the 2nd amendment.
Interestingly enough, you seem to double-down on the previous recognition the problem - pressures toward mass violence - would be left unaddressed but with the vast majority of options for mass harm still very much present and ignored.
The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.
Which is more effective: A change which is quite impossible to bring about, or a change which can be brought about with some difficulty and compromise?
Which is more effective: A change which removes one of unbounded options to bring about a given end, or a change which reduces the count of people seeking to bring about a given end with any tool available?
We both know you know the answer.
You respond as if in disagreement yet the article affirms everything I’ve said lol.
There is no single profile for a mass shooter. Your best chance at getting any one thing correct about them is that they’re male. 94% chance.
I'd be interested in your reasoning here as the article summarily disagrees with your first statement; it highlights an incredible degree of commonality among mass shooters above and beyond "male".
You'd have to read it to know that, I suppose.
I'm glad you found the copy/paste buttons, but I do wish you'd bothered to read up.
I wasn't aware candy required going through a background check and being a legal adult.
It's also impossible given the state of partisan gridlock and the constitutional amendment necessary.
Fortunately, actually solving problems here is far simpler than asinine bans.
Let's not pretend the incredibly common pattern only consists of two people while pretending an actual outlier - Vegas - is somehow common.
If only there were other factors which could impact the highlighted systemic issues... perhaps Canada's notable single-payer healthcare system, social safety nets, etc. impacting the desperation and providing help?