Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that - with the constraint of what's currently being proposed, a small set of tentative / cautious control

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that - with the constraint of what's currently being proposed, a small set of tentative / cautious controls around gun ownership - that there's not much to gain, so consequently there's not much point trying ... ? If that's roughly it, then I'd suggest: a) the cautiousness is a political necessity - and does not preclude the option of pursuing stronger, but similarly sentiment policy changes down the road. First steps, and all that. b) my understanding is that even very basic, not hugely contentious (almost bipartisan support for) ideas, such as removal of full automatic and ridiculously high calibre from the marketplace, stopping sales at gun shows without background checks, cooling off periods, requiring safe storage gun cabinets, etc - would result in a measurable decrease in deaths (murders, massacres, suicides, accidents). In any case, it feels like even if (b) wasn't a highly likely, the cost of doing it is relatively low to the potential (but, really almost guaranteed) outcomes. > I find the oft-said quote of "If we can save even one life..." type of argument a massive red flag. I don't speak for all non-American citizens, but outside of the country looking in, it feels like (media, social groups, etc) this past year or four we've had an alarming reveal about the attitudes of a surprisingly large portion of American society -- even if something trivially inconvenient is requested of them, that demonstrably will save the lives of other citizens, there's an instinctive and violent push-back. So, yes indeed - suggesting that some lives could be saved probably isn't a sufficient and satisfactory argument for many people there. But that's a separate problem.