There’s definitely a fight over gun rights in the US more than other countries. It’s a positive feedback loop: gun-related violence prompts for more restriction

There’s definitely a fight over gun rights in the US more than other countries. It’s a positive feedback loop: gun-related violence prompts for more restrictions which in turn prompts people to acquire (and carry) guns in defiance despite not having other, more practical (self-defense, recreational shooting, hunting, etc) to do so and in turn cause more gun violence, intentionally (escalating confrontations to deadly shootouts that would otherwise be resolved without deadly force) or accidents like this one seems to be. It doesn’t help that guns are also a political weapon - whenever a party wants to introduce gun restrictions, the other can use this as an advantage to secure votes (supported by pro-gun organisations such as the NRA). This of course isn’t limited to guns per-se but guns happen to be there and have a cult-like following often defying rationality - a perfect tool for politicians to take advantage of. I’m not sure what a good solution to this would be. In my mind, the right to bear arms is already meaningless - my understanding is the the original purpose of the second amendment was to allow people to be armed to defend themselves against an abusive government - as using these arms to defend yourself against abusive law enforcement is already outlawed and can only result in life imprisonment at best and death (as in by deadly force used by police) at worst. In this case (assuming my understanding of 2A is correct) I believe a solution might be to forcefully restrict gun ownership. There’s definitely going to be turmoil and collateral damage (I believe guns can be owned and recreationally enjoyed responsibly without harming anyone and it would be a shame to let that go) but the advantages of having less guns around might pay off in the end.