>> If you are willing to tolerate people being hurt and killed by stray gunfire. This is implicitly baked into the 2nd-amendment cause. It's the primary reason

>> If you are willing to tolerate people being hurt and killed by stray gunfire. This is implicitly baked into the 2nd-amendment cause. It's the primary reason this is such a hot-button political issue. Nothing comes for free. Every benefit has a cost. In the case of guns some part of the population belive (strongly) that the benefits outweigh the costs. The rest (strongly) believe the opposite. The benefit of gun ownership is the idea that the citizenry can overthrow a future hypothetical tyrannical government [1]. The cost is the many lives lost in the real world now. While it may be impossible to say, the phrase "if a few children must die to protect our way-of-life, then that's a price worth paying" springs to mind. [1] the actual efficacy of such a resistance may be questionable (it didn't help the confederacy for example) that's not really the point. The argument is that merely the threat of such an uprising prevents the tyrannical govt from forming in the first place. Of course the argument may be nonsense. New Zealand has survived tyrany with little to no gun ownership, whereas tyrany in places with high ownership, like say Iraq, is not uncommon - which suggests there are other factors in play. But the quality of the argument is not material. The fact is that a significant number of people believe that guns are important, and that the cost of guns is worth paying. Ultimately that is the problem that is "not solvable".