In reading through this comment section, I think that it’s an interesting microcosm that accurately reflects broader American society. And this ostensibly more

In reading through this comment section, I think that it’s an interesting microcosm that accurately reflects broader American society. And this ostensibly more rational than average group can’t have this conversation without getting heated, so it’s no wonder that our gun laws aren’t evidence-based. On one side, we have people that are livid that literal children are being murdered - and in schools. And on the other side we have people furious that a right bound up in the fabric of the founding of the country is under threat. And you know what? Both these sides are right. Children are literally dying in schools. And a foundational right is under threat. I (of course) don’t have the answer to this or even how to hash it out. In some sense, I don’t think the argument is over facts themselves, I think the disagreement is about the axioms underneath everything. There are some that have the position that it’s not acceptable that one child die to guns. And if someone has personally lost a child to gun violence, can you blame them? Their axiom is no child can die from guns - the right to life, liberty, etc. And on the other side, if the primary reasoning behind 2A is discouraging or actively fighting tyranny, why shouldn’t they have a fully automatic machine gun? Why not even more capable weapons than that? Their axiom is that tyranny must not take root here. Rights are often in tension — definitely in this case. But I don’t really see productive conversations happening along these lines: both sides are too entrenched.