I'm not saying that it's not a part of what needs to happen. Well thought out, thorough gun control is something thats going to be a part of this.

But as shit as it may be to say, with current gun culture, the 2nd amendment, and the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable searches makes the sort of gun control adopted in other countries improbable here.

The suggested legislation that I hear typically revolves around storage, which leading up to a tragedy is unenforceable (4th amendment) and therefore can't prevent a mass shooting. The banning of firearms wholesale, which is unpopular in so large a part of the population it would be practically impossible. Restrictions based on features that are so ubiquitous it would be like banning smartphones; it's not that there aren't guns without them but it's most guns made within the last few decades.

My perspective is that gun control is the surface level way of dealing with a growing symptom in this country. One that taking away guns doesn't actually fix. It's the knee jerk reaction "quick fix." That doesn't really fix anything, just hides how deeply broken our society has gotten.

So personally, I'm not against gun control in principle. I'm against the "common sense" gun control proposals. Because many of them are formed with minimal understanding of firearms or from a narrow viewpoint on how people use guns.

(As an aside, I'm against the term "common sense" gun laws because it insults anyone that disagrees, puts them on the defensive, and makes having a good discourse on ways we can work together to solve the issue.)