Except the debate in the US is focused on putting some modest controls on the sale and ownership of guns. For the right, background checks and red flag laws are considered an absolute infringement on a constitutional right enshrined when muskets were in use. States like Tennessee are passing “Constitutional Carry” laws that allow for purchase of guns to anyone over the age of 18 without any background check or training.
The only discussion of banning is over AR15s, the gun that so frightened cops in Texas they refused to go after the shooter in the school.
- Canada Cup
If you want to change the goalposts to those fighting to put "modest" controls on guns, that's your prerogative, but that ain't the extent of the Second Amendment debate.
More than 2/3ds of all gun related homicides are handguns. AR15s amount to an exceedingly small amount of those homicides (less than 20/year).
And sure, the Uvalde cops were (frank)ing cowards
(a Mom ran into the school to save her kids while those (frank)s twiddled their thumbs outside) but it would seem the Nashville cops bravely performed their duty.
The "muskets" argument is so patently absurd it's not even worth debating.
Having said all of that, I'm all for stricter gun licensing and having mandatory training required before purchasing. Hell, I'm all for having gun owners renewing their training after a certain amount of years. Cops especially - their required training is lacking to an outrageous degree (they should have many, many hours of gun training each year).
But to pretend this is a black and white topic is profoundly wrong. And, if I may use an on-the-nose pun, there is no silver bullet solution that will reduce mass shootings per gun control unless you go after all of them.