This is undoubtedly true. But I swear, I just don't understand this logic.

I mean, if it were considered a solemn, noble, patriotic activity to give 20% of your income to the government in order to maintain roads and schools and other public services, you could get rid of the IRS and their budget and more money would be introduced Ito the U.S. economy than the tax system currently produces.

But do you think this is the best way to maintain public services? Or do you think taxes and tax rates should be compulsory? How about laws against rape and murder? How about speeding laws or drink-driving laws?

If you could dramatically change people's mindset and behaviour, all kinds of legislation would be unnecessary. But that's obviously a much harder, slower, likely unrealistic route to progress. And given that the stakes in this instance are dead children, slow doesn't really seem like a sensible approach, does it? Please help me see what I'm missing here.

You talk about how the same solution won't lead to different results. And I think you're absolutely right. But the attempted solution so far, in practical terms, has been next to nothing. America is the only developed nation in the world that has this problem. And by an enormous margin. Why not sincerely try one of the many solutions that other countries have proven to be effective? Ending mass shootings is a difficult problem, perhaps impossible. But reducing them is so incredibly easy.