And I’m not saying that the solution is more McDonald’s. 
No. What you’ve described is assigning blame, which is a worthless navel-gazing activity, solves nothing, and serves only to comfort those who stand by and watch while tens of thousands of Americans perish every year.
Basic problem solving involves reviewing the dozens of times the problem HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLVED and DOING THAT THING.
At best, at it’s most charitable, you are proposing Advanced Problem Solving, where you ignore proven solutions and tackle the problem by doing something no other society has ever accomplished in human history, make people not be violent anymore.
Since we’re starting to be busy throwing shade at other posters again, I’d like to redirect back to a main point in discussing what additional laws posters here would suggest. I’ve laid out several I’d support, as has @Cheesesteak. Even @DrDeth has suggested that we need new laws governing how Red Flag laws can work and suggested that a more impartial party in the debate (specifically the ACLU as an option) help develop rules that protect individual rights at the same time.
As an example, we’ve had a recent thread discussing the current state of biometric safeties for firearms, with a general feeling that so far, it’s potentially a good idea but currently too flawed to even begin to implement due to cost and consistency. Is this an area we should focus?
So, do we have more useful suggestions?
Who did I blame?
Honestly, this banning guns idea is remarkably silly from those on this board who are indeed very intelligent. Have we stopped the drug problem by banning drugs? Why do you think guns will be different?
A person who wants to undertake a mass shooting wouldn’t care about the price of a gun or its illegality because he is intent on breaking the most serious and ancient law there is.
My useful suggestion is that, moving forward, we just ignore the same old disingenuous talking points rather than turning this thread over to re-litigating the same old bullshit like a thousand threads before. Maybe if we starve the bad-faith debaters of oxygen they’ll eventually return to their own laughing-gas-filled bubbles.
Ok, but are we going to say that, for example, Mexico is not a civilized country? I mean sure they have issues, but they are civilized.
Because other places have succeeded in doing it. That’s the only reason. I didn’t make up the idea. I don’t have some fetish about what other people collect. Other places have done X to reduce gun violence and their gun violence is 80-90% lower than ours. It doesn’t matter what X is, it reduces gun violence.
OK, so what are your suggestions?
Sure, but most Euro nations didnt start out with a gun culture like America.
And then many went thru a period of fairly recent dictatorships that removed most civilian guns by draconian means. Germany, all of Eastern Europe, and the various Nazi Occupied states, and of course Spain.
It’s a place where 30,000 people a year are murdered by drug cartels and 40% of the population lives in poverty. Feel free to attach whatever descriptor you want to it.
It’s also a bunch of straw, as that is not the position of the OP, nor that of posters who are actually trying to take this discussion seriously.
Please focus on arguments that are made, rather than making up your own to valiantly defeat.
They would care about its accessibility, as if it’s not accessible, then they aren’t able to go on their spree. And that is what is being discussed in this thread, the accessibility of guns to those who would abuse them.
I see that others have already answered and seemed to have no difficulty understanding what I mean. The point is that the US rates of gun violence compare very poorly to other countries that are culturally and economically similar, variously referred to as the rich countries, developed countries, industrialized countries, economically advanced countries, first-world nations, and other such terms. Obviously that’s just what I mean when I say that with regard to effective gun policy “My reference point is how such standards are applied in civilized countries that do have a handle on gun violence.” And equally obviously, when I refer to “gun control measures in every first-world country on earth”, I am trying to draw an appropriate comparison with the US, which goes without saying and without having to point it out is also a first-world country. Trying to pretend that I meant something different seems disingenuous.
I note also that you object to such comparisons because they’re “cherry-picked” is equally absurd. The comparisons in the first chart below are not “cherry-picked” to win an argument, they’re just a handful of representative countries most socioeconomically similar to the US, and they have all effectively controlled the gun problem. If you include other developed countries for a more complete list, like the UK, the point is even stronger.
You rather humourously continue to insist that the only valid comparison is to compare the US with the entire world, not just economically similar countries. Well, there’s a bit of a glimpse into that in the next chart – in the world’s worst 20 countries for firearm death rate, 19 are even worse than the US. They include places like El Salvador, Venuzuela, and Afghanistan. Those are valid comparisons when assessing gun violence in the US? Seriously?
Seriously? This again?
Mexico has a gun problem because despite having a fairly high level of industrialization, they are infested with powerful violent drug cartels and rampant government corruption.
What “recent dictatorships” have there been in Canada? In the UK? In Australia?
Canada started out with exactly the same kind of colonial and frontier culture as the US.
Modnote: As the Op isn’t interesting in debating other posters and as per my earlier note. I’m going to close this thread now.