“If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns. ”
Seriously though
THAT is precisely my point
Nobody would seriously argue that there is no individual who benefited from having a gun. The question is do we look at the individual or the collective
If you look at antiseatbelt magazine (if there was such a thing ) they would highlight a few people whose lives were saved by NOT wearing a seatbelt.
We ignore those few at look at the collective ALL must wear a seatbelt (in most states) because overall we all benefit. sure an individual might not.
THIS is the point of disagreement
The Constitution argument is fluff, for arguments sake lets say it said “an unregulated gun toting populace being fun, the right of each individual to bear any arm wherever and whenever he wants shall not be infringed ”
That still wouldnt answer the OP here was his question “I am genuinely confused by Americans who have tried to explain why gun control is not the correct response to hundreds of mass shootings a year”
Answering oh the constition,… doesn’t address his question, so change it. And if not why not?
Your reason is twofold
1) The cat is out of the bag, there are two many guns
2) Some indiviudals benefited
#2 Is where we disagree (as I said in my first post)
#1 Might be another point of disagreement, I’m not yet sure if it is a real argument or not