So in in the US every citizen has a right to bear arms. It was (and perhaps still is) believed that an armed citizenry is a healthy way to ensure the continued security of a free State.
This belief is etched into the Constitution of the United States and likely will not be changing any time soon. Fine.
What can change, and can be iterated upon are the rules and regulations around how people acquire guns, how people can actually have their right to gun ownership revoked, building upon laws that make threat of violence punishable and other supporting efforts in the realm of mental health, etc.
There exists right now a party within the US government that has shown no interest in participating in any sort of iteration despite the (mostly avoidable) american loss of life at the hands of one or two heavily armed individuals in public settings.
This party believes that more guns, not less, are the solution and that if more people had weapons everybody would be safer for it. Mostly based on the idea that "you can basically be assured that the person you're likely to assault is armed just like you."
At the same time, this party is very much against a country like North Korea (and the rest of the world) gaining access to Nuclear weapons despite North Korea's sovereign right to defend itself from those that would do it harm.
If they believe that it works at home and the loss of life is just the cost of a free society why don't they support every countries right to arm themselves. Would it not act as a huge deterrent if *everybody* knew that *everybody* else had the ability to fire back at the same level? Is this not the same as arming teachers in class rooms to defend those who may not be able to defend themselves?
Does anybody else see the hypocrisy in this? Are we to takeaway from this that it's OK for Americans to keep killing themselves, that's just the cost of being free but the only people that can beat up on Americans is other Americans? We're willing to label Kim Jung Un a madman and at the same time work on a diplomatic solution; Why isn't diplomacy (iteration) being attempted at home? Why aren't these gunmen being labeled as domestic terrorists (which is the only word that seems to unify a failed two-party system)?
What're the takes here?
EDIT: this was meant to be in off-topic. plz move?