When it was written there was no standing army nor police, so it allowed people to quickly form an army if required and allowed people to defend themselves. These are not as important points as they were at the time. But one that has gotten more important with time (I believe) is that it was also meant to allow citizens to rebel to a "tyrannical government". In other words it was meant to prevent the US to become Russia, North Korea or China - Not without a fight at least.

I also think that restricting guns is not guaranteed to work. If you look at the UK, gun restrictions are pretty recent and there was a time both the US and the UK had freedom of gun ownership. Yet the UK had very few mass-shootings.The UK might still have few mass-shootings even with less gun restrictions.

On the other hand, some countries that have very strict gun restrictions but have higher gun violence than the US (e.g. Mexico).

So the reality is that it's complicated.

>Klinger thinks it is essentially "making money on the backs of the fear that people have. We have been prioritizing the wrong things over and over and over and then wondering why nothing changes."

Somebody goes and adapts a product to a new use case, and it's doing things wrong? Seems to me it's actually something novel being done.

I too would like to see something drastically different done. Arming the children would probably go leagues beyond anything else, or say... requiring police to put their own lives at risk as part of doing their jobs, or training teachers to do the same. Or adults realizing that the world is a fundamentally dangerous place and taking responsibility for protecting not just their own lives, but their fellow man's...

But hell, that's hard.

Can't have that.