If someone is crazy they aren't more intent on anything. They're not rational at all. I'm just saying it's a lot easier to kill people with guns.
I'm not saying that any sort of gun restrictions are the answer. I'm just saying we don't really know, and part of the answer MIGHT be in there somewhere. To put it in scientific terms, I would say gun control of any kind would be more of a hypothesis rather than a theory. There are reasons to think various things that fall into that category would work, there are also reasons to think they won't. So no side of this is just presupposing anything. We have data to support various conclusions, so it's a valid hypothesis. To know if it is going to work, you would have to try it, like conducting experiments. That's the only way to get good empirical data on this, and separate guns from all the other issues that come into play here.
I think we are getting to the point where the experiment may be worth doing. Before the data simply wasn't worth doing the experiment, but now it might be worth it.
That said, doing things that reduce violence in general, will proportionally reduce gun violence. That is the main area we need to focus on. I think this is going to involve providing mental healthcare to people. Other social issues need to be addressed, and many of these are unfortunately unlikely to be addressed any time soon, because the collective societal wisdom has not reached that level yet.
Once we handle these other issues, which unfortunately will not be complete in our lifetime, no gun restrictions of any kind will be needed, including what we have in place now.
What I don't want to see, is the status qua where nothing gets done, or any major inconvenience to gun hobbyists and hunters.
I guess it's not surprising though that I am the only one willing to consider that I might be wrong about some points in my longstanding position on guns. I've changed my position on countless issues over the years. Most people it seems stake out their position beforehand, and then find things to support it, and are usually unwilling to consider they might be wrong. I did that too when I was very young. But I realized eventually that the evidence must come first, you can't just presuppose, and then get your other positions and opinions via the confirmation bias of your other presupposed ideas.
Even when you arrive at something logically based on proper evidence, you should be willing to accept new evidence showing that you might be wrong. Sometimes we discover things are a little different than we thought, because we discover something previously unknown.
I do think my position is mostly right, however it might need revising. There could be a couple points where I MIGHT be wrong. I'm not even saying I was for sure wrong about anything, because I don't know. I'm just saying I might have been wrong, and I'm considering that, as you can see from the first part of this post. It would be nice if everyone (not just here) were willing to consider that they might be wrong too, rather than compiling reasons after the fact to convince themselves they are right, while examining nothing that indicates they are wrong.