Adding to your points a little bit...Sponge, I like you and I agree with a lot of your points, so just countering a few here respectfully.
In Louisville today there were 2 armed guards at the bank. That didn’t stop 6 people from getting killed (probably more with some hit in ICU).
Police responded in Uvalde but hesitated to engage the shooter.
I’m not for defunding police but good guys with guns are usually little resistance to a psycho with a semi or fully automatic assault rifle who ambushes them. Aside from that, good guys with guns can’t do anything about a guy who sneaks weapons into a hotel and fires from an elevated position on a crowd after he’s barricaded the door (Vegas).
To me the “it’s the guns” vs “it’s the people” is a tired and pointless argument. Reality…it’s some of the guns and some of the people who are able to access them way too easily. Like everything else you probably have 98% of people who are responsible gun owners and can handle an AR-15 or a bazooka for that matter. You just can’t allow the 2% to have easy access to those weapons and that’s where we are at and why so many people die in these senseless tragedies.
So what do you do? What’s the right answer? Not sure there is one. Yes criminals will access them anyways, but in a lot of these cases it’s not criminals it’s people who were able to purchase them easily or get them from someone they lived with who did. If you ban these weapons they will be for sale on the black market, yes, but will be way more expensive and difficult to get for the type of individuals launching these assaults. And if they are launching these attacks with a legally purchased Remington deer rifle or 9mm vs an automatic weapon with a 50 round mag, the death toll for these incidents will be far less…and I think for the reasons these people want to commit these crimes…mass casualties, many of them would not commit them at all.
Uvalde was obviously a massive failure. But if you haven't seen the body cam video from the school in Memphis (not the abbreviated version packaged for nightly news - the version MPD released), then go find it. That's how an active shooter response is supposed to go. Barely 3 minutes between rolling up to the curb and "suspect down," and the whole time cops are moving toward the threat. It wasn't just textbook - it's going to re-write the textbook. In spite of that, the suspect killed 6, and could have gotten more by going room to room instead of standing at the 2nd floor window and shooting at cops. I'd still buy beers for either of those guys...although they don't look like they're old enough.
Almost every mass shooting is perpetrated using weapons that were purchased and owned legally. It's pretty rare that they aren't. There's been several where the guns were "borrowed" from a parent who didn't secure them well enough, but even those are a minority. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that while some reasonable restrictions might help, gun laws by themselves are not going to address the issue.
The clear answer is that we have to address the guns and the people. At the same time. And with measures against the people that liberals won't like (we're going to have to call some people dangerous and separate them from society) and neither will the conservatives (some guns and/or accessories just don't have a benefit that outweighs their risk).
The interesting thing to me is the current Supreme Court's take on things. They want an originalist view of restrictions, but refuse to recognize an originalist environment - when the Constitution was written, a really good, fast marksman could fire about 4 shots in a minute. Even more interesting that Clarence Thomas is one of the leaders of that interpretation, since from an originalist perspective, he wouldn't get to vote, and would only count as 3/5 of a person in the census.