You forgot the death lovers excellence ancesters born from the smelly holy hole.

Fenders grandad was an electrician, nothing more!

Sure, they could. But how does one drive a truck into an elementary school? I think the social contagion aspect of this should not be discounted. Basically the worst thing someone can do in our society, their way to say "fuck the world", is to get a bunch of guns, walk into a school, and shoot a bunch of kids. That's what our world in America hates most, and that's what they perform as their final act.

Why not try to make that a little harder for people who are clearly in the profile of those who might do this? This obviously isn't about seizing guns or anything, it's about making it a bit harder to get access to guns that are so deadly and are at the forefront of this issue. How does restricting AR-15 purchases to restrict 18 year olds or even 22 year olds mean that America has gone astray?

The argument that these people, who mostly are closer to the side of mentally ill rather than geniuses, would resort to more deadly means, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They aren't that competent, they are grabbing whatever they can most near to them to inflict as much death as they can before they escape their shitty lives. America lets them buy death devices at their nearest store after they give their signature.

Is this not why it is reported as such? The shooty stuff happened outside of the usual shooty place.

well for one its legislating around the most remote niche cases, like piloting the titanic around an icecube. What good does any such legislation do for the actual epidemic of suicide and violent crime? But even if you could restrict AR-15 purchases to 18 year olds, this is not going to stop anyone capable of getting around that, by theft or fraud, or simply using a handgun like Santara said, which is more common and probably more deadly. And importantly, what we're both describing is a social phenomenon, like you said not just based on dispassionate logic but like I said, on a monkey see monkey do script. Imagine if in some crazy timeline the democrats actually got guns out of the hands of those few would-be school shooters, and it stopped being 'in vogue'... only for them to take up death race 2000 tactics instead. I mean, the real arbitrary social construct here isn't gender, its terrorist methods. If you actually somehow took away one, what makes you think it wouldn't be replaced by something worse?
trying to ban AR-15s in response makes about as much sense as trying to ban transgender kids

a vehicle is certainly the easiest way to carry out mass murder, but usually these things are also suicide by cop now, which doesn't always work in vehicles like the incel from Toronto

What good does it do to let people under 21 buy AR-15's without a sufficient process which might weed out some shooters?

Obviously I'm not a strict 2nd amendment supporter, and I know you aren't, so what's the problem? If we can make purchasing long guns harder for people who don't already have them, and the longer process could weed out some of the people who have done mass shootings, what's the issue? You could argue it won't change much in regards to mass shootings... I agree. But if a specific policy change would have restricted mentally ill lunatics from acquiring their deadly weapons, what's the reason to oppose it?

Any time we're talking about restricting someone's liberties, let alone constitutional rights, it should never be premised in 'why not?'. It needs an affirmative case. There isn't a slope as slippery as saying some rights guaranteed by the constitution can be arbitrarily restricted for reasons we acknowledge don't even serve a significant societal cause. We could be talking about due process or the right to not have the government quarter soldiers in your private domicile, as long as its there written into the fabric of our system of government we need a pretty good reason.

coming from the radicals that happily ban books and free speech at schools that's pretty fucking hilarious...

This presumes some ideas, which I've never heard you affirm. You think the drunks at the Constitutional Convention affirmed the rights of any citizen above 18 years of age the right to own a handgun and rifle?