Brooklyn hospital shooting: Why gun-control is not working in America

So a few days ago a deranged doctor went to a hospital and opened fire on people with a NY SAFE Act compliant rifle. Among other things the NY SAFE Act, bans "assault weapons", which are defined by the Act as:

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

  (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

So basically this:

This is illegal in New York under the NY SAFE Act. Looking at what happened and where it happened what I get out of this is that gun-control doesn't work. It didn't work there and it didn't work in California which has equally strict gun-control, when two jihadists decided to shoot up San Bernadino, when a loser who couldn't get laid decided to shoot up a college town, and when a disgruntled UPS guy showed what brown could do for you.

I have two main points on why gun-control isn't working in America. First, it doesn't work because it's a copy-paste solution from places like Europe and the People's Republic of China. Second, simply put, gun-control proponents in the legislature (usually Democrats in states like California and New York) have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Both of these points go hand in hand.

A copy-paste solution from a foreign culture:
I've mentioned before, American cultural development is unique to much of the world. One of the ways that makes it unique from old world powers like Great Britain to the West or China to the East, is that the cultural identity of what's "American" didn't exist until after the invention and mass proliferation of the gun. Ancient empires like Rome were built and spread with the sword, but America on the other hand, was established and settled with the gun. Unlike Old World nations like France, the gun has marched though history with America from Day 0, there were no American knights who rode into battle. There were American colonial militia who took up their flintlock rifles. There wasn't a moment in American history where the gun wasn't there. Guns and the United States have a relationship with each other unique to the rest of the world. So in order to find an effect solution to this uniquely American matter, will require a uniquely American solution. America is the New World, as such, her problems will require a New World solution. Old World solutions won't necessarily work here.

The biggest reason why copy-pasting gun-control laws from Australia like what Hillary Clinton hinted at won't work here (and quite possibly played a factor in her losing to wresting heel like Donald Trump) is because Australia doesn't have the cultural relationship with firearms ownership that the United States does. The problem is, many of these politicians either don't understand this (which seems to be the case since they always point to solutions from the Old World), or they're attempting social engineering to remake American culture into something else. Regardless of which it is, they're essentially trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Most politicians don't know what they're talking about:
Before you make rules about something, it makes sense to know about what that something is and what it does and how it does it right? You wouldn't write traffic laws without knowing anything about cars and how they operate. Well that's what's happening here. You might be wondering, these people have access to all sorts of experts that can educate them to make informed decisions, right? Well, that is true, but the operative word here is can, they can educate them, whether or not they actually do, is a whole other matter altogether.  

I can tell they don't know what they're talking about because all these rules and regulations they like to make up have nothing to do with a gun's internal mechanics. But everything to do with cosmetic features. For instance, this is the rifle used by the shooter (no I'm not going to name him, I'm not going to add to his infamy).

So what's the difference between that NY SAFE Act compliant rifle and the other one above that's illegal in New York? Mechanically? Nothing. The guts and internal working parts are identical. Hell you could even swap the parts between the one the shooter used and the one I posted up above.

Well why don't they just do a blanket ban on that kind of mechanism? Because the constitution doesn't let them. Semi-automatic technology, regardless of the method used, has been around since the late 1800s. Being such old technology, it has naturally proliferated though the civilian market, and is in common use. And speaking of "common use"...

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. - United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174)

This ruling has been taken to mean that firearms in common use cannot be banned. The AR-15 is probably the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US. As far as firearms go, it's literally the physical manifestation of "common use". Perhaps that's why politicians try to ban features rather than type or model line? I don't know maybe, or maybe I'm giving them more credit than what is due.

The other problem with this is that it ducks the human element behind the trigger. Like I mentioned, semi-automatic technology is over 100 years old, so what that tells me is that it wasn't the gun that changed, but it was us. Now was it us, in that now everything that happens gets attention/reported, meaning the number of instances has remained the same, we just hear about it more? Was it us, in regards to mental health? Was it us, in regards to society? What ever it is that changed in us, gun-control completely ducks the matter and moves the onus onto an inanimate object. It makes the gun a sacrificial talisman in order to avoid dealing with the real, and difficult, societal problems.

So what's the solution?
The solution is actually pretty easy, the only problem is, it's only as easy as we, as a country, make it out to be. What do I mean by that? Well, both sides are going to have to sit down at the same table and break bread.

As I mentioned, giving the politicians the benefit of the doubt, of just being ignorant as opposed to maliciously trying to remake American culture into what they think it should be, don't know what they're talking about. They don't know the mechanics and technicalities of firearms, nor do they understand the cultural impact and attachment. If they don't know, then who does?

The gun owning community.

They understand the technical details of how these weapons work, but more importantly, they're the ones who understand and appreciate their cultural effect. In other words, they know guns. Because they know guns, they're the ones who would know what works and what doesn't. The problem is though, in places like California and New York, the community is more often than not, left entirely out of the decision making process. That's why they're angry, the laws that get passed have major, direct impact on them, but they don't even get to have a seat at the table.

But, with how polarized American politics has become, thanks to both Hillary's divisive, us-against-them, identity-politics driven campaign and Donald Trump, well... being a WWE heel character, I don't think that'll happen any time soon. Neither side trusts each other, both sides are angry at each other, and both sides are doubling down on their positions. While there is common ground, no one wants people getting murdered, neither side is willing to budge on how that can be addressed. One side thinks recklessly passing knee-jerk emotionally based laws will accomplish something, while the other side thinks any dumbass yahoo should have a gun.