Gun ownership still makes sense.
The Taliban aren't joking.
You are grossly under-estimating what it takes to fight an insurgency. A military fighting in the same country on which it depends is vulnerable to attacks and sabotage on all its support infrastructure. You can't just carpet bomb areas of resistance because that creates more resistance elsewhere or destroy the country you're trying to control. It's a hard problem and on some level you have to get people on "your side" to win in any sort of long term sense.
And to the commenter who said modern militaries could never be stopped by small militias, you have only to look seriously at our adventures in Afghanistan and the fact that we're still there. The AK 47 is a less accurate, high-recoil stamped out piece of garbage compared to the AR 15, and it's all you need to stop a modern military in its tracks for decades.
Police forces are heavily militarized because of the bonkers amount of money thrown at them in the name of the "War on Drugs" and more recent "War on Terror". Note the connection between "war" and an increasingly militarized police force.
A better response to mass shootings would be to desensationalize the media coverage, which since Columbine has been indulging the shooters' motives to shock society.
Incidentally though this whole thread is grossly off-topic and I expect it will be collapsed or detached.
Gun laws haven’t gotten laxer in the last couple decades either - many states have strengthened them. There isn’t a clear connection between weak gun laws and mass shootings.
(That said, a total and effective ban on guns would of course stop mass shootings and other gun violence - if it could be implemented successfully)
But then, the cherrypicked, tautological nature of this goal is elided by gun control advocates--reducing gun violence without addressing the root social causes of violence is just a shell game.
Do you have to list all the things you aren't protecting your home with?
Unarmed riot can be dispersed using tear gas etc, no need to kill the civilians. Armed riot requires actually killing the opposition.
While government will almost certainly succeed in killing the militia the international opinion is wholly different in that case. 10000 person protesters dispersed vs 10000 killed.
Any pro gunner will tell you that the 2nd amendment is sacred, except it’s first clause, that’s meaningless.
Look, I'm all for stricter gun laws, but at the same time not everyone lives in a (sub)(ex)urban area and a blanket ban simply will not work.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"