> Those countries probably didn't have access to firearms in the first place.

Agreed, guns are a driving factor.

But you're also right that it's gun culture. Others here have noted Sweden has a higher per-capita rate of guns to humans than the US, the same mental health issues affect swedes as Americans, yet they don't have daily mass shootings. So even when there are a lot of guns, and mental health issues, there is still a way to prevent daily mass shootings.

> Most people who think unrestricted access is the problem are people who have never bought a firearm.

That's great you had to go through all that, but it doesn't seem to be working at scale. People who are enthusiastic about guns are responsible for the culture you've created around guns, and the laws on the books for guns. Because the rest of us would have very different laws if we had our way. So really, you have to justify yourself every time a mass shooting happens. This gun culture you're putting on display here just doesn't work.

Because many if not most mass shooters acquire their weapons legally. It's like, the whole argument has become "only criminals don't follow the gun laws, so therefore we should make it as easy as possible for them to acquire weapons, because otherwise it would just inconvenience ourselves, since there's nothing we can do about criminals anyway. The best we can do is arm ourselves to the teeth everywhere we go in public life, and at least we have a fighting chance. This is the best way to run society."

> All of this does pay off. My wife and I were confronted by an aggressive homeless person once.

I'm very happy this encounter worked out for you and your wife. I've been in the same scenario, many times, without a gun on me, and it can be scary indeed! Last time a man in the Castro in SF was wielding a hammer, and roared at me and my wife and her friend like a lion. It worked out fine for us, just as it worked out fine for you and yours. The question is: would this have worked out the same way if you hadn't had your gun? Yeah. Seems like it according to your story. So then what good is it doing?

> So saying that people are "so fearful that they feel they might be compelled to use deadly force in ordinary public situations to protect themselves"

But... what you just told me contradicts this. You were so fearful of the world that you brought your gun, because you felt that you might be compelled to use it. That you didn't use it when you were provoked does point to restraint, which is admirable; but it doesn't erase the fear that you had initially felt which caused you to bring the gun in the first place. Because why else do you have it unless you feel you might use it?

Because the way I see it, the safest, least trigger-happy, and least fearful people in the US are people who don't bring guns with them into public life. We sometimes have scary interactions with scary people in public life, and the vast majority of the time they don't end in bloodshed, because guns aren't part of the equation. Other countries get this, America does not. The gun culture here does not allow this perspective, and instead constantly tells you that you need your gun otherwise you are unsafe without it.

The rest of us living our lives gun-free know that we can be safe without guns, and we appreciate events in our public life, such as technical conferences, to be gun-free as well.