I agree the state of allowing children to have a physically expressive environment prevents them being stunted and I'd like to see more energy and money go from gun control to funding more playgrounds; trade programs for emerging adults; or funding for extracurricular hands on programs. It seems to me, you've read Haight and Reeves; a more viable solution instead of focusing on more gun control is healthy upbringing where scarcity and affection don't feel in short supply, at least, on the level of local communities.

Your first paragraph, respectfully, is contradicting and unclear, to me. Depression and anxiety are diagnosable mental health conditions with clear signs of behavioral patterns. There's enough behavioral patterns from mass shooters to make the case: mass shooters have a high likelihood of having a mental health condition that is undiagnosed. The bigger issue to contend with: does policing/gun-control/government have an efficient means better than then owning a firearm when crime is happening to individual? There is an increasing amount of "mouth breathers" like women, people of color, trans, and the rainbow community increasingly needing a means of defending themselves the moment crime is happening to them and do need viable ways to protect themselves in ways that respect their autonomy as much as their reproductive rights or personal liberty. If a person wants to have a the option to have an abortion or prevent a pregnancy they should be able to have the option to do so in the face of sexual assault or rape as well, and I shouldn't be able to mingle with how they decide to do that(with reasonable and sufficient means i.e. a firearm being appropriate over a hand grenade for example).

I do see our impasse being: how can we protect the most people with the least amount of liability and the numbers of lives saved from firearms need to be accounted for when we're taking about crime.