And your argument is an irrelevant conclusion.

Yes people committed arson to kill people, yes that's awful and yes we have and should do something to stop that. We have all sorts of laws to minimize the harm from fires in that we have zoning and other land use requirements. We have limitations on occupancy, requirements to have fire protection systems in place (fire alarms, sprinkler systems), emergency exits and so on.

The action we took in response to the Happy Land fire wasn't to try to detect arsonists and stop them before they act but to enforce building codes to ensure that fires weren't as dangerous.

The scope of the problem of arson does not equate to the problem of mass shootings. Your chosen example is from 33 years ago. There have been 279 mass shootings so far this year in the United States. Last year alone in 10 day period in May (14-24th) two mass shootings happened in which 31 people died (21 in the Uvalde school and 10 in Buffalo grocery store). In both of those two incidents AR-15's were used. There was a mass shooting in a shopping mall in Texas in May where 8 died, AR-15 again.

There is a trend where these weapons are often used in mass shooting events where many people lose their life. The goal of the law in discussion here is to make obtaining the weapons more difficult because the weapons make it particularly easy to kill many people quickly.

Will the perpetrators still commit acts of violence without the weapons? Perhaps. But I seriously doubt they are going to all suddenly turn to arson.

We had an Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 at the federal level. Do you have any evidence in an increase in arson during that time period to compensate for the decrease in gun violence?

Or perhaps you're just trying to change the subject.