Because the gun laws in place are about as far as things can go without repealing the second amendment. Further laws are either doomed to fail or make only marginal differences.
Those bills and proposals waste precious political capital that could otherwise be used passing laws that address the root causes of homicide.
Congress loves to let issues fester to garner attention and drum up support. They've been fucking around with the debt ceiling for decades to do that, and that's a problem that they create from whole cloth.
The political will of the populace to make real changes to address the root causes of homicide are squandered by focusing on the weapons used. Want to see those bills pass? Don't buy into the dog and pony show that is gun control.
If you really, truly believe that banning guns is the silver bullet to solving homicides get the second amendment repealed. All the half measures that get thrown out time and time again are usually unconstitutional and doomed to fail, they're just there to keep the public engaged.
They'd have my vote, along with probably tens of millions of other independents.
Honestly, gun control is the "poison pill" of the Democratic platform. They've got a ton of great ideas and policies but demand one of your civil rights in exchange. Even for people who aren't into guns, the idea giving up any civil right is problematic to say the least.
Buddy, you're obsessing over the means. Focus on motive.
I'd rehash the same points about how a person can commit mass murder with a car, but for guys like you talking about murder weapons is like being a pig in shit.
You're missing the point, none of them really want the social safety nets, that would kill the wedge issue. Keeping people arguing about gun control drives political engagement and votes. Both parties have a vested interest in not resolving the issue. Actually solving the problem would be a nightmare for them.
Look, if you want to spend the rest of your life watching your elected officials chase symptoms in order to drum up funds and votes, go right ahead. Just don't say you weren't warned when you let them get away with it.
When politicians are looking to score points with the public will they enact expensive social safety nets, or will they push for cheap and quick weapon bans?
Do politicians care about efficacy, or do they care about appearing to take action?
If a person's goal is to reduce homicides the means need to be decoupled from the argument. It's highly counterintuitive, but four decades of US domestic policy have proven that if the means of homicide are a part of the discussion politicians will focus on it in order to look like they're doing something without spending enormous amounts of taxpayer money - efficacy be damned.
Because people around here don't like hearing that there's a strategically valid, logistically viable method for clearing out the last Hamas stronghold in Gaza while minimizing civilian casualties.
Apparently nobody noticed that the moment the IDF started evacuating civilians and moving in Hamas is suddenly open to accepting terms. What I outlined is the thing they fear most: their leadership on the ground getting grabbed.
Other than destroying the infrastructure as you mentioned, in an evacuation/refugee scenario it's possible to identify individuals and check them against available intelligence.
Israeli intelligence has had a lot of time to at the very least identify Hamas's chain of command. While the odd low-level fighter might slip through, any leader would get nabbed before they made it into a refugee camp.
All it takes to be a CEO is to be the person in charge of running a company. There are a lot of companies that are a lot of different sizes doing a lot of different things. If you start your own company you're the CEO, but you're also the head of sales and the person who makes coffee runs.
The stereotypical CEO (who makes boilerplate, sanitized public statements) is stereotypical in the first place because they run big companies, reporters care what they have to say. If you read the news you hear their words a lot.
Smaller firms, self started firms, and a lot of the more unique operations that would have CEOs that go against the stereotype don't make the news often, so the stereotype stays intact.
Not making me feel better about my previous statement...