The US has third world problems, so let's compare them to first world nations without those problems? Doesn't entirely make sense to me.
I mentioned making a gun from a coconut and radio, which I straight up borrowed from COKTOE's earlier witty reply which mirror's yours.
Not great for school shootings under 3 conditions:
1) If they only do so singlehandedly. They could just partner up like they have before, or start to team up instead.
2) If they only made a single gun. They could just avoid background checks and get their hands on more coconuts and radio's and bring a bag.
3) If they choose a school unlike Uvalde, where the cops actually stop you instead of just watching the shooting like it's a war reenactment.
They had to get close to Abe, and did so, quite easily. How much closer could they have gotten? What other weapons could've been viable?
You'll never improve when you only look at the ones below you. The US wants to be a first world country but then it has to fulfill all the basic requirements and not just GDP per capita. Life expectancy, wealth inequality, homicide, labor rights etc. are all important parts of being a first world country.
But you make it seem like as long as it's better than North Korea and Syria, everything is fine. I mean seriously, how can you not at least compare the US to Canada, which is not only a neighboring state but also culturally almost the same or at least similar. After all, the US has the money and means to change all these things but it just doesn't happen. And that's the reason why it shouldn't be compared to Brazil, Mexico, South Africa or whatever.
As for the coconut radio gun thing, you saved me the work to demonstrate how much harder it would be compared to a regular gun.
1) The need for one or more partners to do decent damage. Makes it more unlikely to happen. Also when trying to find a partner, more people will know of the plans and thus increase the likelihood of them warning the police.
2) More of these guns doesn't change the fact that their bullets have less impact than regular bullets, are more inaccurate than regular guns and you have to get close to fatally harm someone. I don't see how a bag would help since you can only fire two bullets and then have to either manually reload them or grab a new gun from the bag, which you would have to carry around at all times.
3) The cops certainly didn't do a good job in Uvalde but a worse gun also means less risk for the police when storming the place. They could easily kill the guy without risking any harm as long as they keep the distance.
Thanks for explaining why banning guns would lead to less school (or mall) shootings and even less dead people in case it still happens.