As for harm reduction, a gun ban is unrealistic and sacrifices basic liberties (whether you think those liberties are outmoded or rarely needed).
In my opinion, nobody would sacrifice anything important at all under a gun ban. They wouldn’t even be inconvenienced. But yes I agree it’s currently unrealistic.
It’s like the ‘free range’ parenting topic, where charging parents with negligence is about harm reduction.
Except no harm is actually reduced and people are actually harmed, making it sort of the opposite of a gun ban.
What if we could put a virtual end to school shootings without a gun ban? Do we even want to try that?
School shootings are a very tiny subset of the larger American gun problem, which is large and will take a long time to address, and there may be a very different political climate before the whole problem is solved. So while solutions that can pass a legislature are preferred in the near term, I don’t feel we should feel obligated to be silent about solutions that solve the problem more effectively without as many downsides, just because they’re currently unpassable.