Acknowledging limits can seem to be a fatalistic acceptance of the status quo

From American Heroes, Universal Evil by Andrew Klavan. He is quoting Mollie Hemingway.

We're pretending we're having a debate about gun control, but we're really having a debate about the nature of evil and whether a big enough government can contain it.

A great insight. Forget gun control, it is a marginal topic as it would not make any difference in virtually any of the mass murders that have occurred in recent years. See Glenn Kessler's fact check of a similar statement from Marco Rubio.

If we are not focusing on policy which would reduce or eliminate mass murders, then why are we discussing the policy. It is as if there are two tragedies that go in tandem - the first being the mass murder and then the wasted political capital discussing legislation which would not make a difference. Maybe there are policies which would make a difference. If so, why are those never the ones being discussed.

I think part of the reason goes to Hemingway's observation. This is not a discussion about effective legislation in the first place. This is a debate about 1) the relative size of government in an individual's life, and 2) the circumstances constraining public policy effectiveness and the acknowledgement that there are some problems which are either inherently unfixable, that some systems are too complex for workable solutions or that the trade-offs are too unacceptable.

It is a complex debate because acceptance that there are some problems that are unknowable and/or unsolvable creates an upper limit on the appropriate size of government. It is an especially difficult debate because acknowledging limits can also seem to be a fatalistic acceptance of the status quo.