The remoteness of government argument is interesting. In terms of geography, USA is much like Australia: there's a few fringes of population centers and most a whole big, void, nothingness. In terms of percentages, USA has more actual wilderness than the African continent, which says something.
So it stands to reason that remoteness is similar to that of Australia, but less pronounced than in Russia or Canada -- both of which "dwarf" the USA.
On the other hand when it comes to managing people, crime especially, what matters more tends to be the population centers. In that respect comparisons with the UK are not at all unfair. You say well, the USA "dwarfs" the UK, because it has about 5-6 times the population. Well, then, take the EU as a whole. Roughly double the population, over 70 official languages to contend with and more problems and conflicting interests than we care to mention. Still the old "where there is a will, there is a way" continues to ring true.
Simply put: I don't think there is any logical explanation that can point at empirical fact backing up the assertion that the USA cannot change its gun laws. The only thing preventing it is located between your collective ears.
Bookmarks