No, I'm just not part of your 'club'. I'm not allowed to be because of my sexuality, because of my gender, and because of my race.
Although I suspect you might have made a special allowance if I had thrown rational thought out the window in order to humour your insistence of exceptionalism.

His comment clearly read that it doesn't matter that more people are killed via another method, he only cares about this one.

So that seems to contradict your insistence that the issue was with enforcement, rather than with the laws in question:

How else am I supposed to read it?

The overwhelming, I mean, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast incredibly huge
majority of semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles are never used in a
crime.

Semi-automatic weapons are completely different; one trigger pull equals
one shot, and the 'guts' are completely different than in an automatic,
so there's no converting one to the other.

but to think that the military will suddenly be okay shooting the people they're sworn to protect, well…

Which is a paradox - why do you need to gun down the government if you have the army on your side already to do it for you?

Here's the thing - there's loads of places all over the world that have gun controls in place, but still permit their citizenry to own some sorts of firearms depending on their circumstances.

To be honest, this feels more like a social problem than a legal one.

The procedure requires an overwhelming majority I seem to recall; because it is a REALLY big deal; and the current political system is such that such a majority is unlikely to be awarded to any given party - much less be established as a cross-party consensus.

Reading the SCOTUS judgement on this issue is mind-boggling. Essentially the argument boiled down to "nowhere else in the document is the syntax identical to this; so we're going to ignore its obvious literal meaning and instead assume it's tangential rather than conditional".

The fact that this psychopath was able to somehow buy an AR-15 after
being interviewed twice by the FBI, traveling to Saudi Arabia twice for
unstated reasons, and apparently having communications with known
terrorist groups says substantially more about the incompetence of our
existing gun laws and their enforcement…

You say "was motivated" - at present the situation is "'maybe could've been motivated'; but probably was using it as a justification for precisely the sort of homophobia that you see in all sorts of non-Muslim's hatespeech in the US".

But there wasn't this kind of horrible incident during the Great Depression, was there?

Considering that my "entire point" was exclusively concerned with what followed the "but" - the bit where she insists that "straight white cis males" don't have any cause to live in fear - I don't think that is the case.

Have you ever been a woman who had to decide whether or not it was safe to say "no" to a man?

That's not telling someone how to react; there is no imperative there. That's a factual statement regarding how terrorism operates.

Maybe don't tell someone how to react to a tragedy.

What's your honest opinion?