Gun control does not work

The problem isn't the access to guns, it's the fact that Western society creates sick people, while the supposed sane ones who complain that we need gun control are nolle prossing gun charges, i.e. not enforcing the laws already in existence. And I wouldn't be too smug about reported gun control success. It just forces the crazies to use different weapons. Now mass stabbings are starting to become a thing. God help us if any of these people find the internet.

Altho mental institutions were poorly run back in the day, I think it was a mistake to get rid of so many. Now it's just, load them up with ssri's and good luck.

Some of them were poorly run and some were at times, but I agree with you. "Community mental health" more often separates the resources from those who need them. But hey, dose them up with whatever med is popular this month and set them loose. Today's world only believes in 'best practice' when it's cheap.

I don't think there were as many violent people in the past with mental disturbances as well. In the sense of wanting fame or revenge against everyone on a mass scale, although there were alot of serial killers but they didn't seem to be suicidal. Mental illness is the bigger issue then guns, no doubt.

Yep, I was on Ritalin a couple years as a teen because I answered 5 out of 8 questions one way, the 'wrong' way.

I'm assuming the number of mentally afflicted people in the UK, US the rest of Europe and the developed world is roughly the same percentage, but only in America do they have so many mass shootings and gun murders, unless you are saying America has more sick people than other countries.

I can only speak for the US. Access to guns was less restricted in the mid to late 20th century, yet they were more often used for suicide. As gun access became more restricted, mass shootings increased. So gun control causes shootings? Of course not, that's silly. More likely, there's a third factor driving both. I suspect our whole society is sick.

The UK had one mass shooting. Zero before, zero after. Not much of a statistical base. But hey, if it supports your agenda...

There was Hungerford in 1987 as well when 16 people were killed, but luckily the UK population isn't gun crazy and the law reflect that. Most British parents expect their kids to come home from school safe and not run the risk of a gunman walking into school and shooting 20 of them dead.

Yet they have no problems with mass importing rape gangs and acid flingers.

Hey America (gets stabbed) why don't you (acid attacked) ban (sucide vest explosion) guns?

No doubt. Violent crime in England went up after guns were banned.

Fork crimes went up also

That would be your guess, but you'd be wrong and not for the first time....

You got that one wrong, bro.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_Germany

Yes, stabbings and acid attacks are rampant and violence is up but mass shootings are down.

Did the UK and Australia have to confiscate 350 million guns? Did they have a constitutional right to own guns?

Actually you have hit on a serious problem in the US. Even if they did have gun control it would take at least a generation to get most of the guns out of circulation. It's like trying to dearm a war zone.

We already did do something by creating laws. Criminals and mass murderers don't follow said laws.

How many people who committed mass shooting in the last few years had criminal records? Las Vegas? Sandy Hook? Orlando? Sante Fe? Geneva County? Pittsburgh Synagogue?

You make it sound like Mexican gangsters are committing all these mass shootings, whereas in reality it is someone with no criminal record but has easy access to guns. Hard to murder 20 people with a knife, easy with a semi automatic.

I didn't just say criminals. I also said "and mass murderers" which is anybody who perpetrates that kind of act regardless of criminal past. And just because they didn't commit a violent crime or murder in the past doesn't not make them a criminal.

Now what about the cases where citizens used AR-15s or semi-automatics to save or potentially save their lives or the lives of others? Shouldn't those count? And before you say they didn't need that kind of weapon to protect themselves, please read this article. https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/

I don't even own a firearm, but I believe in the right of responsible gun owners to own the weapon of their choice or that they feel comfortable with for self-defense.

Bloodletting doesn't cure cancer, but hey, as long as we're doing something....