I think the point still stands: the three states with the most mass shootings are the three most populous, in order [0]. Texas and Florida have some of the loosest gun laws; California the strongest.

There's also the problem about gun violence vs. mass shootings, and how regularly the two are conflated. D.C has the highest percentage of gun violence deaths, but only one mass shooting [0] [1].

Of course, two-thirds of gun violence deaths are suicide [2] and about 80% of the one-third that are homicides are gang-related [3].

The war on drugs didn't work; we couldn't keep gangs from smuggling in drugs. What makes any one think we'll do any better with guns?

Next, arguments about high-capacity magazines. It takes three seconds to change an AK magazine [4]; you don't really need high-capacity. Yes, it takes some practice, but not a ton and many of these people start planning a month in advance (see El Paso guy's manifesto). Add to this that you can 3-d print your own [5], and likely manufacture one of reasonable quality. They're really not that complicated.

Finally, remember it really is the "tactical" or "scary" guns after which they go [6]. I'm convinced it's so they can win the white suburban mom demographic with pictures of black plastic pistol grips. Remember that most AR-15s are .223 cal. They would ban those, but let you keep your 30-aut-6. Lord knows how many M1s and Garands are out there, and I've never once heard them mentioned. At this point, I wonder if mass shooters go for an AR-15 because that's what all the others used and every one is just terrified of that one particular gun.

Now let's take President Trump's solution, "red flag" laws. Alan Dershowitz wrote an excellent editorial against these in the WSJ [7]. Such laws are wrong for the same reason "stop-and-frisk" is wrong and for the same reason I object to today's airport "security"; Americans are not to be treated like common criminals without comitting a crime. And if you don't think it will have a disparate impact on blacks and browns, then I've got a bridge to sell you. This also sounds like another brick in the road to a technocratic dystopia, a la China's "social credit score".

As mentioned by others, the opioid crisis is a much bigger deal, as are suicides. This is terrorism, which is designed to cause maximum fear and discord with minimum action. We could be discussing how to allocate resources to the problems which kill the most, rather than being driven by rampant alarmism. I wish we didn't have a twenty-four-hour news cycle going on about it, or politicians trying to make it a number-one issue. Fly the flag at half-staff, say a prayer, do what we can for the families of the dead, and move on. Some time, the cost of the "solution" is greater than that of the problem. Tragedies happen; there is not always something politicians can do. Good policy rarely comes from a place of fear.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in...

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/7435796...

[2] https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

[3] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

[4] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxWw1fYoGc

[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmi...

[6] https://www.propublica.org/article/why-do-democrats-keep-try...

[7] https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-yellow-light-for-red-flag-law...

> If someone went out one saturday and gave 20 random people (or immigrants) a heart attack, it would be too.

I'd love to see where people have proposed banning gas cans or truck rentals. (I wish I could also say 'knives', but Britain actually seems to be that retarded)

I can't tell whether you're being ironic or not. If you're suggesting hypocrisy for not proposing to ban those, consider their legitimate use. In restricting use of a potential weapon, you have to weigh the cost of the restriction. Restricting or banning truck rentals has a different effect on society than restricting or banning assault weapons, for example, so you approach them differently.

---------

Or for the really facetious answer, here's a nice post detailing not quite the truck ban you asked about: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-I-need-a-license-to-drive

> Restricting or banning truck rentals has a different effect on society than restricting or banning assault weapons, for example, so you approach them differently.

Yep! You can ban truck rentals with little to no side effects, while banning gun ownership has a history of leading to genocide. Or is that not the comparison you'd make?

> Or for the really facetious answer, here's a nice post detailing not quite the truck ban you asked about

I'm not quite sure what comparison you're trying to make here. Yes, most vehicle rentals require you to show a driver's license, but that's a technical competency requirement, not a intentions requirement.

>banning gun ownership has a history of leading to genocide

Basically every other developed country has stricter laws than the US (which is what we're talking about, not full bans). It's ridiculous to suggest those lead to genocides.