zlacker

If you look in the history of states which had a problem with gun-violence, you can see that banning guns actually works. After banning, destroying and controlling guns, the amount of massacres and murders falls down. One example of this is germany (i think in the 1970s), but you can look earlier or at the history of other countries to find examples for that.

The situation over here is a tragedy, because all school shootings were commited by sons of fathers who were members of a shooting clubs (and therefore had access to guns). Even though it was not politically possible to ban those clubs and weapons.

But the situation in the USA is even more a tragedy. The USA have shooting after shooting with so many dead kids, and still the political forces are not able to ban guns. Or even slightly control them. Sickening.

>>onli+(OP)
This is just bad statistics. School massacres are somewhat uncommon. If you look at a history of mass killings at schools in the UK then you'll see that the expected amount of time between them is actually longer than the time since the most recent large shooting, Dunblane, and today. Which means that we have no clue whether or not gun control has "worked" to prevent such things or not.

>>onli+(OP)
There are numerous counter examples. Chicago had a handgun ban, and held the record for handgun murders for many years while the ban was in place.

>>abscon+e4
Because Chicago is neighbors with cities and states where handguns are easy to obtain, and you don't need a passport to enter or leave Chicago.

>>jcroma+45
Or the problem has nothing to do with access to guns.

>>abscon+l5
I think your phrasing that wrong. If gun deaths are the problem, then guns are, by definition, going to be part of the problem. However their may be contributing or even bigger problems involved.