Bombs are quite easy to build now that we have the internet. People who want to kill people will find a way to make maximal casualty...by buying weapons legally or illegally.
The real issue is cultural, Switzerland is armed to the teeth and every citizen has a gun, yet no mass-shooting issue. There is a big discussion to be had about mental illness, the education system, fatherless homes, etc. But all we talk about is the weapon these sickos use kill people.
Bombs aren't that easy to build and aren't as easy to control the outcome of the attack. But if it were so easy to build bombs, why aren't there more bombings as opposed to shootings. Simply because to the availability of these types of weapons.
In my opinion, you've brought up two different and distinct issues. The availability of guns and the crimes those guns allow for in the hands of a criminal, as well as issues of education and mental health. Not all gun crimes are committed by the mentally ill and not all mentally ill commit gun crimes.
So to help lower mass shootings, limit the sales of these firearms. Its true that criminals will always find a way to do what they intend to, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them.
You are missing one little nugget of information in your mental reasoning...the availability of guns for self protection actually, on-the-whole, reduces the number of shootings and other severe violence. In most cases, without anyone getting shot.
Not having any guns also has in all cases nobody getting shot.
But in the US, you need a gun for self-defence because of the potential that you're assailant will also have a gun.
I'm not suggesting banning all guns, even if in my opinion that would be the better option, but to add limits on the sale of guns through licencing, background checks and the like.
We have universal background checks now for any new gun purchase. Other limiting factors are in place on a state-by-state basis. Bad people still get them.
If you are advocating for a more-stringent system where a person must in some way prove their worthiness in order to purchase a gun...be careful and ask yourself: Who watches the watchmen? Whoever enforces limits on guns will have the power to abuse those without guns.
That is the reason the US Constitution (AKA: our protocol for playing nicely with each other) uses the specific language to say that you are born with the right to have a gun and others must prove you to be unworthy in order to take it away.
If you produce an immutable blockchain for gun registry and licensing that no government or entity can abuse, co-opt, or manipulate...I might then be convinced of some of the viability of what you are arguing.
As someone who isn't from the US it seems to me that you simply don't have faith in your government and that even the chance of a scenario where there could be an abuse of power is unacceptable even if such systems work outside the US. It comes down to the type of political system that only has two parties that creates such polarising opposition to one another. But that's another issue entirely.
Just because Americans are born with the right to own a gun doesn't mean they can own any weapon they like. There are already limits of what types of guns you can buy, so extending or retracting those limits shouldn't be out of the question if it has the potential to limit damage and death to members of society as a whole.
Essentially nothing has been done to address gun violence in the US other than encouraging the purchase of more guns as protection and that doesn't seem to be working.
You sounded reasonable in the beginning...now, you are beginning to sound like a propaganda bot that isn't able to directly engage in a reasonable conversation.
First off...if you aren't from the US, then how is it you have so much experience of the operation of our communities that you feel you are qualified to offer suggestions as to how to fix things? Your opinions are based on generic observations and principles and are not specifically applicable. Unless you have a greater depth of the functions of the US Republic system of government...you should probably refrain preaching your solutions to the problems.
Second...I don't trust the US government, not any other government that currently exists or any government that has ever existed. You are a fool if you trust your government. History shows that all governments will eventually become corrupt and fail.
Lastly...You are mostly correct that not much has been done to address gun violence...that is partially because people keep focusing on the gun and not the real source of the problem. But it is also because, gun violence is minor compared to what actually causes the deaths each year. Cars, Doctors, and falling each kill more people that guns each year...yet guns prevent more people from getting hurt than all of those combined.
This is my last post on this subject with you.
2)If you don't trust your government then why bother voting? Its fundamental for democracies for their citizens to engage in government which in a majority of cases is through voting. There is a required level of trust that a government needs from its citizens for the whole thing to work. If your opinion is in the minority then do something about it.
3)Your defence of guns comes down to the fact that guns are tools being used by criminals and that you should stop criminals as opposed to stopping how they commit crimes. That doesn't take into account how much damage guns do when used by criminals. Yes there are less deaths due to gun violence than the examples you gave, but that doesn't mean you should not do anything at all to address it. And your claim that guns prevent more crime is only applicable because of the expectation that your assailant could have a gun. Most of the industrialised world get by just fine without their use for self defence.
4)Since you aren't going to be replying anymore you're the one who's refusing to engage in discussion. Bye then and take care.
How many gas bombings have been used in mass killings?
How is limiting you from buying a gun trivialise your property rights? Your property rights are defined by law.
Its true that taking away guns doesn't take away the criminal intent but not doing anything doesn't either.
If limiting the sale of firearms lowers the occurrence of mass killings then you have to ask yourself whether your right to buy guns is more important than stopping mass shootings and gun crime in general.