And mass shooting follows mass shooting.

Money to the NRA is important— gun CEOs donate to the NRA to increase gun sales.

But the gun-issue voters are if anything more important. Republicans have figured out how to use gun identity politics to get votes for billionaires’ tax cuts.
This is why Fox and Limbaugh and Daily Caller talk about guns so much.


Ultimately, Republican billionaires get Americans killed for two reasons: to enrich gun CEOs and to get votes for billionaires’ tax cuts.

Your point is absolutely and totally spot-on, guilliaumeb! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

If there are no facts, they can tell whatever fairy tales they want about mass shootings: it's mental health, it's video games, it's single moms, it's lack of prayer in school, it's the presence of a pool table, right here in River City:

from The Verge:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now have the government’s permission to resume gun violence research, in writing: the massive omnibus spending bill that President Donald Trump signed today (Mar 23, 2018) clarifies that a 22-year-old ban on using federal funds to advocate or promote gun control doesn’t actually ban research.

While the bill is a step in the right direction, researchers will only believe that the landscape of gun violence research is actually changing when they see money for it in the CDC’s budget. “It’s not bad news — it’s good news,” says Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University. “But I’m skeptical that it’s going to really turn things around without some money being made available.”
...
The omnibus bill that the president signed today could help thaw long-frozen investigations into the public health risks posed by firearms. But John Donohue III, a law professor at Stanford University, can think of two reasons to be wary of the change. One possibility might be that “if the CDC goes anywhere near this, they’ll get their funding cut back by Congress — which could hurt,” he says. Plus, Donohue says, “This could be a ploy to funnel money to some of the fringe researchers whose goal is to promote gun rights.”
" “There are bound to be political risks.”"

So the CDC might be cautious about venturing back into such a politically fraught arena, says Philip Cook, professor emeritus of public policy at Duke University. “There are bound to be political risks,” Cook told The Verge in an email. For example, if CDC-funded research were used to support calls for gun control, “there will be hell to pay with the NRA [the National Rifle Association] and their many friends in Congress,” Cook says. “So my guess is that we will not see such funding any time soon.”

-more-

If there are no facts, they can tell whatever fairy tales they want about mass shootings: it's mental health, it's video games, it's single moms, it's lack of prayer in school, it's the presence of a pool table, right here in River City:

Use any reason you can make up about mass shootings, just don't use the g-word.

religion. And gun ownership is one of those religious-like identifiers, for many people anyhow. The cognitive dissonance is strong when it comes to self-identification characteristics of that sort.

We must take many approaches. Do them all at once. Including the data approach.

I mean, who could possibly imagine that guns really do kill people?

The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution is outdated--and irrelevant these days. The 2nd Amendment existed prior to freeing the slaves, and had the purpose of controlling slaves who rebelled in any way whatsoever. It's totally unfit for the times, if one gets the drift.

and the southern states can get their slaves back? After all, they won't be able to rebel, per your post.

Unlike assault weapons, knives, hammers and other guns can't kill a whole mass of people quickly. I'll also add, yagotme, that, like many, if not most NRA members, you're spouting off non-sequiturs that are totally off the subject, and have nothing to do with what's being discussed here. I stand by my word that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and of no use. Plenty of slaves rebelled by fleeing. Many were caught, dragged back to slavery and branded as Runaways, true, but then many slaves also managed to make the travel north to freedom without being caught, although they certainly had to be careful.

It's also not true that the slaves in the Southern States did not rebel after they were caught and re-instated into slavery. On the contrary, there were a great many uprisings, and, many slaves also found ways of resisting their white owners by satirizing them, as well.

A good start? Where do you see it ending? I mean, you're only reducing a small percentage of the weapons used in killings in the US. Handguns make up the primary instrument. Ban those too? How about evil sniper rifles? Like grandpa's scoped 1903 Springfield rifle. Drunk drivers kill thousands each year, sooo, lets ban Corvettes. That ought to fix the problem. No one needs one of those high capacity speedy death machines. They're only designed to drive on a track, not on your average city street, where children playing won't have time to get out of the way of such a dealer of mechanical carnage. Makes about as much sense as your argument.

And, you should check this out. Not the only one worldwide, BTW.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966

And, in Britain, knife attacks are up 21%.

I wonder how many machete deaths in southern Africa have occurred in the last 10 years.

And, how about Japan. They're usually lifted up by the banners as having one of the "perfect" gun ban societies...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamihara_stabbings

People that want to commit mass murder are going to do it, irregardless of whatever roadblock you think you have put in their way. It's a mental issue, not one of availability of hardware. IED's, knives, swords, bats, fire, whatever they can come up with, they will. Limiting things to the civilian populace does little or nothing to a determined criminal. Ask one sometime. I've talked to several (retired guard). The law doesn't mean much to them, as long as they don't think they'll get caught.

And, finally, the thread WAS about "guns do kill people", so my observations aren't exactly "off subject" of the thread. Unless I'm only supposed to agree with the OP and other posters, like the other topic section here. You were calling for the repeal of the 2d, without actually going through the proper procedure to remove it. I was merely pointing out the rough road that would entail, and if one amendment goes, the rest must surely follow.

fixed that for ya

That has not been peer reviewed either.
It is seriously flawed and basically politically motivated bunk.
It hasn't been published because it would be ripped apart by serious academics amd researchers.

Serious climate scientist and researcher here. You’re wrong.

..which would be you: