A terrible mass murder in Las Vegas: at least 20 people are dead when a man opened fire on a country western concert. The murderer was a local man named Stephen Paddock, who has since been killed by the police. Reports indicate that he was using some kind of automatic rifle, which you’d guess from the fact he killed a score and wounded at least a hundred, and that a search of his hotel room found even more weapons that he’d left behind. Also, the media is naturally calling him a “lone wolf”, since he’s white and so can’t possibly be a terrorist fed conspiracy theories.
So will this be the final straw that convinces the US to implement some kind of rational gun control?
No.
The New York Times is reporting that the death toll has reached 50.
Of course not they need their guns to protect themselves from the terrorists not the “Lone Wolf” who is across the street and 32 floors up.
Death toll up to 50, with 200 wounded.
Deadliest mass shooting in US history. Lets see if it takes less than a year to break that record next time.
On top of that; it was clearly a military automatic weapon. I heard one of the first videos taken on scene, and it was sustained fire for 10 seconds, no breaks. That speaks to extended mag or drum mag.
Predicted NRA response: If everyone was carrying around a military assault rifle all the time, mass shooters could be killed before they have killed more than… ten, twenty, tops.
“So how, exactly, would they have fired back? The shooter was in a window on the 32nd floor of a hotel. Just spray and pray?”
“Yes, Jesus will save his own!”
Tashiliciously Shriked, #5
Well, room service would be packing too.
The only reason I wish there was a god is so I can pray to it that someone doesn’t show up here to turn this discussion into an argument about the nature of the gun used.
I don’t have to listen to the news to know how the Republicans will respond:
– The man must have been mentally ill. The problem is not with guns.
– If you start talking about gun control, it’s too soon. You’re being disrespectful to the victims, politicizing a tragedy, etc.
From Breitbart and InfoWars: This was staged by people who want to take away your guns. It’s the gun control people, they’re the real problem.
The topper would be if they will find out this guy read some of the inflammatory social media being posted by the Russians, and acted on it. Then we’d see the Republicans running around in circles, screaming “fake news”, “fake news”!
The argument is going to be that the gun was already illegal, therefore no laws and be changed. And no, we shouldn’t enforce the laws or provide adequate means of enforcement either, that’s a violation of the second amendment. Here endeth the discussion.
Repeat the next time.
Thank god there was a good man with a gun staying on that floor. /sarcasm.
# 4 birgerjohansson
If any of the concert-goers had been carrying their shoulder-mounted missiles then things would have been fine.
I think you have not grasped how safe a well-armed citizenry makes you.
Looks like he killed himself rather than be killed by police. The wounded are now estimated at 400+, though I suspect most of those are likely due to the panicked crowd. It’s a real mess.
So will this be the final straw that convinces the US to implement some kind of rational gun control?
Didn’t someone shoot up a congressional baseball practice a while ago?
If self-preservation is not enough to implement sanity, a shooting in far-away Utah or Colorado or wherever this “Las Vegas” is found is unlikely to have an effect.
Can we just repeal the Second Amendment? We’ve known for over 200 years that Madison and Jefferson’s romantic views of the militia were misguided.
Well, I hate country-western music, but this seems like an overreaction.
AND
Here is a demonstration of the surest, most effective way to use your gun to prevent yourself from being victimized:
I can’t imagine what America will be like with this trend growing worse every day, and I can’t envision any possible path to reversing it. I don’t believe, even with Democrats in every political office in the Federal government, that any effective legislation is possible.
I’ve tried my hand at writing science fiction, but I just can’t picture where we’re going. Will every police car be an MRAP? Will armed police drones be authorized to shoot anybody with a gun in hand? Will the top 50% armor up like some video game characters? Will it become impossible to discuss shootings in the media because the one corporation that owns all media forbids it? Will it become illegal to discuss shootings at all? Will crimes be invented for people that aren’t shooting other people?
Cleanup on aisle 15…
You have to practically wipe out the party supporting NRA enablers, the way the East European countries practically wiped out the communist parties at the polls once free elections became possible.
Provided American voters have not become completely apathic.
They’ll need to get the melanin quotient detector technology worked out first.
It occurred to me, the NRA utopia would be a Mad Max sequel, with wild-eyed crazies driving armor-plated unimogs through the wilderness. But how do we service the hardware once civilisation has gone? Do we just order more from China? And what should we pay with? I don’t see any Apple engineers staying in that version of USA.
Change that to “Will armed drones be authorized to shoot anybody?” then look at armed drones terrorizing Yemen, Pakistan, etc. Or ask Ms Manning about the contents of some of the documents…
Fuck, any minute now he’s going to spew his vile thoughts about it on Twitter.
It’s sad that after every tragedy, I actually hope that the president of the country doesn’t give his thoughts on it.
“There were good people on both sides…”
He needs his opinion given to him by someone else. Alex Jones or Faux.
“It didn’t happen! The flag which was false! Tremendous! Democrats sad! Gun grabbers coming!”
“My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!”
Warmest condolences
God Bless You.
@25: It’s like he’s just recycling bits of things he’s read in Hallmark cards.
Infowars is already claiming this is all part of a plot to start another American civil war, or something.
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/alex-jones-channel-goes-bonkers-over-vegas-false-flag-a-new-civil-war-is-coming-to-overthrow-government/
If only Rep. Scalise hadn’t caught a bullet in a softball practice, then SILENCERS would be readily available. Because that would have made this shooting so much better, amirite?
Second Amendment Jeezus needs his blood sacrifices.
Cross posted from the Political Madness All the Time thread. Also, a follow-up of sorts to comment 28.
Nevada is an open-carry state. Anyone can carry a gun. Hotels do not have magnetometers to screen visitors for guns. Many hotels have a no-guns policy, but no way to enforce it. Las Vegas hosts gun shows regularly.
Republicans in Congress have the following gun-related bills ready for votes this week:
1. A bill that repeals federal limits on the sale of gun silencers.
Link
2. A bill that would allow states to decide if they want to honor conceal-carry permits across state lines.
Link
Quoted text from the link under #2 above.
Cross posted from the Political Madness All the Time thread.
.50 caliber machine guns are displayed at Las Vegas gun shows.
Cross posted from the Political Madness All the Time thread.
Nevada’s Senator Dean Heller voted against limits on gun magazine size, against limits on assault weapons, and against expanded background checks.
Heller has an A+ rating with the NRA.
Read more: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2017/08/04/discuss-political-madness-all-the-time-3/#ixzz4uMsdVz9u
Updated toll from the mass shooting:
58 dead, 515 wounded
Lynna @30:
Wasn’t that the place where a few years ago an employee was shot in the head and killed because he gave an Uzi to a kid, and when she fired it the recoil caused her to lose control of it?
These Republican Senators voted against an assault weapons ban. Today, they tweeted out their prayers.
From Marco Rubio:
From Orrin Hatch:
From Richard Shelby:
From Pat Roberts:
The bill they voted against, the 2013 Assault Weapons Ban, would have prohibited:
The Senators are the hollow men.
The NRA should be declared a terrorist organization; it fits every element of the definition. The members of Congress who take NRA blood money should be indicated for conspiracy to commit manslaughter. And I say that as a gun owner.
Owning a hunting rifle or a pistol for protection is one thing. Nobody who isn’t in the Army needs automatic weapons. And I don’t know why ISIS would even bother committing terrorist acts on American soil when we do such a good job of it ourselves by allowing basically anyone from off the street to get military grade weapons. Why not go the full distance and let our mentally ill have access to nuclear launch codes while we’re at it.
I heard on Denver radio that a few armed cops (trained, presumably, possibly with military backgrounds) were killed, as they were maintaining security at the concert. Not to make light of their tragic ends, and let us presume they were fine people — but the current meme floating about that had more concert-goers been armed, they could have fired randomly at skyscrapers and stopped the carnage is thoroughly belied by the fact that armed and trained professionals had no chance whatsoever, so a bunch of cowboy-hat wearing yahoos spraying fire around would have only killed more (and, probably left the armed guys torn limb from limb, with people assuming they were the assailants).
The most depressing thing about all this (well, no, the third most depressing thing, after the corpses, and then the fact that we’ll do nothing about it, just wait to recycle the same tired commentary next month), is I was somehow relieved that he had shot himself, rather than the police calmly approaching in his hotel room while he was getting off another 75 rounds, talking him down, then subduing him with a mild chokehold and cuffing him, as three black chambermaids and room service waiters lay gunned down in the hallway outside, ya know, just to be safe.
No. The child Uzi incident was at the Arizona Last Stop gun range in White Hills, Arizona, about 100km away.
Gun sales spiking; gun company stocks rising. Terrorist NRA kills some more citizens. The NRA used to do gun safety for us in the Boy Scouts back in the ’60s and I dare say not a single one of the NRA safety instructors ever conceived of the guns in society today.
I mean… what is there to say anymore, really?
Isn’t this kind of normal? Terrifying as that may be? Something to be expected every single day? I guess the number of dead and wounded is a bit unusual, but mass shootings in and of themselves are a daily fare.
Lynna @34: Worth some expansion for those not acquainted with the poem
Everybody knows that if guns were banned he’d just have used a knife to kill those 58+ people and wounded 500+ from his high position. /s
The Onion captures the absurdity by just replacing the image on its story on mass shootings. All the words are the same.
Warmest. Condolences. You offer warmth like a firm handshake, a pat on the back, smiles and quiet chuckles, old jokes shared. Condolences are offered with empathy and hugs, sad eyes and shoulders heavy with the burden of trying to do something, anything, to reduce all this suffering.
“Warmest condolences” are just hot cocoa curdling in the belly.
I’m from Vegas, where most of my family and friends still live. I’m relieved they’re all okay–we got lucky, because a lot of locals work on the Strip–but it’s not much of a relief. It doesn’t change the numbers of the dead and wounded. For every family member I still have, somebody lost theirs.
We had a genyooine terrorist incident in Edmonton Canada yesterday.
A despicable man ran down a policeman with a rented truck, then leaped out and started stabbing him. He then left at high speed and escaped pursuit. Then he rented another truck and drove it through pedestrians until he was pursued and stopped. And he was a refugee from a Muslim country, with a Muslim sounding name.
Some things though:
– No one got shot.
– No one died, not even the poor policeman that was cruelly stabbed many times.
– The terrorist survived.
– He was not shot. He was Tasered after refusing to exit the truck.
– Less than ten people were injured, luckily.
– No one died and no one was shot. The terrorist asshole will be tried for his crimes, not killed, but then
– we don’t execute people up here.
So, what’s the magic number of people that need to die in one of these shootings, before a gun ban gets enacted? I was thinking 250 might do it. Maybe that’s too optimistic? 500? 750? 1000 dead? Surely there must be some limit? In the UK, 16 dead in Hungerford forced a tightening of the laws for semi-automatics. That was considered absolutely horrific
Oh, for fucks sake.
https://thinkprogress.org/gateway-pundit-geary-danley-5280ad08276f/
As an aside, why does team Trump give press credentials to these dunderheads?
From Caleb Keeter, a guitarist for the Josh Abbott Band:
https://twitter.com/Calebkeeter/status/914872808110510080
Lone wolf vs terrorist
From Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut:
mykroft@8 predicted an early response would be “If you start talking about gun control, it’s too soon. You’re being disrespectful to the victims, politicizing a tragedy, etc.”
Yup. From the Grauniad’s live blog (19:23 mark):
davem @44:
The Sandy Hook massacre demonstrated that as a country, there is no level of tragedy great enough that Americans will finally cry that it’s too much and work for meaningful gun control.
Dunderheads who are Republicans and/or Trump supporters commented on the mass shooting in Las Vegas.
From Governor Matt Bevin:
From MicoPrimeTime:
One thing is for sure, the Russian-controlled bots that were already pushing divisive/false narratives after the neo-Nazi/KKK rally in Charlottesville will push divisive and false narratives on social media about the massacre in Las Vegas.
Russian-controlled posts on social media have also recently backed Trump in the anti-NFL, stand for the anthem debate. Russian bots and fake accounts are also still pushing anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim topics. For reference, see the following comments on this Political Madness All the Time thread:
1. From SC: 52, 83, 224, 227, 296, 298, 310, and 349.
2. From me, see comment 320.
3. From blf, see comment 398.
Link
A few thoughts:
1) if you want cases where time has passed and we know the facts, there are entire graveyards full of examples by now, because shootings are nothing new in the USA, they happen so often. There goes that argument.
2) the concern about fully knowing the facts would have at least some shred of credibility if they promised to look at policy once the facts did indeed arrive (I don’t know if they have promised this, I’m just saying).
@ Rob Grigjanis, #40
It’s worth finishing the first stanza, at least:
-From T.S. Eliot’s “The Hollow Men”
This is one of my favorite poems, but I’d rather not live it. Especially the ending.
Ironically, It’s ISIS making the claim that Paddock converted to Islam.
As the Grauniad points out, that daesh claim should be taken with an extremely large block of salt (16:32 mark):
“Lone Wolf”
I’m not so much for banning guns, as I am that range safety rules be followed by law, where failure to follow those rules do result in the confiscation of your weapons due to criminal negligence. It all starts with the premise that there are no accidental misfires, just negligent misfires. Negligent because rule 1 of gun safety is that the only way to carry the weapon in public safely, is unload, the breech open, and the ammo in a separate place away from the gun. What the NRA and Boy Scouts used to teach.
Which means any meaningful carry is out the window.
I’m going to say something a bit contrarian: As a Canadian, I don’t think the problem with guns in America is really the “assault rifles”, but rather handguns that everyone is already tolerating. The proliferation of handguns normalized the idea that an average person needs to carry a firearm to be safe, and that this might even be desirable. Idiots walking around with military-styled weaponry are just the next logical step and escalation from normalized carry of handguns (). Accept this, and you’ll have the idiots demanding the right to open carry RPG launchers.
here’s the latest review of the effects of gun control laws globally since the 1950s:
“Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. ”
https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868/What-Do-We-Know-About-the-Association-Between
bonus:
“Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. “
In her opening segment tonight, Rachel Maddow talked about the number of gun shows that are held in Las Vegas. The gun shows are not occasional, they are constant. And that may be one reason that the shooter was able to put 16 guns in his room at the Mandalay without attracting attention.
I’ll provide a link later.
If we can require that, in order to operate a motor vehicle in this country, you pass a written test, be schooled for 6 months, pass a practical exam and then have to carry insurance at all times, why are we unable to do this with guns? Cars have a primary purpose of transportation, with the ability to be deadly. Guns have a primary purpose of wounding or killing something.
I don’t want to get rid of guns, buy why the hell is everyone against even something as ‘simple’ as making the process similar to gaining access to being able to drive?
Link related to comment 60:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/lots-of-info-but-no-explanation-for-las-vegas-gunman-s-massacre-1060293187540
Rowan, No. 61, because the NRA and its allies have convinced people that any gun regulation at all, no matter how sensible and how minor, is just a first step toward confiscation. According to them, the real purpose of any gun regulation is to get people used to the idea that the evil big government can control people’s access to firearms, with the ultimate aim of someday taking them away altogether. In fairness, there are some people who would like to confiscate all weapons and ban private ownership of guns altogether, but they are a small minority and they are as likely to actually succeed at that as they are to impose Shariah law.
The more I talk to fucking gun supremacists, the more sensible confiscation seems. There appears to be almost as much overlap between people who feel a deep-seated emotional need to own a deadly weapon and people who should be trusted with anything more dangerous than string as one might imagine.
Well, okay. Confiscation, coupled with widely available, evidence-based addiction treatment programs.
The trouble is it seems the NRA cant find a good man who wants to buy a gun.
@44 davem:
It took 35 in Australia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Underlining the de facto alliance between Daesh and the proto-fascist right in Europe, North America and Australasia. Both want anti-Muslim pogroms, and war between “the West” and “Islam”.
How about allowing completely free and unchecked access to all firearms… that were available in 1791 when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified? You can have as many flintlock muskets, wheellock pistols, hand-cannons, jezails and breech-loading black powder field pieces as you like, but nothing more modern.
Given that masturbatory enthusiasm for the Second Amendment seems to be the driving factor here, I think this should be an acceptable solution. What could be more authentically Second Amendment than eighteenth century firearms? The sort of pistol James Madison might have used, if he wasn’t a generally sensible chap and had better things to do than prance around shooting people.
And since these are the sort of people who complain that things like equality for women, minority sexual orientations and the poor are not in the Constitution, so shouldn’t be allowed, I can’t foresee any complaints about banning weapons the Founding Fathers couldn’t even conceive of either!
Nobody needs guns at all. Let’s stop pretending otherwise. No, guns have nothing to do with freedom. At all.
If you have a shooting fetish, you can go to a range like people go to bowling alleys. You can borrow a gun there and jack off with it and come back home so innocent people can continue to live.
The only sort of reasonable reason could be for home defense. In that case, one household can have one insured handgun with a few bullets that they are required under penalty of law to keep secured. And to purchase additional ammo, you need to provide a police report stating what happened to your other bullets. Educational programs and training should be required to with mandatory re-certification every couple of years.
Nothing horrible will happen to anyone’s freedom or quality of life with this method.
@#70
I seem to recall some colonists back in the late 1700’s who might disagree with your statement about guns having nothing to do with freedom…
John Fleisher, #72
Yes, but almost all invasions, conquests, genocides, rebellions and wars for independence use weapons.
How does your point relate to the topic?
If you’re going to bring up the US Revolution, you need to deal with the fact that the first unalienable right mentioned in the DoI is life; no mention is made there of guns. Some asshole with 16 guns took away the most basic right from 59 people the other night, but then again, this is America, where about 7 people a day lose that right to assholes with guns.
Re. @74 If you include the firearms the cops found at the asshole’s home, it is 40 firearms of various kinds.
Perfectly normal guy upholding the second amendment (sarcasm).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Daily Mash has it covered: “Arm everyone with machine guns, say unspeakable bastards” http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/arm-everyone-with-machine-guns-say-unspeakable-bastards-20171003136861
Every American should be given an automatic weapon, according to the country’s bastard pieces of shit.
#@72 John Fleisher
Good luck with your armed insurrection against the USA. It’s ended so well for everyone else who tried it.
(I think I just sprained my eyes rolling them so hard)
Another horrific gun massacre, and yet the usual gun-fondling suspect’s first concern is not the lives lost or preventing further death and suffering, but instead is safeguarding their apparently all important firearms from any kind of meaningful regulation or control. The same cycle of empty platitudes from politicians and paranoid flailing form the gun-worshippers plays out again, and again nothing changes.
call me mark @ 76;
Now, now call me mark, don’t be mean – I’m sure John Fleisher has taken the march of military hardware and organisation into account in their… um… ‘carefully reasoned pro-gun argument’. So, you see, in order for the citizenry to hold a military superpower to account, you don’t just arm everyone with handguns or even assault rifles – that is so last century.
It is clear that the only way people can be free is when everyone has full infantry and armoured divisions, flights of helicopter gunships, a fully functional navy and air force, and their own thermonuclear arsenal (I’m sure Kim Jong Un would agree with that last one), then their government wouldn’t dare oppress them. Freedom for the win!
Well, so long as no one minds the odd mushroom cloud and the minor inconvenience of radioactive fallout and nuclear winter effects, but you know what they say; freedom isn’t free…
There are such eejits; the Gun Owners of America comes to mind. Their founder and führer, Larry Pratt, has said, e.g., “the founding fathers would have wanted every military-age man in the U.S. to carry an M-16 rifle .”
This group of nutters has already issued a statement on the Las Vegas slaughter (which I won’t link to), saying, in part,
Nuclear weapons don’t kill people; people kill people.
Azkyroth, No 64, and Saad, Nos. 70 and 71, respectfully, comments like yours make it that much less likely that sensible gun regulations will ever be passed; the NRA says, “See, we told you, confiscation is the real aim after all.”
I own a gun because I like to eat wild game and because I live in a moderately-high-crime area. I do not, however, think individuals should be able to own automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, or other military grade weaponry. I am fine with limiting individual gun ownership to non-automatic pistols and hunting rifles, which allows me to take down a deer and defend my home but would not allow me to fire off 90 rounds a minute at a crowded concert. I also favor mandatory gun safety, requirements that guns be properly secured and kept away from children, background checks, and waiting periods. On those points, we agree.
But none of those measures has any real chance of passing so long as the NRA can plausibly claim that the real goal of any regulation is eventual confiscation. We have reasonable automobile registration laws only because there is no serious movement to confiscate cars; if there were a serious movement to confiscate cars, you might well see an automobile NRA equivalent start opposing all auto safety requirements too.
thirdmill@81, It has never been the case in modern times widespread confiscation of guns is the goal of the politicians or (most) gun controls advocacy groups. That is a lie straight out of the NRA playbook.
Mass killings like Las Vegas shock us, but the truth of the matter is that handguns kill far more people than any other type of weapon. So yes, by all means take away the automatic and semi-automatic weapons–that seems like relatively low-hanging fruit–but until we severely reduce the number of handguns out there the bloodshed won’t stop.
thirdmill, #81
So you agree with the proposed ideas and are just telling us “NRA won’t like it”.
Thanks for that. I thought they’d be over the moon.
Maybe we should stop treating the NRA like it’s the fourth branch of government. That’ll be a good start.
Saad, I hate the NRA even more than you do, if that’s possible. I hate the NRA because they make stuff like the carnage in Las Vegas possible by resisting common sense gun control, and I also hate them because they make all gun owners look like nuts. I would like the NRA to fall into a black hole tomorrow, never to be seen again. I am one gun owner who will never, ever be caught saying nice things about the NRA. (Did I mention that I despise the NRA?)
All that said, the people who think total gun confiscation is a good idea play into the NRA’s hands, because the cold, hard political reality is that total confiscation is a total non-starter, and it helps the NRA fire up its base. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate who favored total confiscation; I like duck hunting too much. You would go further in restricting guns than I would so no, I don’t completely agree with all your ideas, but I agree with some of them. Those ideas only have any chance of passing if you can persuade people that no, confiscation isn’t the next step.
I’m not for total confiscation. And I guess I should have taken care to address hunting.I wasn’t saying hunters can’t have any guns.
But outside of a single handgun per household (with strict and enforced rules and regulations regarding purchasing, registering, insuring, continuing certification and license renewal), yes, I’m against other firearms. Is there anything unreasonable about that?
What if two members of the same household want to go hunting together?
I’m too glad thirdmill is here to defend poor gun owners against those horrible bullies who only think about themselves and their precious little “I don’t want to get shot” worries.
You know, no matter how much I liked my hobby, I like people much more.
thirdmill:
After all, before modern firearms came along, ducks were unhuntable. Right?
(I refer you to Cartomancer @69)
thirdmill @ 86;
This seems like a clear cut case of priorities to me. I would put it to you, thirdmill, that your enthusiasm for duck hunting really shouldn’t trump someone else’s right to life. If the end of duck hunting is the price that must be paid to take meaningful steps toward the mitigation of the risk of mass shooting slaughters such as this latest horror in Las Vegas, then I consider it a very small price to pay. Why don’t you?.
cartomancer @ 69 and John Morales @ 90;
I would consider it a good idea to go even further – if people like thirdmill are so determined to keep hunting ducks, then you don’t need a black powder weapon to do it at all. It is quite practicable to hunt ducks with a slingshot so long as you are sufficiently skilled at both slingshot marksmanship and the tracking and stalking of ducks, and isn’t the challenge of it all – the display of skill – supposed to be the principle draw? I mean, other than that, aren’t you just blasting away at a small waterfowl with a ludicrously overpowered weapon just to ‘get you gun off’, if everyone will forgive the rather crude vernacular? Why should innocent lives be put so egregiously at risk for that?
In places like Switzerland and the UK, it is possible to have guns for duck hunting without the mass murders found in the States. Those two examples are actually rather contrasting: Switzerland is heavily-armed, but their gun (and ammunition) controls are effective, whilst guns are all-but-confiscated in the UK (ammunition is also controlled).
So, America, this is how other countries do gun control (“The UK, Australia, Japan and Germany have all taken measures to reduce gun homicides. Can the US learn anything from them?”) is worth a read. And a very recent but less detailed BBC video, Gun control: How countries around the world introduced restrictions (“Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, US lawmakers are once again debating gun control. Here’s a look at how other countries have introduced restrictions on the sale of guns”).
And a bit more on Switzerland, The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works. It points out, probably correctly, that part of the reason the Swiss can be so heavily armed is because of an extremely strong country-wide culture of safety and responsibly. and because that is noticeably lacking in the States. the Swiss model, as implemented in Switzerland, wouldn’t be as effective in the States without a serious nationwide mindset-change.