And none of them appeared on here. Disappointed.

Number 4 was my personal favourite.

Gun Control is not so simple as it appears.

Anti-gun activists did score a narrow victory last year in Nevada by passing Question 1, a resolution calling for background checks through a licensed gun dealer for all sales in the state, even private and online sales.

It is unclear who would carry out the checks.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal the FBI, which the new legislation said would carry out the checks, has declined to do so because they are not federally mandated.

Source

They could give it to the local police to do but then they risk that it turns into a rubber stamp exercise!

We were front and left of the stage and could see them walking along the right hand roof and the one furthest from the stage. I couldn't see who it was more than they had dark jackets with a pale writing across the back, similar to the Securitas or Polizei jackets I see in Zurich city centre.

I'm used to security at gigs and this was heightened security by any standards, but it still wasn't foolproof. What we've seen with Vegas, Manchester and Brussels airport, is attacks from the unsecured perimeter rather than the area past security checks. Letzigrund was the first time I've seen security extended (to a degree) to the perimeter area.

If you turn up to a concert with a gun and intend to shoot people then there can be all the security in the world, but unless they're armed, they're not going to stop you. See what happened at the Bataclan Theatre, which took place in France. Where automatic guns are also banned.

You're comparing 'gun crime' in the UK, a country where possessing a gun without a licence is a crime in itself.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

Australia has offered to help the US in gun control changes...

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...reform-9274858

And when you're looking down on a concert from a reasonable distance, the same works? I'd hate to contemplate the carnage that would have ensued following your 'logic'.

Thus proving banning guns doesn't work.

And this link pretty much confirms there is no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the number deaths caused by guns.

this guy, as with most mass shootings, was using LEGALLY bought weapons, so the very simple logic a simpleton like me uses is - if he couldn't have bought the guns he wouldn't have been able to shoot 500 (or so) people.

LV's gun laws are totally insane, even for home defense no one needs a bloody machine gun ffs

Nevada's an open carry state, yet not one of those gun owners stopped an active shooter. Think about that.

http://www.rollingstone.com/country/...-vegas-w506601

Erm. You are citing a % increase for a country where a small absolute increase will be a big %age increase.

From your own page: .23 deaths pa/100k pop...

I would argue that you might want to talk about all gun crime resulting in injury, not just deaths. Yesterday's shooting emphasises this point, 58 fatalities and over 515 injuries (the last time I checked). In terms of fatalities this is worst in recent times, but only just. In terms of injured, it is off the scale worse.

No it doesn't - correlation is a calculation. This gives the raw numbers but doesn't confirm what you say it does. At all.

Here is a peer-reviewed article for the US in particular, which at 11 was a lone "developed nation" in the top 20 (and will probably rise in the rankings) for gun-related deaths in your page, followed at 22 by Finland which is mostly suicide:

Some interesting reading here too... https://www.vox.com/2017/6/5/1574040...-mass-shooting

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion

If you want to lower your chances of being shot in the US, join the military and take relatively safe refuge in the theatre of the battlefield.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.27a88422acef

Your sister?

I could have solved our mouse problem without even getting out of bed!

OK, putting my "thinking like Bud from Montana" hat on for a moment: isn't it funny how the target for this particular attack happens to be exactly the same demographic that is probably quite fond of guns? I mean, I shouldn't imagine the crowd at a country and western music festival in Nevada is likely to consist mainly of wet coastal lefties, do you?

Bud from Montana is already beginning to wonder if this is a deliberate attempt by the Deep State to shake up the pro-second amendment crowd: "Look, even you can be shot at. No, nobody was able to defend himself because the bad man had an automatic weapon and was up in a hotel room half a mile away. And he owned them all legally! See? Even your guns can't save you. Why don't you hand them in?"

Bud is wondering if the guy in all the photographs was actually guilty of the crime at all: he seemed to live a good life, gambling, hunting, living in several houses. Funny how he was already dead by the time the police found him in his hotel room. What was in it for him?

Bud is going to go out now and buy a couple more guns and quite a lot more ammunition before they stop selling them at all.

/Bud from Montana

Where have I said once said said that having more gun owners would increase the likelihood of preventing these attacks?

OK, I ran a quick correlation based on the data available, and only to show the relationship between levels of gun ownership and number of homicides caused by guns. I came out with a value +0.54, so a moderate correlation, however hardly earth-shattering proof.

In parts of the former Soviet Union and Middle East you can legally buy weapons, yet you rarely hear of mass shootings taking place there.

??? hardly shining examples of countries with a press free enough to report such things, and also totally irrelevant

Something tells me there would be a lot more holes in the walls (and the water pipes and the electric wiring) than there ever were mice

As to your friend Bob from Montana: Interesting thinking. Which I don't share. What does keep circling in my mind though is that "the man was found dead in the room" is all they say (who killed him? Or what exactly did he kill himself with? A machine gun? Seriously? Were his fingerprints really on the weapons?) while the brother says the guy did not own such kinds of weapons and did not show any signs he would ever thinks of taking such action.

I think there's more to this. Although I don't think Bob sussed it out.

Bud, are you sure it's the Deep State that orchestrated (that means orguhnized) the shootin'? Not Sam from Smith & Wesson, or one of them other gun-makers?

It's not irrelevant, mass shootings happen more often in the US than in other countries. I don't believe the reason for this is limited to the availability of guns.