Well it's been made clear that mass gun killings have stopped there, up until now anyway, but a lot has not been asked ironically. Has the gun killing increased, just in more smaller doses, leading to the same amount of deaths anyway? Maybe there are mass killing's happening there, just not gun related. Maybe they are using weapons other than guns now, and those weapons aren't allowing for as many deaths per incident, yet the number of incidents may be higher? You can't just say the mass gun killing has stopped so problem solved. Not that simple.

The way vehicle safety is handled is quite good and gun safety could always be better yes, but just like how vehicles get stolen and people are still killed with them, do we ban all guns and vehicles? If your willing to point out how vehicle safety is handled, clearly there are still issues there, so why isn't anyone talking about how vehicles need better safety regulations or banning them outright? Just because they are an everyday tool for some people, doesn't make it any less of a potential weapon. Not only does a vehicle give you the opportunity to kill more people, but it also better protects you from the authorities, and allows a much easier getaway.

The right to bear arms is an issue. You think the founding fathers were so stupid that they thought allowing citizen's to have guns wouldn't ever lead to unnecessary deaths? The amount of unnecessary deaths may have been in smaller doses back then, maybe, but the population was also dramatically smaller back then, so the amount of deaths today wouldn't seem out of place. That's not to say there shouldn't be changes to the rules at all, but those changes need to make sense overall. The few must give up what's necessary for the benefit of the many if it comes down to it. The point of the right to gun ownership, is to protect yourself from many different potential outcomes. Assuming the world is so civilized today that needing a gun as protection isn't necessary is a gamble. Some are willing to gamble, some aren't. Some need to gamble, some don't. How many people's safety was maintained or life was saved due to a citizen having a gun?

Just waking up in the morning is a risk in itself. Human beings are not born with the right to live until they are 100 years old. You are given rights so your chances of achieveing that are higher, but in no way is it guaranteed.

Deaths and assaults by knife jumped dramatically after the ban on guns. In the USthe liberals hate guns and blame them on everything. The right doesnt even want background checks because they are assholes and just want to piss off the liberals. In reality more people die in car accidents every year than by gun violence and mass shotings like what happened in Vegas are even more rare. The terror attack on Sept 11th killed more people than Sandy Hook, Florida night club, colombine and Vegas put together.

Which is why regulations on travel increased aswell as security routines and background checks on staff within the industry, aswell as a "no-fly" list. Funny how some things can become heavily regulated after an incident...

So in regards to cars, would it be reaonable to demand, just as one would when it comes to drivers license, that the one who wants to use a gun need to get a license, showing a responsible way to handle the firearm?

The founding fathers had no idea what kinds of weapons would become available in the future, and it´s important to note the phrase in the beginning fo that amendment that clearly specifies that it should be a well regulated militia. This shows that even they themselves say the dangers of not having regulations.

The founding fathers had an idea. They knew what kind of weapons were created in the past, and what weapons were available then. It's not complicated to assume how much more deadly weapons could become in the future based on the history of war. What those weapons were going to be exactly, is harder to predict, but the death and destruction they could easily assume. Remember, guns were about as deadly a weapon as you could have back then, and they said everybody can have one. Much of the Constitution clearly wasn't written just for that time period either. They thought ahead quite well back then. 

Gun laws should be the same across the entire Country with minor exceptions. I'll give you that. Some of the states could tighten up some loose ends and make acquiring gun related items harder in general for citizen's, and next to impossible legally, for certain high risk individuals. While that may potentially lead to less deaths overall, maybe, events like Vegas could continue regardless. Apparently he passed all the checks no problem. Would stricter gun laws have stopped him from getting weapons capable of hurting hundreds? No amount of gun laws is going to completely stop somebody who's decided to kill a bunch of people.

Just like the Australia comparison, if you make it harder or impossible to get your hands on one type of weapon, they will just use the next best thing that's more easily attainable. Even if all of the guns were taken away, and all you saw from time to time was a mass shooting using illegal guns, it would still be all over the news crying for answers, late night hosts pleading for more black market policing, and poiliticans would still be pointing fingers. How is that any different than what's happening right now? The news, politicians, and people, didn't really care about gun laws for the entire last year, but now because of a mass shooting, it's important again for some reason and applies to all guns, and all people, apparently.

America's biggest problem by far is not the guns. It's that they are a nation, based on it's history, that initially tries to negotiate, but if the other party clearly doesn't want to try and come to terms, well then just use force. America has gotten better at this over time, but will use their military might much sooner than many other first world nation's. When your Country runs like that, the people tend to follow that example. A Country and it's people are like parents and their children. You set an example and they grow around that. If that example is move or get out of the way, they grow up with that mindset, and they live it everyday to some extent. It tends to lead to higher levels of violence, which can lead to events like Vegas. 

Don't essentially agree about everything you said before but that last piece is pure gold. Kudos.

Im not saying some things shouildnt change, banning guns or types of guns wont solve the problem. I do agree that background checks should be mandatory. 

That could only make a point about the here and now. It doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Even if by chance the death toll was now 25% less, the fact remains that the majority who wants guns banned (who are truthfully just saying we don't want to see inncocent people being killed), now have no choice but to take all of that gun concern, and use it to ban all knives. Otherwise they are simply hypocrites. One could easily assume however, that very little would be said about banning knives, because most of the people who are trying to ban guns, are the type of people who don't see the need for them in their own lives. However, to these same people, knives most likely are a useful everyday tool for them, so banning them wouldn't be ok. That's not how it works. Once you start down the rabbit hole, you can't stop until you get to the bottom.

By all means, find out what the numbers actually are. I in no way meant to stop that from happening. 

The reverse is true. For example. Stopping all other nations from having nukes is purely to allow the Countries with nukes to hold ultimate power. Just like with guns, there are Countries that could or should not be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, but stopping everyone else from having them is not "politically correct". Don't believe me? Ask yourself why America won't let other stable Countries, that America doesn't like, have nukes, yet they give away guns to them like they are candy. Those guns could at best only lead to a very minor problem for America. Another Country with a nuke is a potential major problem eventually. The day America is a nuke free Country is the day guns just may be banned.

There is no slippery slope. It's a hole. Your either all in or all out. If you want to ban guns it needs to be in the majorities best interest. Just because it may save "some" lives, or because it effected you directly, is not a good enough reason, if you don't plan on following it through until everyone is saved, no matter the weapon. If all you care about are "some" lives and yourself, then your issue is clearly more of an agenda than a cause. It's like anything else in life. Just because you don't like something, or a group of people don't, doesn't mean it should be banned altogether. If you only want to ban something that will slightly help the cause, but you have no intention of following through, it clearly shows you have an agenda and that's it. An agenda isn't a good enough reason to ban guns. Saving innocent people from dying however, is. The problem, is that banning guns, based on what we know, would only be one small step to total weapon safety. Environmentalists don't just save a forest then forget about mother nature and just drop their cause. The EPA doesn't constantly add small rediculous regulations, they make a plan and when they have something worthwhile that makes a significant difference overall, they implement it.

My family has a history of cancer, so I should assume that the entire nation should stop everything and concentrate on just curing cancer for my sake? If they do care about cancer, but only a small amount because they have many more other important issue's to resolve, should I just assume they all obviously don't care and must be horrible people? Think about how many could be saved if we put all of our resources into curing cancer instead, if saving people is really the cause. Better yet, why not use all of our resources to "cure" or prevent mental illness, to specifically solve the gun problem? It sucks that you have had gun related deaths in your family, but how is that any different than everyone else's major problems, other than being directly related to this particular event?

Growing up on the farm we had guns and so did everyone else around there. Want to know how many of them were killed during my lifetime because of those guns? Zero. Not one person in over 25 years. That's because all of us kids were taught about guns, how to use them, how dangerous they are, how important gun safety is, following gun regulations, and how important human life is. Also, there were 2 local farmers who's families may possibly have been spared due to intruders breaking into their homes with illegal guns. Those farmers had their own gun to point at the intruders which caused them lay down their arms and end up in police custody.

Better more worthwhile regulations for guns, especially for over the top weapons, that are only truly useful on a battlefield, makes sense in terms of saving lives without taking away someone's legal right for protection. Banning guns altogether, does not.

I dont have an exact number for you but according to this article knife related attacks increased by over 10%. Gun crimes went down (obviously ) but they are still responsible for a decent percentage of murders.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/knife-killings-on-the-rise-in-australia-as-gun-murders-fall-says-new-criminology-report/news-story/8abb94fcce1a98675f771b2d183875f9