As a European I just can't fathom these things. To us it seems so clear how to prevent this, just stop with the guns. Thoughts go out to the parents of those lost. Can't imagine what it would be like to watch your child leave for something as innocent as school in the morning and then hearing about him/her never coming back.

People often change their views when something happen which challenges their preconceived notions. Just as many people toughen their stance on gun regulations after suffering a tragedy, others become more supportive of gun rights once they've found themselves unarmed in a dangerous situation. I wouldn't say one is inherently better than the other.

Okay, you brought up banning guns, so I'm going to take that to its logical conclusion. Right now, the U.S. is a hub for the illegal sale of firearms. If you crack down on legal firearms before you've decimated the black market for them, do you think the violence rate will rise or drop? Would you say that a spike in violence would be worth tightening regulations or outright banning firearms?

Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, so it's not just guns. And unless your solution is to transform the United States into Japan, I don't think their impressive lack of crime really helps at all.
I also think Australia and the United Kingdom, like Japan, aren't very good comparisons, because they are island nations, not directly connected to any countries with high homicide rates. Unlike the U.S., which is part of the same land as Mexico and Central and South America. These areas contain the highest murder rates in the world.

And yes, it is sensible to view countries differently for the very simple reason that they are different. Leaving your door open in the U.S. is much more likely to lead to some sort of violation than doing the same in Japan.

And what will representatives do now which they apparently failed to do in their careers up to this point? Murder and gun crime are both on the decline, so what is it you want to happen?

What do you do about the car attacks in Europe? One method replaces another method?

They will do nothing, we know this.  I'd like them to either pass legislation attempting to address the issue or state they are content with the present situation.  Stop empty statements about gun control or mental health issues and then forget the next day.  

I would like our rates to be in line with Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom within the next ten years.  We should learn from countries that do better than us to help us in facets of society to be better.  

Actually this is not totally correct.  The Supreme court already stated that the Constitution does not give individuals the right to bare arms.  Look up United States vs Cruikshank(1876).  

Snipit from the ruling

The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."^[5]

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.^[5]

There is a more recent case United States vs Miller(1939).

Basically, the national government cannot restrict your rights to bear arms but your state and local government can.  Its down to the state level on what they want to restrict or allow.  There are actually 6 states that actually has no constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

There are more murders in cities with huge populations than murders in the countryside with low ones? Who would have thought?! 

Jesus some of you are just not even trying.

A lot of people bring up Australia's gun ban as an example of this implementation working, yet ignore the fact that crime rates actually spiked immediately after the ban, and only dropped significantly almost a decade later. That's still a good thing, and I get that Jeffries is a comedian, but I also think it's an oversight.

Sorry, I've seen this bit before, and it's a bit difficult to deconstruct because I know Jeffries is a comedian, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's intentionally being simplistic in his arguments. The notion that the only argument for owning a gun is, "Fuck off, I like guns." sounds funny and may even ring true. But as I've brought up before, more people in the U.S. protect themselves with guns than commit murder with guns. So clearly this is not the case. Ironically, Jeffries says this right after claiming he is "not for(...)bullshit arguments.", which I would say his claim is.

He goes after the term 'assault rifles', but the name doesn't change the function.
He correctly points out that people are more likely to use guns on themselves than on others, but of course less than one percent of the guns in the U.S. will be used for any illicit purpose, unlike what Jeffries makes it sound like.
He mocks gun enthusiasts for their hobby, but this isn't a point for or against gun ownership, it's just a jab.
He mocks gun owners for locking their guns up and claiming to be responsible for this, but then claims a locked-away gun would do no good. Again ignoring the dozens of thousands who do just this.
Yet again, Jeffries mocks the idea of armed teachers and school security guards stopping a potential mass shooting, ignoring that this has already happened.
He then spends a minute going after a caricature he just made up of people who disagree with him. Also pulling out the nonsense idea that people native to a land are not actually native unless their earliest ancestors were also from the same land.
I actually don't disagree with what he says about the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. I'm not a constitutionalist.
A gross oversimplification of the Civil War.
I disagree with his comparison of drug use and speeding. People should have the right to take all the drugs they want, because they're only directly affecting themselves. But speeding is something that clearly endangers others.

"This is a comedy show and it's not to be taken seriously."

Its like that where I live (though not everywhere in denmark is, but alot of places are).

To me thought of everyone owning a gun just doesnt make any sense.

Provocative images, but gun crime has consistently been on the decline for over two decades now. Would you say we're moving in the wrong direction?