That's a dark comedy video, right? I mean, it has to be when the guy brags about how much better things are being done in Texas than in New York. And then you have a school shooting happen in Texas. A school shooting where apparently more children were killed in one state than in the national average per year.

I am also reminded that I forgot to respond to you many days ago. I had asked you for three things that the USA does tremendously better than other developed countries and you began your post by saying that racism is much less of a problem in the USA. LOL

The other developed nations don't have a racism problem on the scale of the USA, that's the whole point. Plus I very much doubt that Obama serving two terms has made people of color in the USA think that there's now less racism than before. I assume they had hopes that things would get better, but in the end they were probably disappointed in Obama. Not just because of what Obama did or didn't do, but also because of the successor the USA was graced with.

But nothing more to say on this subject. I just wanted to tell you that the three things you thought of were laughable. Another one was space exploration, which granted, the USA invests a lot more money in than anyone else, but ultimately none of that helps the people who live in the USA. So conversely, people of other developed nations don't mind at all that their country doesn't spend as much money on space exploration as the USA.

Well it's a certain part of Texas where things are done differently where the shooting didn't occur correct? Otherwise it would be extremely dumb.

Only children, or just more children in one state overall, or when it only comes to school shootings? I've seen it pointed out a few times that Chicago has more gun deaths on most weekends than in this one situation, though many of those Chicago gun deaths definitely aren't children.

Just because the media talks about something a lot doesn't mean it's more of a problem. How many other developed nations who have such a racism problem have chosen a minority as their highest, utmost leadership, multiple times?

And just because there are bigger problems doesn't mean that the one at hand is insignificant or we shouldn't do anything about it.

Further, there are many things that Democrats would love to do to reduce crime in Chicago (including Federal gun control), but Republicans tend to be the ones standing in the way of most of those proposals. 

Yes that is true. Turning a blind eye isn't acceptable. Which solutions are acceptable looks to be the hold up though.

Doesn't Chicago have the most strict gun laws in the US? Like extremely strict compared to everywhere else? If that's not enough than what is? How can you have laws that strict and still have so many gun deaths?

Chicago and Illinois do have somewhat strict gun laws, but they are generally not considered to be abnormally strict or the most strict in the country at this time. However, even if they were it wouldn't be proof that gun laws don't work. It is instead proof that the effects of local gun laws are limited by the fact that guns can readily flow in from other states or counties. 

And that is the reality of Chicago's gun violence problem. The majority of crime guns come from out of state. This is a pattern we often see in areas with strict local gun laws. The guns come from other parts of the country with weaker gun laws. This is why we cannot simply leave firearms laws as a state's rights issue. It needs to be handled consistently across the country in order to have a strong effect on reducing gun violence. This also shows how important the legal market is in feeding the illegal market. 

Even if you were able to get rid of the guns on a federal level, what about all the bad guys in Chicago and everywhere else who were bringing these guns in?

They won't bring them in across the northern border from Canada? They wouldn't try to get them in from Mexico?

Even if you could stop that as well, are they really going to stop killing people just because they don't have guns?

Other countries who've banned guns have growing problems with other weapons now like knives. To the point they require a background check.

Banning one thing after another doesn't seem like the best course of action if the bad guys are just going to find a way around it and continue.

First of all, I'm not advocating getting rid of guns. But beyond that, the USA is the chief supplier of guns across the whole of North America. If we were able to get a handle on our gun problem, it would significantly help both Canada and Mexico deal with their gun problems and reduce the supply to criminals across the continent. 

As for whether killings would decrease, I believe it would reduce a lot of impulsive crime in particular. It is far from uncommon to have a scenario where two guys get into a fight and one ends up pulling out a gun and killing the other. If you take the gun out of those situations, they may throw hands, but the odds of death decreases drastically. While you do see knife crime in other countries like the UK, you also see a drastically lower homicide rate in general. Even then, I would much rather someone come at me with a knife than with a gun (and there are further subdivisions regarding different calibers of ammunition). 

At the end of the day, the US is pretty good evidence by itself that more guns isn't the solution to the crime problem. 

Well if a lot of strict laws aren't working already, more stricter laws from a federal level are quite unlikely to make a difference. It may reduce those types of crimes criminals are committing, but they're more likely to change tactics or types of crime before becoming honorable citizens. So the problem would just shift.

I'd assume someone would be more likely to pull a knife than a gun. A knife is easier to carry and hide plus it's quiet. You don't have to point and shoot it either, you just stab which can be done quite inconspicuously. Shooting gives a reasonable opportunity to be missed assuming it's not point blank so they have distance and can get away easier, where as nobody is going to throw a knife at you. They're going to walk right up to you and jab you, likely a bunch of times, and are unlikely to miss. I'd rather have a gun to defend against a gun than a knife to defend against a knife. Being totally defenseless is a bad situation all around, unless you're well trained.

Less guns doesn't necessarily look to mean a great reduction either though. Like with the schools, it seems many problems need to be dealt with at once.

Well if a lot of strict laws aren't working already, more stricter laws from a federal level are quite unlikely to make a difference. It may reduce those types of crimes criminals are committing, but they're more likely to change tactics or types of crime before becoming honorable citizens. So the problem would just shift.

I'd assume someone would be more likely to pull a knife than a gun. A knife is easier to carry and hide plus it's quiet. You don't have to point and shoot it either, you just stab which can be done quite inconspicuously. Shooting gives a reasonable opportunity to be missed assuming it's not point blank so they have distance and can get away easier, where as nobody is going to throw a knife at you. They're going to walk right up to you and jab you, likely a bunch of times, and are unlikely to miss. I'd rather have a gun to defend against a gun than a knife to defend against a knife. Being totally defenseless is a bad situation all around, unless you're well trained.

Less guns doesn't necessarily look to mean a great reduction either though. Like with the schools, it seems many problems need to be dealt with all at once.