Is it because of the word ‘babies’ D’Anconia?
Will you be the one to tell the grieving parents that their children weren’t technically babies so they shouldn’t be so sad about them getting gunned down? What, specifically, is it about that statement that makes you consider it ‘hysteria’?
Well California has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, laws that seem maybe 2nd Ad complaint.
https://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428/0/10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html
*
The state known for the strictest gun laws is California.
In California, all firearms sales, transfers, including private transactions and sales at gun shows, must go through a California licensed firearms dealer.
California also has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms.
*
“Assault weapons” are more or less banned, too.
Has violent crime been reduced here? I mean overall, violent crime is down. But CA runs about 15th in violent crime rate.
So, it does not seem that having Strict guns laws actually reduces violent crime.
I’ll take that under advisement, grasshopper. 
Kevin Drum’s a blogger I’d recommend to anyone at any point on the political spectrum. You might try reading his stuff sometime, rather than play bullshit “it’s in Mother Jones, therefore it’s got to be leftist swill” games. (I don’t know what fallacy that is, but I don’t need to name it to know that it is one.)
Oh, you poor dear, having to endure such remarks!
There, there, lie down and I’ll put a cold compress on your forehead.
Or you could set aside your prejudices long enough to see if the linked writers at Mother Jones and Daily Kos have a point.
Bear in mind that California’s borders to other states are open, and there is, AFAIK, no inspection for guns purchased elsewhere when a California resident returns to the state.
Chicago has tough gun laws, too, and gun advocates point to Chicago’s high rate of shootings as clear evidence that gun laws simply don’t work. But, many of the guns used in Chicago crimes are coming from outside of the city (particularly from Indiana).
What I do think it’s safe to say is that a patchwork of gun laws aren’t likely to reduce violent crime, especially when it’s easy for someone who’s determined to obtain a gun to commit a crime can drive a short distance and buy one, legally, in the next city / county / state over.
The USA ranks 126 out of 219 nations in homicide rate. Are you saying Bermuda, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguey, Phillipines, Russia, Costa Rica, Greenland, Brazil, most of Africa and so forth are not “civilized”?
Isnt it kinda racist to call nearly all of South American and Africa “Not cilvilized”?
Seems like it. But the NRA is small 'taters when it comes to donations:
But experts have caution that the relationship between contributions from pro-gun groups and Congress’ reticence to change the nation’s gun laws is complicated at best. The NRA accounts for just a fraction of the contributions lawmakers receive, and the group doesn’t crack the top 50 in terms of spending to the lobby the federal government.
Yep. Gun control in the USA for some reason doesnt seem to lead to significantly lower violent crime.
But taking peoples medical care away will certianly, without doubt, kill many and reduce the quality of life for many more. And so forth.
Ah yes, no matter how big the State, there’s alwayy the excuse that the guns are coming from “somehwere else”. So, we have to make the laws nation wide. Then when tcrimes still happens , obviously we have to invade Canada and Mexico to stop that. 
However, do you have a cite that significant numbers of guns are being bought out of state and used in CA for crimes?
You do know you CAN’T buy a gun in AZ as a CA resident, right? It’s illegal. So again, guns laws are not working.
Mexico does have a serious problem - with guns being brought in *from *the US. Chicago’s is with guns from Indiana.
Maybe we should actually try some.
We have, in CA:
https://www.deseretnews.com/top/1428…-gun-laws.html
*
The state known for the strictest gun laws is California.
In California, all firearms sales, transfers, including private transactions and sales at gun shows, must go through a California licensed firearms dealer.
California also has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms.*
“Assault weapons” are more or less banned, too.
No “gun show loophole” a “assualt weapons” ban. Bans or magazine size. Bans of most handguns.
wiki
*
The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the most restrictive in the United States. A 5-year Firearm Safety Certificate, obtained by paying a $25 fee, submission of applicant data to the state, and passing a written test proctored by a DOJ Certified Instructor, is required for the sale, delivery, loan, or transfer of any firearm.[5][6] Handguns sold by dealers must be “California legal” by being listed on the state’s Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.[7] This roster, which requires handgun manufacturers to pay a fee and submit specific models for safety testing, has become progressively more stringent over time and is currently the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit on the basis that it is a de facto ban on new handgun models.[8] Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period
Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons; .50 BMG caliber rifles; and high-capacity magazines (magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition) may not be sold in California.*
More or less what has been asked for- and they have been having no significant effect on violent crime.
So lets get rid of all gun laws nationwide then. Anything goes. I want a bazooka. Is that what you think would work? If not, then what is your suggestion?
They only feel that way if it’s Trump doing it.
Here’s a cite from ATF, with 2014 data on “firearm traces” (i.e., cases in which law enforcement ran a trace on a particular firearm). The report notes that not every trace is on a firearm used in a crime, and that not every firearm used in a crime is traced, but it’s still somewhat enlightening.
In that year, 21,267 firearms were traced in California, in which the source state / country of the firearm could be traced (see page 7). Of those, 15,169 (71%) were “sourced” from California, which seems to be the location of the last sale / purchase of that firearm. The next biggest source of those firearms was, in fact, Arizona (1,184).
Nope. We have some guns laws on the books. They dont seem to be doing much- no hurting the rights of gun owners nor significantly reducing violent crime. We’re mostly used to them, so I’d more or less leave them as is. Maybe get rid of the stupid CA “no new manufactured guns” sneak law.
But see, that’s the point.
We have tried, hell we are* trying* modest gun control laws. They dont work. So obviously to the Gun Grabbers, we need more gun laws. So lets say we give in. All weapons must be registered. No “gun show loophole” (that’s not really a thing, mind you), all “assault weapons” are banned, you have to take a class to buy a handgun, all semi-auto weapons are restricted.
Will those stop all mass shootings or school shootings?
Nope, impossible.
So there will be another horrible tragedy, and the gun grabbers will call for even more laws. Tragedy, even stricter laws- and so forth.
But the Gun grabbers just can’t admit that gun control laws here in the uSA do not reduce violent crime. They simply dont work.
So I ask again, what is your suggestion? Is there nothing that can be done to prevent these mass shootings? This is just the new normal that we have to all live with? Well, except for the victims anyway. This is just part of being an American now?
Of course it’s impossible, and, IMO, most supporters of increased gun regulation don’t expect that “zero shootings” will ever happen, and so, I think that’s a strawman argument.
Is it possible that regulation can reduce the frequency of the worst of these, and reduce the number who are shot when one does occur? I’d like to think that it is, but I also don’t know that any current data can confirm (nor deny) this, because of the patchwork of current laws.
Not gun control.
More counseling so kids dont turn to shooting.
Have the teachers care more about the students. Smaller class sizes.
Bullying must be controled.
Note we had just as many guns when I was going to High school and shootings were very rare. However, they have been going on for centuries.
This may be the cause:
*Younger age (Raine 2002; Steinberg 2002, Deakin, Overman, 2004; Figner et al 2009; Burnett et al 2010)
According to Raine (2002), immaturity is one of many identified factors increasing the likelihood of an individual committing criminal acts of violence and outburts of aggression. [4] This fact is supported by findings on brain development occurring as individuals age from birth.
… These changes occur in certain parts of the brain firstly; the pre-frontal cortex, the brain location where decision-making occurs, is the concluding area for development. While the pre-frontal cortex is developing, children and teenagers might possibly rely more on the brain part known as the amygdala; involving thinking that is more emotionally active, including aggression and impulsiveness. As a consequence each individual is more likely to want to make riskier (i.e. risk) choices (choices which are more risky, or to make more risky choices).[7]
Steinberg (2004 [8]) identified the fact of adolescents taking more risks typically, than adults, Deakin et al. (2004), and, Overman et al. (2004) indicate a decline in risk taking from adolescence to adulthood, Steinberg (2005), Figner et al. (2009), and, Burnett et al. (2010) identified adolescent age individuals as more likely to take risks than young-children and adults. [9]*
I don’t see evidence that supports your conclusion here.
What I’m seeing is “here’s a number at Point B, so the changes made at Point A have had no effect.” I’m not seeing a comparison of any sort.
Reducing availability of guns is simply out of the question, but changing basic human nature is possible. Got it.