Why Haven't Shootings Led To More Gun Control?

A better question, why haven't mass shootings accomplished ANY goal?

They've never improved the lives of the shooter, they never get the respect they thought they were missing, they never got the cosmic superpowers from the boogeyman that lives in their heads, their political cause didn't gain traction, nothing.
And that every shooter before them ended up dead, or in jail, and always despised, and damning their causes, never sinks in.
No sense of history with these guys.

Serious answers: The shooters wanted attention and wanted to het out of their previous circumstances, probably at least accepting suicide as an option. They do get what they want.

We've got Youtube now.
Big obnoxious things to get on the old media is so last generation.

Why? Because your legislators are more frightened of the NRA than they are of voters that support more gun control.

In the end, that's the only reason that matters.

You realize most of them have had their cheese slide off of their crackers, right?

And tomorrow, you'll tell us again how the government is 'of the people.'

Never mind that, just now, you're proceeding from the absurd notion that the NRA isn't.

Christ, could you fall on your face with a different fallacy once in a while? Lazy, dumb, gay bastard.

There are more gun owners in the country than any other philosophical/religious minority, but we get less consideration. We should organize as an actual religion. Praise be Jeff Cooper.

Keep telling yourself that.

This. The legislators are bought and paid for.

No; it links to a law review article. That's a "study" with about the same levels of sociological rigor and peer review as your average Rush Limbaugh broadcast. Law review articles about law are opinion pieces to begin with. Law review articles by nobody law professors pretending to some sort of sociological or anthropological expertise make a bucket of diarrhea look like Albert Einstein in comparison.

Or it could be that there are more actual voters who support less gun control then more and aren't afraid to boot out idiots who go after guns. Yeah couldn't be that....... has to only be the NRA with their twirling mustaches.......

Pedophile was unintentionally right.

Politicians are scared of the NRA, because the NRA represents what it's members want.

And there isn't anything dirty about that.

I believe there should be education requirements for voting and you should be made to show your ID when voting. A combination of these thing would keep people free to exercise their voting right, while also (hopefully) preventing too many idiots from voting and and any fraud.

No, no, we'd have to go the polytheistic route and have a deity representing each gun manufacturer: Praise be Lord Enfield, Praise be Lord Colt, etc.

Or, if you want to go the monotheistic route...

Just wanted to add that even by law review standards the editing on that "article" is abominable. It's doubtful that it even got any review from law students, much less any peer review. Hell, the article is deliberately padded in length by using full citations even when the same source is cited multiple times in a row; I've never seen or heard of law review editing so awful, and I've read way too many law review articles in my life. And in addition to the nobody law-professor pretending to be a sociologist I've never heard of a law review publishing an article coauthored by an undergrad. Seriously, an undergrad! Someone must have been blackmailing the EiC of the Connecticut Law Review to get that published.

In 2010 there was an estimated 80 million gun owners in the USA, owning an estimated 310 million guns compared to 19,000 gun related suicides and 11,000 gun related homicides. Looking at it logically and doing the math, it really isn't the epidemic some people would have you believe.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners.

And despite what people claim, a gun owner having an average of four guns is not a big deal.

Hell, my sister has three pistols and she doesn't give a damn about guns and has no interest in hunting. Yet she gets death threats given her line of work.

Interesting. So while you keep referring to the history of the American Constitution, you dont actually support it?

I don't think you'd be allowed to vote in this scenario, junior.

As much as John does. He's okay with limiting my right to bear arms as much as I'm okay with limiting his right to vote.

So without comparing yourself to others, that would be a yes, right?

Nope.

Yes, I understand. We should give the mentally ill the right to carry guns, just as they have the right to vote, because absolutely nothing bad will come of this at all.

Oh, wait...

Twit.

It's okay to place restrictions on the second amendment, but not voting rights? Liberal logic strikes again.

I have both an education and an ID, try again.

Not "liberal" logic, just logic. You know, the act of rational thinking. I realize you have little experience with that, but I was hoping you could at least get the gist of what I was saying.

You do realize that there are already restrictions on voting as well as other rights? Why are you so eager to choke out the second amendment, but you can't accept reasonable restrictions on voting?

You don't even know my stance on voting. This is why you're a twit. You assumed that because I'm liberal, I must be against guns and in favor of letting everyone and their cousin's uncle's brother's illegal immigrant's sister vote. You don't know me very well. Perhaps asking questions would have been wise before just jumping right in.

That's a hard sell, mate.