I'm not completely black and white on this. There are some grey areas. If you make dangerous drugs illegal then yes, on one hand, you make it harder for people to get them and perhaps prevent some people from getting hurt, but on the other hand, you create a black market for them and instead of getting these drugs in pristine form from a pharmacy, they get them from questionable sources where the quality is highly variable and the contents may not exactly be what one expects. This as I understand it is one of the major problems with these new, exotic drugs that are being shipped in from China. With the black market comes additional crime drug wars, warehousing dealers in prison, and all that jazz. In the end, I think we end up with mixed results and not the clear win that one might expect. It's messy, so I'm not really sure which is better or worse in this case. A reasonable balance might be a better choice?
It undoubtedly is. But part of the problem is the mentality to guns. Even if no legislated is made in response to it, accepting that guns kill would be an important step towards that.
Regarding guns, not all of the US is urban. We have mostly remote areas like farmland, deserts and forest when you can't just call a cop and expect them to come in 5 minutes should you need immediate protection. We have some areas where there is dangerous wild life - like packs of wolves, Aligators and 800lb bears. In more remote areas like this where people typically hunt, people do need guns.
Doesn't Canada manage to deal with such problems without needing the second Amendment? (Okay no alligators, but police are far away and wolves and bears)
Part of the reason why we have a right to arms as I understand, is to create a balance of power in order to protect the country against tyranny. While the current president might not pose a threat, down the line, we could end up with a leader who goes Bashar al-Assad on us and turns the military against us. This has happened in other countries, it could happen to us one day. In a case like that, either we can resist with the use of weapons, or we get obliterated or enslaved or whatever.
Two problems with this:
1. This could happen in the future, people are dying now.
2. The US has a military. Either they side with the government, and you will get slaughtered (Vietnam does not support a civilian victory because the political considerations that lead to the withdrawal of US forces would not be a factor in an revolution), or they side with the people against the government, and you don't need an armed population to topple them, the professional military does that.
I think taking away guns altogether is bad in light of these points, and adding new laws to the ones we already have is ineffective.
So you want a balance, but you don't want new gun laws? How are things going to be balanced? By changing nothing?
It's easy to just blame the guns for everything, but a gun is a tool which cannot fire itself. These shootings are people problems, not gun problems.
Yes, but people problems don't have as high a death count when the problematic people don't have such easy access to guns.
For the record, California has the strictest gun laws in the US.
Not too relevant, no state is an island and authorities have limited control to prevent guns crossing a a state borders. Besides, strictest gun law in the US doesn't mean too much when it still needs to comply with the latest interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Paris is even more strict, and yet they got shot up.
Twice (that I know of). This is the 350th mass shooting event in the US this year. Now I get that figure from an anti-gun page, so we can assume it have been inflated by some ridiculously broad definition of "mass shooting", but even assuming its been artificially boosted, the point remains that a mass shooting incident in Paris is a major event. For the US, someone in this thread responded "Not again".