>>> would assume he means by taking $7,740,521 from the NRA -- because all they want is as many guns as possible with as few laws and regulations or record keeping as possible, regardless of how many people in the USA get mowed down by gunfire or suicide. This latest ploy about the bump-stocks is simply just that... a ploy to avoid any further or meaningful gun laws from happening.
>
>Until relatively recently it was a legal requirement for adult males in Switzerland to maintain an assault rifle in their home. To make sure, government issued such weapons to its citizens and residents so that most homes had a semi-automatic weapon. Ammo came for free for it as well. When the law changed, you could choose whether to hold onto the issued weapon. Most held onto it, though now it was their own responsibility to procure ammo for it.
>
>Why does this matter? Because mass shootings- in fact any sort of shooting- is very rare in Switzerland. This precedent suggests it's not legality/availability of weapons that makes the difference- or else Switzerland would be like the Wild West.
>
>Meanwhile Chicago, with its strict gun control laws, has a very high rate of shooting crime.

That is not exactly correct - and it doesn't make much difference if you can go to a gun show or online and buy a gun does it?

>There's something else going on in the US. What is it?
>
>As an example, despite these large numbers of military rifles, the estimated Swiss weapon count is about 25% of the US count. The Swiss per capita count also is less than that in adjacent nations like Germany.
>
>Part of the issue is that "guns" are all lumped together so (for example) you can't tell whether it's semi-automatic weapons, double-barrel shotguns or hand guns affecting your statistics. Even in places with relatively liberal gun control laws like NZ, pistols are not allowed without quite stringent safety and organizational participation rules which reduces pistol crime to almost none. If it turns out the US problem revolves around (say) semi-automatic rifles and pistols, a generic anti-gun message just offends educated weapon owners. IOW there's a lot more to this than a few slogans and demonizing the NRA.

There is no question that the NRA is part of the problem, and sure as hell is NOT part of the solution. Like I said before - their goal is to have as many guns out there with as little oversight as possible. Frankly they like it when these mass shootings happen -- you notice that the gun sales and the stock prices of gun manufactures goes up ever time this happens right? So yes there is more than a few slogans - it's bribes and greed at its fullest at the cost of American lives. It's about as low as one can go. Call it demonizing the demon.
Most of the gun shootings here are not from the automatic or semi-automatic weapons, it's from handguns. These mass shootings simply get more press. There is an average or more than 1 mass shooting in the USA EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! The gun-lovers will claim it's their 2nd Amendment right - but obviously our founding fathers of the country didn't write it with the intent that people could mow down fellow citizens with AK47's and M16's - it was written when it took a couple of minutes to load a musket. Time have changed a bit. It's a lack of common sense -- for example a person does not need to own 47 damn guns and 30,000 rounds of ammunition, and they do not need 30 round clips and bump stocks either. The sole purpose of these is to mow down as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. This gun problem seems to be unique to the USA - and obviously legislative action needs to happen to address it. The NRA is focused on making sure no such legislative action happens. The NRA is not a positive force by any means for our country or the people in it.