>>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?

What is not exactly correct? That it was a legal requirement to have an assault weapon in a Swiss home; that when the law changed, many held onto them; or that shooting crime is high in Chicago and/or that Chicago has strict gun control laws?

As for buying a gun: some states have a stand-down period of 24-72 hours before taking possession of a purchased weapon, so as to allow time for background checks and to reduce crimes of passion. But there's no Federal waiting period. If the stats confirm a short duration between purchase and shooting, then a national waiting period might be a good start. It has to be national or else (as you note) somebody can pop across to a neighbouring state to take immediate possession of a weapon. If the stats don't confirm, then it's the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

>>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.

That's just a bald assertion of "I'm right, period. " Justify your stance with facts not polemics.

>>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.

Not just more press: the current political discourse and furor is about bump stocks and/or suppressors for assault weapons. So if most of the issue is hand guns, why aren't you decrying the political determination to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. Could it be that the NRA has a point that this is the wrong solution to the wrong problem? A distraction to comfort people that something is being done while the handgun elephant in the room gets another pass?

>>There is an average or more than 1 mass shooting in the USA EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!

Yes, I've made this point here more than once when presented with inflammatory polarized views on this topic.

>> 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.

It's an amendment. More amendments are possible if that's what the people want. If it's not what the people want, then who are these fascists trying to impose their will/trample people's inalienable rights? I'll bet it's the same ones clapping at disrespect of the flag.

>>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.

This is why I raised the issue of military assault weapons in Switzerland. Despite ready access to military weapons designed to mow down as many people as possible, Switzerland remains one of the most law abiding places on earth where you get growled at (but not shot at) for crossing the road in the wrong place. Clearly it's not the availability of weapons causing this difference. I hope you can engage that point, because it's the one that matters when people insist that controlling availability of weapons is the only way to reduce the shootings.