When will Americans realise gun control works?

Be prepared for responses with lots of heat and very little light.

Unfortunately, the question of the proper role of firearms in civil society is not one where the evidence is unequivocal. There are heavily-armed dangerous societies (e.g. Somalia), there are heavily-armed safe socities (e.g. Switzerland), there are lightly-armed safe socities (e.g. Japan), and there are lightly-armed dangerous socities (much of Central America).

Given how inconsistent the data is, one can find trends and correlations to support almost any claim on the subject.

I'm used to the flack on this subject, Old School. I used to argue this stuff on EP before I came here.
I am sure there are factors beyond the availability of guns which factor into it, such as how violent the mindset of a society is, but there are a couple of inescapable conclusions one must draw.
1. If you have more guns, you are gonna get more shootings, and some of those shootings are bound to be at people.
2. No US state has even proposed bringing in a level of gun control that would be likely to be effective.
3. Unless guns are brought under federal control, anything individual states do is not going to be effective, as people will just be able to buy guns in a different state.
In any case, as Mr. Zimmerman says he wanted his comments to reach Americans, I thought I would post these links here, so he could reach a few more of them.

Depending on one's perspective, of COURSE gun control works!  If, say, you're a tyrant or an individual infected by the moral/intellectual rot of socialism who is bent on making everyone slavishly dependent on government, then yes, gun control works.

Whenever one takes a position which favors the infringement of an individual's human rights, one should expect 'flack.'  For most of us 'gun nuts (actually, I own no firearms),' this is an issue of principle: does a person have the right to defend him/herself by whatever means may be used against him/her by an attacker?  I contend that s/he does. YMMV.

I applaud your courage, though, for addressing the issue. :-D

One example doesn't prove a thing.  That is not relatable on  a grand scale, good story as it may be.

I happen to be in favor of gun control, but not because of one person's experience.  I think if we cannot see the writing on the wall by now, we will just shoot ourselves into oblivion.

I happen to be in favor of gun control, too!  I think our leaders should do precisely that: lead by example.  When government disarms itself, the citizens, too, shall disarm.

Until then, 'gun control' should mean controlling one's gun(s).

Mr. Nimitz, I do not at any point see it as a freedom to have the "right" to bear arms. How is it freedom to be too scared to walk the streets of your country without a gun? I note you do not own a gun yourself, but so many of your countrymen tell me they feel the streets of their towns and cities are too dangerous to walk unarmed. If that is the result of the "right" to bear arms, then it is a right I do not want.
I have not said anything courageous in addressing the issue. It would be brave in my country to come here and say you want the "right" to bear arms. Most countries have gun control, and very few are tyrannies. It is encouraging to know all these gun-toting Americans are ready to overthrow Donald Trump if he takes power.
Stepper, gun control working is when you have a country, such as here in the UK, where, despite gun ownership being at an all-time high, guns are very rarely used in crime, to commit suicide, or result in accidental death. Wouldn't you agree? I know millions of Americans get it about the need for gun control. Sharonna here is an example. Unfortunately, the pro-gun lobby are vociferous, and because some idiot made it a "constitutional right," something only Guatemala and Mexico share, and both of those countries have some limits on it, attempts to improve the situation there tend to be thwarted. My question was addressed to the pro-gun people.
Sharronna, I know this is just one example, but when I heard this guy tell his story, I knew it was an example that should be shared. For many reasons, not least his refusal to blame the guy who attacked him; he said he sympathised with the poor, sick guy.

Show me gun control that affects criminals, not law abiding citizens.

@Nimitz -- And pre-US-invasion Iraq had in AK-47 in every household. It was still a totalitarian dictatorship.

The evidence of history strongly suggests armed civilians can only withstand the power of established government armies if one or both of the following happens:

A) At least part of the government military joins the rebel side

B) The rebels are financed/equipped by an outside government who perceives its geopolitical interests are served by supporting the rebellion.

Otherwise, the record of governments squashing rebellions like bugs (especially in the era of the military-industiral complex) is extremely lopsided.

Criminals who want guns will always get them regardless of the law. There's always a black market to meet the demand for any illegal thing.

Well, that is just pie-in-the-sky talk.   Sure that would be so "nice" and all, but there is a problem.  Who is going to go first? 

By that logic, you favor getting rid of laws against speeding, robbing liquor stores, falsifying tax returns, murdering your neighbor, etc. because there isn't 100% compliance with those laws either, right?

I support private ownership of firearms (within what I consider a reasonable framework), but the "criminals don't obey gun laws" argument used to oppose any incremental change in the legal framework is simply bogus.

Of course not. I'm just saying that gun laws won't have the desired effect, much like Prohibition and drug laws.

Walchung, criminals find it very hard to get guns in the UK. Gang bangers took to using antique guns, because they couldn't get anything else. The government closed that loophole, and brought antique guns under the provisions of the firearms act a few years back. As I said before, gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is at an all time high. Guns are only used in 0.02% of crimes here. http://web.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2013-14/rpt-chapter-3.html?format=print http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/9446474/UK-gun-owners.html

Yes. It comes down to the people and society in a given area that make it good or bad.

The US is not an island. Open borders on both north and south. Anyone can bring truck loads of guns and drugs into the US because there are to many miles of border to watch effectively.

Also, we have rights that the government does not have the power to take away. If they could they would not be rights.

Good and evil reside with the individual and society as a whole based on how we raise our young.

Yea but as a certain shooting proves gun control makes it easier for the law to identify a gun man. When every one els ain't walking around with one as well