>

Tougher gun laws worked for Australia ...
Been in Japan 10 years never even seen or heard a gun outside of the internet/movies/tv. Can't have anything to do with their laws though. >

Because the laws you're talking about are several hundreds of years old. They basically prohibited peasants from owning weapons in order to prevent uprisings. Those laws were revised and rewritten dozens of times and then again post-WWII after Japan became occupied by the US in order to make sure Japan couldn't rise up against the occupying forces.  
You don't see firearms because the rate of firearm ownership, or any weapon ownership, was extremely limited from the beginning. >

Every day is a beginning. >

Except not all beginnings are the same. It's very easy to toss out fun phrases on the internet without weighing contextual and historical differences.  
Say I wrote a law in the US prohibiting the production and ownership of cricket bats and cricket accessories. Here in the US, that law would probably be easy to achieve because rh rate of ownership is low and there's not domestic industry that drives sales of cricket-related products on local and international markets.  
But let's say after succeeding in the US, I turned around and said "since it worked in the US, it's now time to ban cricket in India, the UK, and Australia." It would be much harder to implement because there is a larger established cricket fan base, the rate of ownership of cricket-related products is much higher, and they have localized markets which drive sales.  
Saying "well, every day is a beginning" doesn't mean as much because the laws would be "beginning" in completely different contexts which either support or diminish the likelihood of successful implementation.   
So back to firearms, Japan never had widespread firearm ownership in their population. They also never hard a large firearm industry which served both the Japanese and international markets. The US has all of the above: high rate of ownership and a very large industry. >

You’re right. We’re too in entrenched in this shit so we shouldn’t ever consider just doing what will fix it. 
Wait, no… that’s not right at all. The best time to get rid of the 2nd amendment was yesterday. The next best time is today.
End this shit someday by starting now. >

Yes, because obviously since I acknowledge that there are some important issues at play, I believe we should do nothing. That's not fallacious at all.  
The US has a problem with violence overall. It's systemic and embedded into the very fabric of our society along with driving forced such as racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry which lean on state sanctioned violence in order to be perpetuated.  
So part of the other issue with creating widespread firearm bans is lopsided enforcement, which we have already seen happen in the US when we talk about issuance of carry permits that are determined by the police as opposed to an objective series of rules/criteria. You end up with police and their violent friends being approved for firearm ownership and minorities being unjustifiably rejected at much higher rates. It also means that the enforcement of stricter rules happens to fall in the same way, leaving vulnerable people to be made more vulnerable...and that's kind of intentional.  
But there are solutions to the violence here in the US and they're solutions many of us have been trying to work on for years. Violence always has a context, even if the claim is that violence is random. We struggle with socioeconomic disparities in this country, a biased criminal justice system, a police force which is nothing more than a large violent gang, and the worst healthcare delivery system in the world relative to what we pay into it. These are driving factors which influence violence. Remove those factors, address white supremacism and fascism in this country, and I guarantee it'll have faster and more effective results than spending the next 20-30 years trying to pass and enforce firearm bans. >

Does California have lax laws? They just had 2 or 3 high profile mass shootings and that is after decades of passing almost every gun control law their legislature has come up with. Assault weapons bans, safe handgun rosters, ubcs, 10 day waiting periods, 1 gun a month purchase limits, etc. >

No gun law can stop someone with a gun from snapping and going on a rampage. Besides an outright ban.  And even then it won’t be 0.  Gun laws will reduce the amount of times it happens.  But it can still happen.  Plenty of mass shooters were legal gun owners.  The Las Vegas shooter was legal until he snapped… >

And if we don’t address why these people snap there still going to snap. Say we do ban guns and a year later some idiot makes a bomb out of a propane tank and a few things of nails. Will we then ban propane? I’m willing to give up my guns make no mistakes about that, I just think if we want to truly solve this problem we need to get to the root of it. Though I know Everyone here’s going to downvote me and send me threats because I don’t think just banning guns is the solution but I’ll say it again. If we don’t address why these people are doing it they will just use some other weapon. I just don’t want to keep having a discussion on treating a symptom instead of treating the actual disease. >


And if we don’t address why these people snap there still going to snap.

Anger, mental illness, dementia, etc.  Humans are emotional and that will never change. How do you stop emotion? >

Better mental health programs, fixing the wealth disparity, and making it cheaper to get help/treatment if you need it. >


Better mental health programs, fixing the wealth disparity, and making it cheaper to get help/treatment if you need it.

none of that stops emotional outbursts or people intentionally acting violently. violence will still exist. what then? >

I don’t know what to tell you. All we can do is try to fix it. Violence is human nature the best we can do is try to control it. But what your glossing over is that people will still be violent even after banning guns as well. So smart guy what’s your plan on handiling it? Or are you just going to keep banning stuff every time a idiot finds a way to kill people with it. >


So smart guy what’s your plan on handiling it? Or are you just going to keep banning stuff every time a idiot finds a way to kill people with it.

handling violence in general? every country has violence, you will never change that. but by eliminating gun violence you save billions of dollars and thousands of lives, every year. that money could be put into reducing violence even more. you can't ban everything that can be used as a weapon, but you can ban weapons like guns. >

Alll that’s going to to is drastically increase stabbinngs
Edit: and real funny how when it comes to your opinion you don’t have to stop all violence. >

Captain Obvious has entered the chat >

It’s really that simple. But we live in a capitalist country where corporations can buy off or “lobby” politicians into doing what’s best for the corporation, who only care about profits and not lives, not even elementary school kids lives. >

Those corporations can also incessantly frighten dumbasses into buying more guns than they could possibly need. Simple arithmetic would tell you that more than one gun will not make you any safer, assuming you pick the 'safest' gun. A person with 50 guns is the same threat to would-be interlopers as one single gun in competent hands. 
I've been to gun shops quite a few times, despite not owning any firearms at the moment. The literature is riddled with ads saying shit like "Get your man-card back!" Or "They're coming for you!" (the latter featuring some rural homestead no one would ever bother to rob). At this point, most of these gun hoarders have simply made themselves much higher-value targets for thieves (because, again, only the first gun acts as deterrent, the rest are loot). 
I really really wish our citizens were more wise to when they're being manipulated. Our consumerist culture works by first hollowing out your identity, then showing you the consumer item to make that identity whole again. That's the crux of the gun-nut crowd. Just a hobby to make you feel whole, but pressures you into paranoia and anthropophobia.
Kudos to the gun owners who manage to avoid that cultural trap.