I love that someone also mentioned China on here as a place that has serious gun control but where murders still occur. It's funny to me that the gun crowd thinks China is somehow an example of ineffective gun control. The occasional mass shooting is not evidence of failed gun control. Weekly mass shootings (like we have) is. Let's look at China a little more closely.  Note, gun advocates: China's murder rate is 1 per 100,000. The United States' is 5 per 100,000. Even though China has rough 1.1 billion people (3.5+x more than the US), a much higher population density and much more poverty, they still have a murder rate about 5x lower than ours...their total number of murders are essentially the same as ours (around 13,000 a year).  No. I've never given any thought to the physics behind plowing through a wall into a crowded strip club. It seems like a very unlikely way to go about killing people (which is likely why we read about 3+ mass shootings a week and not 3+ mass "runnings over" a week). Moreover, ask yourself this: "If killing someone with a car is such a great option, why do we have 'drive-by shootings'?"  Yes, a gun doesn't commit murder. But, that's like saying nuclear weapons don't commit war crimes. "Murder" (like war crimes) is a legal concept that requires a human actor. So, of course, guns don't commit "murder"...by definition. Guns/bullets do, however, kill people.  And, guns/bullets are the tool with which the vast vast majority of murderers choose to use in killing people. Moreover, guns are a tool designed with one purpose...to kill.  So, again, why shouldn't such a tool be subject to some pretty serious regulation?  Why do you gun folks insist on repeating the same illogical attempts at analogy over and over again? Is there some sort of taking points memo I've missed.  Generally, the distinguishable feature of guns from the other items you'e noted is that guns are designed with one purpose...to kill a living thing. Guns and obesity are different because obesity is a medical condition, not a product/machine.  The other items are designed with functional/useful purposes and the deaths from their use are merely incidental (and generally an accident). Moreover, obesity is not a product, but a malady generally brought on by overeating...it's literally ridiculous to compare it to gun ownership.  Anyway, perhaps you can conceptually it this way. If use a car correctly, I go from point A to point B safely. If I use a gun correctly, I kill or maim someone.  (1) Cars. Purpose: Point A to Point B. Deaths are incidental to a car's purpose and generally result from defects or misuse. Death or serious bodily harm is the purpose of gun use. Get the distinction?  Moreover, even though cars are not made to kill people, we do impose substantially more regulations on cars than we do on firearms. You have to title a car in your name with the state (not so for non-auto guns). You have to register every sale of the car with the state and name the buyer (not so for guns). We have safety regulations for cars like you must wear your seatbelt and they must have airbags (not so for guns, you guys wouldn't even let gun locks be required). Etc. etc. etc.  (2) Alcohol. This is a product. But, like cars, it is designed for a specific purpose (to intoxicate) and any harm to society done by those who have ingested it is incidental to its use. That is, the purpose of a bottle of liquor is to get someone drunk. Contrast this to the purpose of a gun....to kill someone.  And, like cars, alcohol is heavily regulated. Much more so than guns.  (3) Obesity. This is generally a self-inflicted malady that primarily affects the person who chooses to become obese by eating too much. It's unlike the other two examples you cite in that it isn't a product (like a car or a gun); but rather its a medical condition. Since it's a medical condition, the consequences for the obesity are primarily bourn by the person who eats too much (medical costs do affect the public to some extent monetarily).  Contrast this to guns. The consequences of gun ownership are rarely bourn by the gun owner. Rather, the person shot with the gun bears the cost...usually by paying with his life. Vastly different.  Bernerd. Wrong. That's literally a blatant lie. This fact isn't even disputed. Have you received an NRA pamphlet telling you otherwise?  The UK has much, much tighter gun control laws than we do (e.g., the type of guns sold is strictly limited and, even for those guns, you have to get a 5 year permit for each one citing a legal use). Contrast our policies here allowing any a-hole with a wad of cartel cash can go buy 30 AR-15s a day with drum clips.
Three people were shot and killed and another injured by a dissatisfied patron of a strip club in Alabama late Thursday, police say.