Why are pro-gun supporters so unwilling to look at instances where gun control works?

Following the latest incident in Vegas, the gun issue in America has been brought up again, and all I ever see is Americans ranting about how gun control doesn't work. I don't understand why people who are pro gun are so unwilling to look at instances where gun control works? There are cases where gun control doesn't work, and gun control doesn't stop all violence, but there are countless instances of gun control working? Why are people not even prepared to look at those examples? How many times does something like this need to happen before America actually acknowledges their problem with guns? I know it's tied into money and the fact the government often has their hands tied on the issue, but I'm referring to every day citizens who won't even give it the time of day.

This looks at it rather well:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

ahnd this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/experts-and-the-public-agree-on-how-to-stop-gun-violence-politicians-dont/?utm_term=.8e49bc4923f9

The influence of the gun lobby, mainly the manufacturers, led by the NRA, especially on Republicans, is toxic and pervasive.

You do realise the NRA isn’t a big political contributor financially

The second amendment states that people have the right to bear arms.

It doesn't work. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US and they have the most gun violence. Europe actually has more mass shootings than the US does. Hard to believe, and something I didn't believe until I looked it up. Show me where it has worked and I'll look at the data.

It really makes no sense. The amendment was drawn up by confederate white people who were threatened by large black population. It's roots are inherently racist. And yet it's the only amendment that's been left virtually untouched (apart from the banning of automatic rifles which really is pointless given the use of a bump stock).

You astound me. The NRA spends over $3 million on lobbying alone, and this is the tip of the iceberg. It spends massive amounts more in contributions to politicians around the country, and has an overall budget of $250 million. Its members are well known to vote according to candidates' stance on this single issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35261394


The NRA spends about $250m per year, far more than all the country's gun control advocacy groups put together. But the NRA has a much larger membership than any of those groups and disburses funds for things such as gun ranges and educational programmes.

In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy - the recorded spend on lobbying in 2014 was $3.3m. That is only the recorded contributions to lawmakers however, and considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track.

Analysts point out that the NRA also wields considerable indirect influence via its highly politically engaged membership, many of whom will vote one way or another based on this single issue. The NRA publicly grades members of Congress from A to F on their perceived friendliness to gun rights. Those ratings can have a serious effect on poll numbers and even cost pro-gun control candidates a seat.

I told you that. But you ignore the bit that said:

considerable sums are spent elsewhere via PACs and independent expenditures - funds which are difficult to track.

Obviously, much of the NRA's expenditure is deliberately obscured. Don't forget it is essentially an arms industry representative.

That’s a cop out, you don’t get to avoid proving your claim by saying ‘it’s difficult to find the evidence but I’ll report it as fact anyway’

I didn't report anything as a fact. I quoted a BBC report, which said that the spending is difficult to track. Do you deny what the NRA is set up to do?