psychological evaluation: you must be crazy to want to own a gun.
I don't know, do the maths for yourself.
My point is Europe has twice more people, stricter gun laws and 8 time less mass shootings.
Less guns, less crimes. Deal with it
Less legal guns = less guns to steal = less illegal guns = less crimes.Wait! You’re getting pissy because you are losing the argument. The amount of people doesn’t matter. Throw that out.
You have stricter gun laws, ( not compared to our largest cities) but overall yes. The only thing that matters in this argument are the amount of guns privately owned.
The U.S. has 300 million legally owned guns. Only 15 percent of legally obtained guns are involved in the commission of crimes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/
That’s 85 percent of legal gun owners that never break the law.
Guess how many illegally obtained weapons are used in the commission of crimes?
More than 60 percent and that is being conservative.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ty-gun-crime-isnt-committed-lawful-gun-owners
Your contention that stricter gun laws equals less crime is preposterous.
Our bluest cities have some of the strictest laws and the laws have zero effect on criminals obtaining weapons.
Another factor is the gun crime within the black and Hispanic communities and especially amongst gangs.
Which is a part of American culture not experienced widely in Europe.
Try again johan.
I think having served on thé military could get you a gun licence.so can serve in the military but not own a firearm?
even so, how would any of those have prevented this shooting?
he already broke the law by committing 17 counts of premeditated murder.
what other laws would have stopped him?
what laws stop gang members from shooting each other?
There's no law that could prevent mass shootings. But every gun legislation passed will help lowering the chance for mass shootings to happen and/or help lowering the death toll
Nos it's a facture : volunteers with stricter gun laws have lower crime raté and lower fin death. Same goes for us states with stricter gun laws : they have less gun death (I posted a proof of that here a few hours ago).
There's no law that could prevent mass shootings. But every gun legislation passed will help lowering the chance for mass shootings to happen and/or help lowering the death toll
Nos it's a facture : volunteers with stricter gun laws have lower crime raté and lower fin death. Same goes for us states with stricter gun laws : they have less gun death (I posted a proof of that here a few hours ago).
Yes, we do want to stop it and with Trump in office we are going to implement measures to secure our schools. Liberals do not want armed security at our schools but that is what is going to happen. We have various school resource officers at some schools across the country but nothing on a comprehensive nationwide effort.But the worst part of all this is that, as a country, you're not even trying to solve the problem, you're not even trying to save these kids, you're not even trying to prevent this from happening again.
You're just saying "nothing would guarantee it won't happen again si let's do nothing". And for that, as a country, as a nation, you deserved that shooting. And you deserve every other shooting that will happen 'til you do something
To libs, mass murder of school children is acceptable collateral damage in the ultimate goal of overturning second amendment rights.
Here is an example of a mass shooting in Germany as late as 2016. Germany has very strict gun laws, upon whose hands does the blood of these victims cover?
Mass shootings NEVER happen in Europe.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4wb9p3/mass-shootings-in-europe-in-2016
Yikes look at California. 60% non white, "they're not sending us their best", 3 million or so illegals, yet gun deaths are quite low.
Must be because of all the leaf blower homicides that have taken their place.
You try your best to see the exact point:
HERE, such shootings are a one-off thing, at home, in the USA, you have one pretty much every other day.
Plus:
We are NOT talking "Gun Laws". We are talking "Mass Killing Weapon Laws". If there were just normal revolvers, pistols, winchester-style rifles, there would not be this spree of mass killings. It is the careless legalization of weapons clearly and only designed for mass killings, that are the problem.
Are you too thick to understand this simple difference?
I am absolutely fine with allowing the "classic" firearms, that are for hunting, normal self-defense, etc. What are AR-15s etc for? Mass Murder.
:1orglaugh
Actually I shouldn't be laughing. Beyond being laughable, this is also a truly repugnant claim to make.
Not to mention being paranoid, but then that's a given.
The liberal goal of a majority Supreme Court is geared toward nullifying the second amendment.
It is the main reason they want control of the court.
:1orglaugh
Yep. We try to keep that on the down low, but you righties are so brilliantly insightful you're able to read right through us :1orglaugh
There is one thing that I can guarantee, even if the left were successful in taking away the right to bear arms, the second they were ordered surrendered or they were ordered to be confiscated, the deadliest civil war would break out in this country that would make the first civil war look like a skirmish.
That's the only thing in your post that makes any sense, and one of the reasons it does is because millions of moderate liberals and liberal gun owners would stand alongside you in that fight, including myself. But it isn't ever going to come to that, because they'd stand alongside you politically on that point first.