Mass shootings are nothing new...

[RW]

No doubt stricter gun control would be effective in lowering the homicide rate. But, as a tool in fighting terror attacks like Paris, Orlando and the latest one in Israel? No.



As for criminal gangs, tighter gun control may even be good for their business.

The "terrorist" in Orlando obtained his gun legally in the US.

[Anonymous]

No doubt stricter gun control would be effective in lowering the homicide rate. But, as a tool in fighting terror attacks like Paris, Orlando and the latest one in Israel? No.



As for criminal gangs, tighter gun control may even be good for their business.

The "terrorist" in Orlando obtained his gun legally in the US.

We know, but Seoul is saying that legal means nothing to terror groups or organized crime..



Paris shooting and Charlie Hebdo being examples of that.

[cc]

True. "Legal" has no meaning to anyone dedicated / committed to kill



As to "dedicated / committed " / "AFFAIRS IN ORDER"  :

The guy, not wealthy,  even "quit claimed" a house to his sister for 10$ 2 months before attack ... along with other "unusual" things



I don't know what it takes for the public to see that , gun, bomb, fire, whatever ... this critter was committed  to kill for his god long before and would kill as many as he could with whatever he could  .. period



If gun was his method of choice, he would have found one at any cost ... .ffs, he even tried to buy heavy body armor during this period.

This committed bastard would have purchased a gun on the black market even if death was the penalty for holding a gun ffs



After giving his home to family for just one example of determination. clearly this critter would find a way to kill



What part of "he was long dedicated to kill and would find a way or ways NO MATTER WHAT" can't  people get



https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/1467">THEY KNEW! Orlando Shooter sold house to sister for $10 in April; new wife scrubbed social media before attack Also available on several other sources



As well as he know the club as a setup,  frankly I'm surprised he didn't follow the concept of the Seattle nightclub islamic and use carefully placed fire(s) as a really easy way to kill in packed nightclubs

[Romero]

I don't know what it takes for the public to see that , gun, bomb, fire, whatever ... this critter was committed  to kill for his god long before and would kill as many as he could with whatever he could  .. period

Just like all the mass shooters in Australia since they enacted gun control. How many have there been since?

[cc]

So clearly you acknowledge this was a dedicated / committed islamic killing for his god ..... but imply that if guns were banned he would have merely stayed home



and sulked ... maybe even cried



and not torched the place or blew it up



or found guns  ... as his compatriots did in Brussels, Paris etc





You might wish to explain those in light of the fact that they do not have US gun laws ....yet amazingly kranny-followers killed almost 100 for their devil-god in the Bacalan alone by gun .. not to mention Charlie Hebdo and Brussels

[Romero]

So clearly you acknowledge this was a dedicated / committed islamic killing for his god ..... but imply that if guns were banned he would have merely stayed home

I never said anything remotely like that.



Gun deaths and mass shootings will happen. Just a lot less in countries with common sense gun control. The numbers don't lie.

[RW]

No doubt stricter gun control would be effective in lowering the homicide rate. But, as a tool in fighting terror attacks like Paris, Orlando and the latest one in Israel? No.



As for criminal gangs, tighter gun control may even be good for their business.

The "terrorist" in Orlando obtained his gun legally in the US.

We know, but Seoul is saying that legal means nothing to terror groups or organized crime..



Paris shooting and Charlie Hebdo being examples of that.

So because there will always be terrorists who can obtain weapons illegally, we should make it easy for them to obtain them legally as well?



There is yet another logic fail.



 :001_rolleyes:

[RW]

True. "Legal" has no meaning to anyone dedicated / committed to kill



As to "dedicated / committed " / "AFFAIRS IN ORDER"  :

The guy, not wealthy,  even "quit claimed" a house to his sister for 10$ 2 months before attack ... along with other "unusual" things



I don't know what it takes for the public to see that , gun, bomb, fire, whatever ... this critter was committed  to kill for his god long before and would kill as many as he could with whatever he could  .. period



If gun was his method of choice, he would have found one at any cost ... .ffs, he even tried to buy heavy body armor during this period.

This committed bastard would have purchased a gun on the black market even if death was the penalty for holding a gun ffs



After giving his home to family for just one example of determination. clearly this critter would find a way to kill



What part of "he was long dedicated to kill and would find a way or ways NO MATTER WHAT" can't  people get



https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/1467">THEY KNEW! Orlando Shooter sold house to sister for $10 in April; new wife scrubbed social media before attack Also available on several other sources



As well as he know the club as a setup,  frankly I'm surprised he didn't follow the concept of the Seattle nightclub islamic and use carefully placed fire(s) as a really easy way to kill in packed nightclubs

Again cc, I think the idea is to make it as difficult as possible to obtain weapons to commit atrocities.  By giving people LEGAL means makes it inherently easier to commit crimes of this nature.  What's wrong with limiting that access?

[cc]

No doubt stricter gun control would be effective in lowering the homicide rate. But, as a tool in fighting terror attacks like Paris, Orlando and the latest one in Israel? No.



As for criminal gangs, tighter gun control may even be good for their business.

The "terrorist" in Orlando obtained his gun legally in the US.

We know, but Seoul is saying that legal means nothing to terror groups or organized crime..



Paris shooting and Charlie Hebdo being examples of that.

So because there will always be terrorists who can obtain weapons illegally, we should make it easy for them to obtain them legally as well?



There is yet another logic fail.



 :001_rolleyes:

She said no such thing, She said and I quote "" Seoul is saying that legal means nothing to terror groups or organized crime..



Paris shooting and Charlie Hebdo being examples of that."



Nowhere did she say or imply  .. and I quote " we should make it easy for them to obtain them legally as well? "



Nowhere have I said that either, in fact I have said the very opposite



What is going on here?

[RW]

No doubt stricter gun control would be effective in lowering the homicide rate. But, as a tool in fighting terror attacks like Paris, Orlando and the latest one in Israel? No.



As for criminal gangs, tighter gun control may even be good for their business.

The "terrorist" in Orlando obtained his gun legally in the US.

We know, but Seoul is saying that legal means nothing to terror groups or organized crime..



Paris shooting and Charlie Hebdo being examples of that.

So because there will always be terrorists who can obtain weapons illegally, we should make it easy for them to obtain them legally as well?



There is yet another logic fail.



 :001_rolleyes:

She said no such thing, She said and I quote "" Seoul is saying that legal means nothing to terror groups or organized crime..



Paris shooting and Charlie Hebdo being examples of that."



Nowhere did she say or imply  .. and I quote " ... make it easy for them to obtain them legally as well?"

She said it's not a tool in fighting terrorism in Orlando.  If this "terrorist" couldn't have obtained a weapon legally, this may have never happened.



Again, why make is easier cc????

[cc]

No one is saying "make is easier " that's your words



Again, she did not say "it's not a tool in fighting terrorism in Orlando"  ... whatever that means. Far as I can see, those are also your words



As for me, how many times must I say DON'T MAKE IT EASIER .. MAKE IT a LOT HARDER so that it gets through??



And I'll bet Fash is not a loose gun laws  fan also

[RW]

No one is saying "make is easier " that's your words



Again, she did not say "it's not a tool in fighting terrorism in Orlando"  ... whatever that means. Far as I can see, those are also your words



As for me, how many times must I say DON'T MAKE IT EASIER .. MAKE IT a LOT HARDER so that it gets through??



And I'll bet Fash is not a loose gun laws  fan also

*sigh*



Sorry, I seem to be harping the very valid point of stricter gun laws.

[Anonymous]

No doubt stricter gun control would be effective in lowering the homicide rate. But, as a tool in fighting terror attacks like Paris, Orlando and the latest one in Israel? No.



As for criminal gangs, tighter gun control may even be good for their business.

The "terrorist" in Orlando obtained his gun legally in the US.

We know, but Seoul is saying that legal means nothing to terror groups or organized crime..



Paris shooting and Charlie Hebdo being examples of that.

So because there will always be terrorists who can obtain weapons illegally, we should make it easy for them to obtain them legally as well?



There is yet another logic fail.



 :001_rolleyes:

That's not the conclusion I came to from his post. He seems to understand the futility in battling terror by banning guns. A person can still favour tight gun control and accept that it's ineffective in against Islamic terror.

[RW]

No doubt stricter gun control would be effective in lowering the homicide rate. But, as a tool in fighting terror attacks like Paris, Orlando and the latest one in Israel? No.



As for criminal gangs, tighter gun control may even be good for their business.

The "terrorist" in Orlando obtained his gun legally in the US.

We know, but Seoul is saying that legal means nothing to terror groups or organized crime..



Paris shooting and Charlie Hebdo being examples of that.

So because there will always be terrorists who can obtain weapons illegally, we should make it easy for them to obtain them legally as well?



There is yet another logic fail.



 :001_rolleyes:

That's not the conclusion I came to from his post. He seems to understand the futility in battling terror by banning guns. A person can still favour tight gun control and accept that it's ineffective in against Islamic terror.

In this case, a ban on guns could have very well prevented this attack as well as several other shootings like Columbine.



 :001_rolleyes:

[smell the glove]

What's wrong with limiting that access?

There are over 300,000,000 guns in the US.



"Limiting access" would be a very difficult task.



"Limiting access" to people that are hell bent on destruction, would be almost impossible.



I agree with CC's posts regarding this matter.



The US and Canada are not Australia.  Never have been, and never will be.