Mass shootings are nothing new...

[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.

Because it's obvious that is what he meant.

[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.

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



 :001_rolleyes:

Whoa, what does Columbine have to do with Islamic terror?



And how do you know banning guns would have prevented the ISIS blessed attack in Orlando? I guarantee a ban on Muslims would have prevented all those deaths.

[Anonymous]

Whoa, what does Columbine have to do with Islamic terror?



And how do you know banning guns would have prevented the ISIS blessed attack in Orlando? I guarantee a ban on Muslims would have prevented all those deaths.

Jock, you rock brother. ac_drinks

[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:

Yes, Fash is saying make it easy for known Islamic terrorists, Ku Klux Klanners and mafia to buy weapons.



Old Jock is beating you badly in these two threads, but stooping to putting words in people's mouths is a Rohammad tactic not an RW one.

[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:

Whoa, what does Columbine have to do with Islamic terror?



And how do you know banning guns would have prevented the ISIS blessed attack in Orlando? I guarantee a ban on Muslims would have prevented all those deaths.

Sometimes I feel like I'm staring into an intellectual vacuum....



What makes you think that Islam wouldn't just go underground and Islamics would continue committing  atrocities?  



I don't know banning guns would have prevented this atrocity, but it may have because, now pay attention, a vast majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings, including two guns believed to be used in the Orlando attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check.



They weren't bought underground.  They weren't obtained illegally.



Also, statistically speaking, you have a higher chance of being a victim of a mass shooting perpetrated by a non-Muslim than a Muslim.

[Twenty Dollars]

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:

Whoa, what does Columbine have to do with Islamic terror?



And how do you know banning guns would have prevented the ISIS blessed attack in Orlando? I guarantee a ban on Muslims would have prevented all those deaths.

I know you know the shooter was a citizen of Merica. Born in New York.

[cc]

Exactly. That's the point. You can't vet future kids ... the 2nd generation who are most likely to go all allah on us



Not that the lying scumbag Papa is worth having either



Mama beat the piss outa Papa  and was charged in 2012  ... all in all a really great bag of goodies, eh?



Got any more "gems" for us ... while you are on a roll?

[Anonymous]

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

I never said make it easier, RW did..



Canada is a hunting nation, so I accept there will always be Cabela's stores selling rifles, ammunition. knives and hunting gear..



But I like the strict rules around handgun ownership and care in this country.

[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:

Yes, Fash is saying make it easy for known Islamic terrorists, Ku Klux Klanners and mafia to buy weapons.



Old Jock is beating you badly in these two threads, but stooping to putting words in people's mouths is a Rohammad tactic not an RW one.

Herman, you're bringing a water gun to an intellectual fire fight dude.



Haha

[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

I never said make it easier, RW did..



Canada is a hunting nation, so I accept there will always be Cabela's stores selling rifles, ammunition. knives and hunting gear..



But I like the strict rules around handgun ownership and care in this country.

I think stricter rules and better checks and balances will go a long way in preventing mass shootings in the US.

[Anonymous]

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

I never said make it easier, RW did..



Canada is a hunting nation, so I accept there will always be Cabela's stores selling rifles, ammunition. knives and hunting gear..



But I like the strict rules around handgun ownership and care in this country.

I think stricter rules and better checks and balances will go a long way in preventing mass shootings in the US.

Some maybe, but especially domestic violence..  



I doubt it will have much affect on terror attacks.

[Anonymous]

The Czech Republic has less restrictive gun laws than the US, but when there are gun crimes it usually committed by unlicensed owners. More importantly, the Czech Republic has not opened the flood gates to Muslims like France and Belgium have and the result has been no mass attacks like those two countries have had.  Their president said it is impossible to integrate Muslims into Europe and the attacks in Western Europe prove he's right.



The only way to stop Islamic terror is to ban Muslims not guns.

[RW]

Again Fash, this latest shooter got his gun legally.  If you consider all mass shootings acts of terrorism (rather than just the ones carried out by Muslims), the vast majority of them use weapons gained legally.  If guns weren't available legally, mass shootings, by sheer statistical reasoning, would decrease.  They did in Australia.



So I'm a bit confused how one can claim they wouldn't decrease given the evidence to the contrary.

[RW]

The Czech Republic has less restrictive gun laws than the US, but when there are gun crimes it usually committed by unlicensed owners. More importantly, the Czech Republic has not opened the flood gates to Muslims like France and Belgium have and the result has been no mass attacks like those two countries have had.  Their president said it is impossible to integrate Muslims into Europe and the attacks in Western Europe prove he's right.



The only way to stop Islamic terror is to ban Muslims not guns.

We have a more open policy on Muslims and stricter gun laws and few mass shootings and terrorist attacks.



Explain that one Herman's Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Again Fash, this latest shooter got his gun legally.  If you consider all mass shootings acts of terrorism (rather than just the ones carried out by Muslims), the vast majority of them use weapons gained legally.  If guns weren't available legally, mass shootings, by sheer statistical reasoning, would decrease.  They did in Australia.



So I'm a bit confused how one can claim they wouldn't decrease given the evidence to the contrary.

So, if he bought his gun illegally just like the different Paris shootings, you would see the problem is Muslims not guns correct?





Australia has not opened the spiggot to uncontrolled Muslim migration like Europe has. That is the thing you and Rohammad conveniently leave out. Evidence shows no Muslims is the only proven way of stopping Islamic terror.