Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"France's Strict Gun Laws Did NOTHING to Stop Jihadist Terrorist Attacks"
Wrong.
This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
There is no evidence that with lax gun laws the attacks would have been 'prevented.'
That the attacks occurred in the context of France's gun laws is therefore not 'justification' to 'repeal' such laws or to otherwise not implement them elsewhere.
If France had 300 million guns like we do, would they have stopped the attacks?
doesn't seem to work for us
neither did californias strict gun laws stop the attack
it was even an illegal transfer of firearms
So why have any laws against anything?
So why have any laws against anything?
So...
Unless gun laws can stop 100% of all shootings, we shouldn't have any gun laws
Maybe we should apply the same standard to all of our laws
Churchill, Hitler and FDR did many mass shootings in France.The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.
If France had 300 million guns like we do, would they have stopped the attacks?
doesn't seem to work for us
Lets paint the picture...
All these people at a heavy metal rock concert armed. So the shooting starts and every pulls out there guns shooting...
Sometimes being armed doesn't help:
Police say couple who fatally shot 2 Vegas police officers and civilian believed law enforcement the 'oppressor'
Sometimes being armed doesn't help:
Police say couple who fatally shot 2 Vegas police officers and civilian believed law enforcement the 'oppressor'
WTF?Churchill, Hitler and FDR did many mass shootings in France.The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.
Visit a library sometime.
One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.
All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)
What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:
* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.
* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.
* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."
You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."
* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.
* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.
* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)
* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.
Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns
Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?
Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control
Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings
Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
Because laws cannot prevent crime, should a civilized nation repeal all law?
IMO, the premise of this OP and its author is based on a closed mind, framed by partisanship and an echo of RW propaganda.
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
You guys express it all the time....
Every gun control law that you guys say you want is precisely built on the premise that gun control laws can prevent gun crime...every single one, from licensing gun owners, to registering all guns to universal background checks....and they do not do that...they do not prevent gun crimes and they don't even help solve gun crimes.
Maybe the "BIG LIE" is just a figment of your imagination.One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.
All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)
What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:
* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.
* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.
* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."
You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."
* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.
* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.
* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)
* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.
Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns
Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?
Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control
Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings
Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
Because laws cannot prevent crime, should a civilized nation repeal all law?
IMO, the premise of this OP and its author is based on a closed mind, framed by partisanship and an echo of RW propaganda.
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
You guys express it all the time....
Every gun control law that you guys say you want is precisely built on the premise that gun control laws can prevent gun crime...every single one, from licensing gun owners, to registering all guns to universal background checks....and they do not do that...they do not prevent gun crimes and they don't even help solve gun crimes.
Gee, the right wing used to be all for "law and order". I guess we can chalk that up to another BIG LIE failure from a talking point used by the far right.
Maybe the "BIG LIE" is just a figment of your imagination.One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.
All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)
What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:
* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.
* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.
* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."
You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."
* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.
* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.
* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)
* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.
Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns
Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?
Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control
Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings
Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
Because laws cannot prevent crime, should a civilized nation repeal all law?
IMO, the premise of this OP and its author is based on a closed mind, framed by partisanship and an echo of RW propaganda.
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
You guys express it all the time....
Every gun control law that you guys say you want is precisely built on the premise that gun control laws can prevent gun crime...every single one, from licensing gun owners, to registering all guns to universal background checks....and they do not do that...they do not prevent gun crimes and they don't even help solve gun crimes.
Gee, the right wing used to be all for "law and order". I guess we can chalk that up to another BIG LIE failure from a talking point used by the far right.
I've already informed you that it is a figment of your imagination.Maybe the "BIG LIE" is just a figment of your imagination.One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.
All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)
What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:
* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.
* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.
* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."
You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."
* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.
* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.
* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)
* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.
Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns
Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?
Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control
Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings
Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
Because laws cannot prevent crime, should a civilized nation repeal all law?
IMO, the premise of this OP and its author is based on a closed mind, framed by partisanship and an echo of RW propaganda.
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
You guys express it all the time....
Every gun control law that you guys say you want is precisely built on the premise that gun control laws can prevent gun crime...every single one, from licensing gun owners, to registering all guns to universal background checks....and they do not do that...they do not prevent gun crimes and they don't even help solve gun crimes.
Gee, the right wing used to be all for "law and order". I guess we can chalk that up to another BIG LIE failure from a talking point used by the far right.
Hardly, the evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I disagree...France's gun laws stopped 183 attacks.One of our resident liberals here is saying that to combat terrorism they would institute universal background checks, limit magazine capacities, and ban assault weapons. Well, folks, we just had two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons in a country where the gun laws are much tougher than that: France.
All automatic weapons are illegal in France, with no exceptions. Ownership of semi-auto weapons is heavily restricted, requiring, among other things, a background check and a license. Handguns are virtually impossible to own. Ammo is heavily regulated, and gun owners are only allowed to possess a small number of bullets. To buy a gun, you must apply for a permit and must provide a valid reason for wanting to own a gun. In fact, France has no personal right to own firearms in its constitution. (And, FYI, France has for years been run by politicians who would be viewed as liberal or very liberal by American standards.)
What are the liberal "solutions" for preventing jihadist terrorism? Let's see:
* Severely restrict (if not end) our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, even though such an approach just failed miserably in France. The jihadists' weapons included AK-47 rifles, which can fire in both semi-automatic and automatic mode--in other words, with one flick of the selector switch, the AK-47 becomes a machine gun.
* Allow into the country 10,000 more people from the one and only demographic group that has provided all the recruits for jihadist terrorism (that would be Muslims), even though it's now painfully obvious that our supposedly "extensive and comprehensive" vetting system is badly flawed, and even though several intelligence officials have now said that we cannot properly screen the Syrian refugees.
* Refuse to take any responsibility for the disastrous, tragically misguided decision of Farook's neighbors who had suspicions about him and his wife but who decided not to report their suspicions to authorities for fear of engaging in "racial profiling" or "discrimination."
You would think that after San Bernardino, liberals would say, "Obviously, from now on, if you see Muslims, or people who you think are Muslims, doing things that strike you as suspicious or that just seem odd for your neighborhood or area, err on the side of caution and say something to authorities."
* Oppose efforts to seal the border or to substantially improve border security (just look at the debates and votes in Congress on border security issues, or visit liberal websites that discuss immigration policy), even though we have had a rash of cases of Muslims trying to enter the country with fake passports.
* Support sanctuary cities, where officials purposely refuse to cooperate with law enforcement officials who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.
* Refuse to even support laws that say that you will be deported if you're in the country illegally and you commit a violent crime. (No kidding. Democrats recently blocked Kate's Law in the Senate, which would have required the deportation of any illegal alien who committed a violent crime.)
* Refuse to even call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism and engage in ridiculous comparisons to nominally "Christian" lone-nut gunmen as a way to avoid admitting the self-evident fact that the more Muslims a country has, the greater its chances of being attacked. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no worldwide Christian terrorist movement that is trying to overthrow democratic governments, that is beheading people, that is using drug money to help fund its operations, that is imposing Sharia law, that is preventing girls from attending school, that blows up schools if girls don't stop attending them, that is engaging in the wide-scale trafficking of women, that denies the Holocaust, that vows to destroy Israel, and that has killed thousand of Americans.
Mon Dieu! A Review of French Gun Laws - The Truth About Guns
Paris attacks: How were Isis terrorists able to obtain Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles?
Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control
Blog: American left demands strict gun control laws (like France!) in the wake of San Bernardino shootings
Did France's Strict Gun Control Contribute to the Paris Bloodbath?
Too bad you just did.So you're saying that Obama isn't retarded?It is by my understanding. You lose.Yes, we know, you nuts jiggered the incident count around until you got the numbers you wanted.
Nope.....gang bangers at a party shooting each other is not a mass shooting by anyone's understanding of a mass shooting.....and that is most of that list at shooting tracker...
That is why we don't trust anti gunners.....they lie all the time and they lie without hesitation and they do it proudly.....
Yes, but you're retarded. We don't allow the retarded to define out terms in this society, the last time I checked.
No, I'm certainly not saying that.
Sometimes being armed doesn't help:
Police say couple who fatally shot 2 Vegas police officers and civilian believed law enforcement the 'oppressor'
Armed civilians with guns save lives in mass shooting events...
Some details to help you make your guess....
Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)
Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)
vs.
Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)
6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)
Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead
Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)
Charleston ( 9 dead)
Parishioners with guns: 2 dead
Osceola ( 0 dead )
New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)
South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)
Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership
The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.
“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”
I've already informed you that it is a figment of your imagination.Maybe the "BIG LIE" is just a figment of your imagination.When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
Because laws cannot prevent crime, should a civilized nation repeal all law?
IMO, the premise of this OP and its author is based on a closed mind, framed by partisanship and an echo of RW propaganda.
When did anyone express the opinion that laws prevent crime?
You guys express it all the time....
Every gun control law that you guys say you want is precisely built on the premise that gun control laws can prevent gun crime...every single one, from licensing gun owners, to registering all guns to universal background checks....and they do not do that...they do not prevent gun crimes and they don't even help solve gun crimes.
Gee, the right wing used to be all for "law and order". I guess we can chalk that up to another BIG LIE failure from a talking point used by the far right.
Hardly, the evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You seem to have a bit of a problem comprehending that fact.
Too bad you just did.So you're saying that Obama isn't retarded?It is by my understanding. You lose.Nope.....gang bangers at a party shooting each other is not a mass shooting by anyone's understanding of a mass shooting.....and that is most of that list at shooting tracker...
That is why we don't trust anti gunners.....they lie all the time and they lie without hesitation and they do it proudly.....
Yes, but you're retarded. We don't allow the retarded to define out terms in this society, the last time I checked.
No, I'm certainly not saying that.
Too late, you already did.Too bad you just did.So you're saying that Obama isn't retarded?It is by my understanding. You lose.
Yes, but you're retarded. We don't allow the retarded to define out terms in this society, the last time I checked.
No, I'm certainly not saying that.
No I didn't, numskull.
we are talking about mass shootings, not mass murders PC.
And whatever measure used here should be the same measure used in france for your comparison blueslegend.....
not apples vs oranges.
AND Mikey, how do you know how many terrorist acts were prevented from happening in France with gun control? We know a few succeeded getting guns and the mass shootings....even with gun control and borders, but how many would there have been without any gun control at all?
We don't know, so we really have nothing to compare a 'with or without' gun control situation in France....
