France's Strict Gun Laws Did NOTHING to Stop Jihadist Terrorist Attacks

[NYcarbineer]

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....

"In fact, what the media isn’t saying is that many of the fatalities in the Mass Shooting Tracker are actually gang-related – not acts of terrorism or irrational mayhem.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been 12,272 deaths from gunfire in the US so far in 2015. But of these 12,272 deaths, 4,038 stemmed from an officer-involved shooting, 2,085 from a home invasion robbery, 1,755 from accidents, and 1,133 from self-defense.

The number of people killed in “mass shootings” to date in 2015 is 309 – but even these “mass shootings” include gang violence, robberies, and family murder-suicide incidents. As Mark Follman points out in the New York Times, “including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 am gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others.”

When you eliminate incidents like gang shootouts, robberies and family murder-suicides, it turns out the number of “mass shootings” are actually far less than the media is claiming.

Mother Jones, that bastion of gun rights fanaticism, counts 73 incidents of mass shootings over the past three decades – roughly two a year."
MercatorNet: Are these horrific mass killings really happening ‘daily’?

- See more at: MercatorNet: Are these horrific mass killings really happening ‘daily’?

So your stats prove that Muslim terrorism involving firearms inside the US is really almost non-existent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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....

"In fact, what the media isn’t saying is that many of the fatalities in the Mass Shooting Tracker are actually gang-related – not acts of terrorism or irrational mayhem.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been 12,272 deaths from gunfire in the US so far in 2015. But of these 12,272 deaths, 4,038 stemmed from an officer-involved shooting, 2,085 from a home invasion robbery, 1,755 from accidents, and 1,133 from self-defense.

The number of people killed in “mass shootings” to date in 2015 is 309 – but even these “mass shootings” include gang violence, robberies, and family murder-suicide incidents. As Mark Follman points out in the New York Times, “including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 am gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others.”

When you eliminate incidents like gang shootouts, robberies and family murder-suicides, it turns out the number of “mass shootings” are actually far less than the media is claiming.

Mother Jones, that bastion of gun rights fanaticism, counts 73 incidents of mass shootings over the past three decades – roughly two a year."
MercatorNet: Are these horrific mass killings really happening ‘daily’?

- See more at: MercatorNet: Are these horrific mass killings really happening ‘daily’?

So your stats prove that Muslim terrorism involving firearms inside the US is really almost non-existent.

'So' this is your definition of "almost non-existent"?

":....14 people killed during the massacre, which is now being investigated as an act of terrorism. Some 21 people were also injured in the attack,...."
Survivor Hails 'My Hero' Who Died in San Bernardino Massacre



Notice the correct usage of 'so.'

 

[2aguy]

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.

BTW, the law and its purpose has been explained to 2aguy numerous times, I used to think he was just stupid, now I'm convinced he's both stupid and mendacious.

How did anything I posted about the uselessness of licensing normal gun owners, registering the guns of normal gun owners or requiring universal background checks that do not stop one criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun, point to me being against law and order…..you are something of a twit aren't you…since the only "purpose" you give is "but it might, maybe, sort of, perhaps, if we hope really hard, might just stop one bad guy from getting a gun….." And which I then point out is not even accurate…...

 

[2aguy]

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?

I disagree...France's gun laws stopped 183 attacks.

And how was that exactly…..?

 

[2aguy]

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 would prefer not to blame the Sikhs for getting themselves killed.

I would prefer to blame the rightwing white supremacist Wade Michael Page, the guy who did the killing.

And the other deflection by a left wing gun grabbing extremist…..by pointing out that gun free zones allowed a killer to kill at will since no one in the gun free zone who is a law abiding gun owner would bring their guns into a legally created gun free zone…….you accuse those against gun free zones of blaming the victims…

And of course you are foolish…..and silly.

Who is ultimately responsible…the monster murdering people….who is responsible for keeping good people helpless…the people who created gun free zones…


The people who created the gun free zones are responsible for keeping good people from carrying guns for self defense in those gun free zones….

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

BTW, the law and its purpose has been explained to 2aguy numerous times, I used to think he was just stupid, now I'm convinced he's both stupid and mendacious.

How did anything I posted about the uselessness of licensing normal gun owners, registering the guns of normal gun owners or requiring universal background checks that do not stop one criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun, point to me being against law and order…..you are something of a twit aren't you…since the only "purpose" you give is "but it might, maybe, sort of, perhaps, if we hope really hard, might just stop one bad guy from getting a gun….." And which I then point out is not even accurate…...

Define "twit". I've pointed out ad nausea that you're one of the dumbest of the dumb. That's pretty clear; I suppose you use the word twit even though you have no idea of its meaning - which is typical in your childish postings.

 

[candycorn]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

 

[candycorn]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

Of course, Zander... you are correct.

"More than 40 percent of all 2015’s mass shootings didn’t kill anybody. Another 104, just under 30 percent, had a single fatality, which means more than two-thirds of all “mass shootings” aren’t even multi-homicide events.

Of the 355 “mass shootings” noted by the Post, only 40 of them (about 11 percent) meet the threshold of a “mass murder” as defined by the FBI, meaning there were at least four fatalities. But even these weren’t all mass shootings in the conventional sense. As pointed out by the Washington Free Beacon, many of them were insteadgrisly murder-suicides, gangland massacres, or robberies, eliminating at least 15 more “mass shootings” from the list."
355?! Why This Number Is Meaningless When It Comes To Mass Shootings

That you guys celebrate this statistic is just one of the many reasons it's almost impossible for you to be taken seriously

 

[jon_berzerk]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

the FBI uses murder because it a number that is certain

in mass shootings the the injured range from being shot to broken bones from falling

cuts and lacerations from flying glass and such

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

Of course, Zander... you are correct.

"More than 40 percent of all 2015’s mass shootings didn’t kill anybody. Another 104, just under 30 percent, had a single fatality, which means more than two-thirds of all “mass shootings” aren’t even multi-homicide events.

Of the 355 “mass shootings” noted by the Post, only 40 of them (about 11 percent) meet the threshold of a “mass murder” as defined by the FBI, meaning there were at least four fatalities. But even these weren’t all mass shootings in the conventional sense. As pointed out by the Washington Free Beacon, many of them were insteadgrisly murder-suicides, gangland massacres, or robberies, eliminating at least 15 more “mass shootings” from the list."
355?! Why This Number Is Meaningless When It Comes To Mass Shootings

That you guys celebrate this statistic is just one of the many reasons it's almost impossible for you to be taken seriously

But you voted for the failure in the White House.

So....what was that about being taken seriously?

Let me know if you'd like a recitation of his failures....

...you can pick: domestic, or foreign policy.

 

[2aguy]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

Actuallly,no. What people fear is the mass public shooting. The case where an individual or individuals go into a mall, a government building, a theater, or a school…and start shooting people.

Normal people are not concerned when violent, career criminals start shooting each other at a party.

That is the difference.

 

[Mudda]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

Actuallly,no. What people fear is the mass public shooting. The case where an individual or individuals go into a mall, a government building, a theater, or a school…and start shooting people.

Normal people are not concerned when violent, career criminals start shooting each other at a party.

That is the difference.

I think that the normal people at the party would care if a gunfight breaks out between gangstas.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

So what will stop the terrorist attacks?

Gun laws!!!!!!! Everyone knows that.... geesh.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

Actuallly,no. What people fear is the mass public shooting. The case where an individual or individuals go into a mall, a government building, a theater, or a school…and start shooting people.

Normal people are not concerned when violent, career criminals start shooting each other at a party.

That is the difference.

I think that the normal people at the party would care if a gunfight breaks out between gangstas.

I don't go to parties with gangstas... so, I don't care.

 

[2aguy]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

HUH????????????????????????????????

Earth. We're talking about Earth. Not your parallel universe.

Sheesh. Who ARE you people?

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

Actuallly,no. What people fear is the mass public shooting. The case where an individual or individuals go into a mall, a government building, a theater, or a school…and start shooting people.

Normal people are not concerned when violent, career criminals start shooting each other at a party.

That is the difference.

I think that the normal people at the party would care if a gunfight breaks out between gangstas.

If they are at a gang banger party they are not normal people….

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.
Look at ther
* 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?

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?

The death by guns per 100,000 people is 3.01 for France and 10.5 for USA.
Enough said

 

[Claudette]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

350 mass shootings in the US this year huh??

Funny. I never caught that on TV although a couple were well covered on the media. But 350?? Kinda sorta doubt that bullshit.


What I did catch was a couple of mass shootings in Paris where armed terrorists killed some unarmed authors and over one hundred unarmed civilians the at various venues in that city.

I also caught a mass shooting by Muslims in San Bernardino, CA.

Those scumbags also had over a dozen pipe bombs already made. Since both those pieces of shit are dead we will never know what those pipe bombs were going to be used for.

 

[Mudda]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

350 mass shootings in the US this year huh??

Funny. I never caught that on TV although a couple were well covered on the media. But 350?? Kinda sorta doubt that bullshit.


What I did catch was a couple of mass shootings in Paris where armed terrorists killed some unarmed authors and over one hundred unarmed civilians the at various venues in that city.

I also caught a mass shooting by Muslims in San Bernardino, CA.

Those scumbags also had over a dozen pipe bombs already made. Since both those pieces of shit are dead we will never know what those pipe bombs were going to be used for.

If I were you I'd be way more worried about white guys with guns. Jus' sayin'.

 

[Mudda]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

Got no real comeback? Figures.

Leave it to a LWNJ to just make up facts and figures out of thin air with no links or evidence, then smugly declare victory.

For what it's worth...

The difference lays between "mass" shootings and "multiple" shootings believe it or not. Talk about the devil's arithmetic!!! The FBI says mass murder is 4 or more victims so the standards for "mass shootings" is 4 or more persons shot. Multiple dead bodies or 2 or more shooting victims is multiple.

The stats are 29 "mass" murders in the US and upwards of 400 "multiple" shootings.

Actuallly,no. What people fear is the mass public shooting. The case where an individual or individuals go into a mall, a government building, a theater, or a school…and start shooting people.

Normal people are not concerned when violent, career criminals start shooting each other at a party.

That is the difference.

I think that the normal people at the party would care if a gunfight breaks out between gangstas.

If they are at a gang banger party they are not normal people….

So now you walk into a party and you're not normal if you don't know everyone there? Ummm... no. Please try again.

 

[Claudette]

The US has had over 350 mass shootings THIS YEAR!!! France, two, maybe 3?
Proving once again that real gun laws work.

350 mass shootings in the US this year huh??

Funny. I never caught that on TV although a couple were well covered on the media. But 350?? Kinda sorta doubt that bullshit.


What I did catch was a couple of mass shootings in Paris where armed terrorists killed some unarmed authors and over one hundred unarmed civilians the at various venues in that city.

I also caught a mass shooting by Muslims in San Bernardino, CA.

Those scumbags also had over a dozen pipe bombs already made. Since both those pieces of shit are dead we will never know what those pipe bombs were going to be used for.

If I were you I'd be way more worried about white guys with guns. Jus' sayin'.

Oh I'm aware of anyone who might be a potential threat.

How bout you smart guy???