How does someone shoot up two houses in country that banned guns?

[2aguy]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

 

[rightwinger]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

 

[2aguy]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

 

[yowsa]

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

The November 2015 Paris attacks were a series of co-ordinated terrorist attacks that took place on 13 November 2015 in Paris, France and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis.[12] Beginning at 21:16 CET, three suicide bombers struck outside the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, during a football match. This was followed by several mass shootings and a suicide bombing, at cafés and restaurants. Gunmen carried out another mass shooting and took hostages at an Eagles of Death Metal concert in the Bataclan theatre, leading to a stand-off with police. The attackers were shot or blew themselves up when police raided the theatre.[13]


Attack type
Mass shooting, suicide bombing, hostage taking
Weapons Zastava M70 assault rifles[1][2]TATP suicide belts


The attackers killed 130 people,[3] including 90 at the Bataclan theatre.[14][15][16]Another 413[5] people were injured,[17] almost 100 seriously.[6][7] Seven of the attackers also died while the authorities continued to search for accomplices.[4] The attacks were the deadliest in France since the Second World War,[18][19] and the second deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004.[20]France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdooffices and a Jewish supermarket in Paris that killed 17 people and wounded 22, including civilians and police officers.[21]




All of France is a gun-free zone. Hence law-abiding people are not allowed to own or carry guns.

 

[HenryBHough]

Obvious fake news because gun laws work!

But, in case they don't....we just need more.

Right?

 

[2aguy]

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

The November 2015 Paris attacks were a series of co-ordinated terrorist attacks that took place on 13 November 2015 in Paris, France and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis.[12] Beginning at 21:16 CET, three suicide bombers struck outside the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, during a football match. This was followed by several mass shootings and a suicide bombing, at cafés and restaurants. Gunmen carried out another mass shooting and took hostages at an Eagles of Death Metal concert in the Bataclan theatre, leading to a stand-off with police. The attackers were shot or blew themselves up when police raided the theatre.[13]


Attack type
Mass shooting, suicide bombing, hostage taking
Weapons Zastava M70 assault rifles[1][2]TATP suicide belts


The attackers killed 130 people,[3] including 90 at the Bataclan theatre.[14][15][16]Another 413[5] people were injured,[17] almost 100 seriously.[6][7] Seven of the attackers also died while the authorities continued to search for accomplices.[4] The attacks were the deadliest in France since the Second World War,[18][19] and the second deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004.[20]France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdooffices and a Jewish supermarket in Paris that killed 17 people and wounded 22, including civilians and police officers.[21]




All of France is a gun-free zone. Hence law-abiding people are not allowed to own or carry guns.

Those weapons are illegal for civilians on the entire continent.....the shooters in that attack, several were already felons at the time, and all were on government, terrorist watch lists.......and still managed to get fully automatic military rifles...

 

[rightwinger]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

 

[Flash]

It is hard to believe that the Black Democrat registered gunman in Va Beach killed 12 people when it was a gun free complex and he had passed a background check.

It is obvious these stupid Libtard "common sense" gun control laws don't work.

 

[2aguy]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They are less than ours only because their criminals aren't murdering people....they have illegal guns, they use them in crime, they just torture most of their victims, they don't use the gun to murder them...........

It isn't an occasional gun....the British police called it a flood...a flood they can't stop.

 

[HenryBHough]

And now, with the details exposed in the glaring light of day....from the liberals....crickets.

 

[zaangalewa]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

 

[idb]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

I hope he drove within the speed limit to get there...otherwise, what's the point of having traffic laws!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

 

[idb]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

 

[idb]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Explaining that prohibition doesn't work also demonstrates that restriction doesn't work. It can be thought of as "Soft Prohibition", since neither actually prevent individuals from obtaining the item or items in question.

 

[idb]

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Explaining that prohibition doesn't work also demonstrates that restriction doesn't work. It can be thought of as "Soft Prohibition", since neither actually prevent individuals from obtaining the item or items in question.

So do you agree with no controls at all?
If that's the case why have laws for anything?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Explaining that prohibition doesn't work also demonstrates that restriction doesn't work. It can be thought of as "Soft Prohibition", since neither actually prevent individuals from obtaining the item or items in question.

So do you agree with no controls at all?
If that's the case why have laws for anything?

Actually, I don't agree with laws at all. Or the existence of Government for that matter. In a society in which everyone is armed, and most people have private security, individuals would associate higher risk with initiating force against another person or depriving them of their property, violence would become near-non-existent.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

not only second amendment civil rights supporters
silly muslims

Britain’s Knife Control Is A Bad, Real-Life Parody Of Gun Control
If you set out to write a parody of gun control, it might look like the real news from London, where guns don't kill people, knives do.

By Robert Tracinski
APRIL 13, 2018

If you set out to write a parody showing the folly of gun control, it might look something like this.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City’s homicide rate for the first time.

‘No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife,’ Khan tweeted. ‘Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.’…

Guns are strictly regulated in the United Kingdom and the rising homicide rate in London is directly attributable to a rise in knife-related crimes, with stabbings claiming at least 31 lives to date in 2018. By contrast, New York—which has a population roughly the same size as London—has seen a steady decline in violent crime.

There were 15 murders committed in London in February and another 22 in March, while New York saw 14 murders in February and 21 in March, according to murder rate statistics provided…by London’s Metropolitan Police and the New York Police Department.

do you think if they banned third worlders the rate would go down ?