(06-14-2016, 10:02 AM)Valence Wrote:(06-14-2016, 08:27 AM)Askier Wrote: Gun control is simply ineffective. Look at Paris and Chicago. Two cities with some of the strictest gun laws in the world. And, ironically, some of the highest number of gun related crimes in the developed world.Â
How can that be? Gun laws protect people.Â
Actually all they do is disarm normal citizens, which makes it hard or almost impossible for them to defend themselves while nut jobs are still able to find the weapons they need. I'd rather carry a weapon and be able to defend myself and others than only be able to hide while waiting for the cops to show up.
Are guns a big responsibility? Yes? Are they dangerous? Yes, when used by a person for ill intent only though. Guns are just tools after all. They do not move or fire unless a human being picks them up and uses them. They are hunks of emotionless metal. Guns are not the problem. I learned that while living in London. A city with very strict gun laws. And you know what happened while I was there? The government had to ban knives outside the home cause too many people were getting stabbed.Â
Huh. Imagine. Nut cases simply using something else to kill someone. Humans are going to kill each other. We've been doing it for millennia. Â Taking away weapons normal people can use to keep themselves safe won't fix it. This is something bigger. Something no law will fix.
Slow down a minute please.
That is just misinformation. I live in Paris (nearby). We don't have the amount of firearms casualties every year that the US seems to get (actually, something like 10-15 times less per inhabitant). Most of those are caused by hunting weapons when they happen, mostly in the countryside. Those are the only licensed guns besides small arms used in clubs with very strict regulation around. Those are the ones that are the most easy to obtain, and yet you need to pass a certain amount of regulation as well, but hunting is still a thing and those rifles are the most easy to get for anyone. Remove them from the equation and you would probably get even less deaths by firearms around.
Will this get rid of the problem in its entirety? Certainly not. But don't start making assumptions on how it's not even better in countries where gun regulations are strong, because it does make a difference (just have to check the facts/numbers really).Â
It certainly doesn't reduce crime or violence, but it certainly reduces the stupid amount of firearm mass murders around (like, in universities and schools for one).Â
Is it the only factor that plays into this? Certainly not. The Paris attacks (two in a year), were mounted by an organized group with the baking of ISIS, which is no small fret. Dozen of people were involved in them both, and they acted in groups, not lone individuals. Half a dozen of them if not more have been arrested if not killed since then.
I didn't want to answer here before knowing a bit more about the pulse killer. Did he have backup? Any network to get his hands on black market weapons like they did in France? Was he acting alone?Â
Because you certainly can't get your hands on a AR-15 rifle (it was an AR-15 or something here right?) under strict gun regulation, just like he did, under a license. Can you by buying it from back market, or at least a more available thing like an AK? Totally. Is it easy? I don't think so, not for lone individuals.
I think there is a strong line to be drawn between 'common' mass shootings that we almost never see around there, and those specific kinds of scenarios when terrorism is involved.
They haven't said which gun he had did the most killing. AR-15s are crap at close range, so odds are he used the handgun he had.
![[Image: hFalP38.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/hFalP38.jpg)
