France banned all rifles...130 dead in attack on Rock Concert, here...58 killed

[AVISSSER]

A

No one is talking about banning guns outright. But restrictions is what is needed. No one needs an assault rifle unless they're fighting in a war.

No one is even claiming that gun control will stop gun deaths completing. But it will cut down on the numbers and make it harder to get one.


France has had shootings but it's no where near the shootings we have.

Take a look at these mass shootings. Many of them were brought with legal and not illegally obtained guns.

Assault rifles are not a problem statistically and you know that. Your ultimate goal is banning all of them.
Here are some stats for ya.
in 2016 there were 7741 homicides frmo firearms where the type of weapon was confirmed (Handgun, Rifle, Shotgun).
Out of those 7741 homicides do you know how many were confirmed rifle kills? 364 or 4.7% of the total homicides were from rifles...not just assault rifles, all rifles...from a AK-47 to a 7mm mag.
Do you want to know what caused 91%? Handguns.
Now you lefty loon mfers think we are gonna let you play 'just the tip'? We know what you are coming for after all those big bad assault rifles are gone...the real problem...OMG! Handguns kill 7500 Americans per year!! You will say and it will start all over again.

 

[AVISSSER]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

Your argument is immaterial to the OP.

 

[xotoxi]

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

But the fact that the US has 10.5 deaths per 100,000 people compared to France's 2.83 per 100,000 means absolutely nothing.

 

[Lewdog]

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

Your argument is immaterial to the OP.

It is? He compared the two events to try and prove his point. Please tell me how the legal purchase of rifles in the U.S. made the death toll of the Las Vegas incident lower.

 

[AVISSSER]

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

But the fact that the US has 10.5 deaths per 100,000 people compared to France's 2.83 per 100,000 means absolutely nothing.

Yeap and they are a Social Democracy, drink more wine than we do per capita and have a 35 hour work week. Your point? If you want to be like France be like the rest of the Middle East and move there.

Hilarious .gif BTW...that shit makes me laugh every time I see it.

 

[Lewdog]

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

But the fact that the US has 10.5 deaths per 100,000 people compared to France's 2.83 per 100,000 means absolutely nothing.

Yeap and they are a Social Democracy, drink more wine than we do per capita and have a 35 hour work week. Your point? If you want to be like France be like the rest of the Middle East and move there.

Hilarious .gif BTW...that shit makes me laugh every time I see it.

Now you are talking about deflection.

 

[AVISSSER]

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

Your argument is immaterial to the OP.

It is? He compared the two events to try and prove his point. Please tell me how the legal purchase of rifles in the U.S. made the death toll of the Las Vegas incident lower.

Because they were both mass shootings rock head. Why dont you also discount it because The Queens of the Stoneage would NEVER draw that many spectators in Las Vegas!

 

[Theowl32]

Logic never works on the left. Ever. They have their narrative. They don't care. Like how Norway has strict gun control and some guy killed over 70 a few years ago.

Sigh....

Just call the left the names they deserve to be called. Liars. Morons. Hypocrite. Ignorant. Gasbags. Piles of shit.

Nothing else really matters. I am not reading what lewdog typed. Cause I know it will give me diarrhea.

 

[xotoxi]

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

But the fact that the US has 10.5 deaths per 100,000 people compared to France's 2.83 per 100,000 means absolutely nothing.

Yeap and they are a Social Democracy, drink more wine than we do per capita and have a 35 hour work week. Your point? If you want to be like France be like the rest of the Middle East and move there.

Hilarious .gif BTW...that shit makes me laugh every time I see it.

My point is that I'm comparing France to the US just like the OP is comparing France to the US.

Your point?

 

[Lewdog]

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

Your argument is immaterial to the OP.

It is? He compared the two events to try and prove his point. Please tell me how the legal purchase of rifles in the U.S. made the death toll of the Las Vegas incident lower.

Because they were both mass shootings rock head. Why dont you also discount it because The Queens of the Stoneage would NEVER draw that many spectators in Las Vegas!

Just because they were mass shootings don't mean a damn thing. The devil is in the details.

I asked you a simple question.

Please tell me how the legal purchase of rifles in the U.S. made the death toll of the Las Vegas incident lower.

 

[Tilly]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

So more 'people' managed to go on the rampage with weapons even though they were banned.
How does this help your 'case'?

 

[AVISSSER]

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

Your argument is immaterial to the OP.

It is? He compared the two events to try and prove his point. Please tell me how the legal purchase of rifles in the U.S. made the death toll of the Las Vegas incident lower.

Because they were both mass shootings rock head. Why dont you also discount it because The Queens of the Stoneage would NEVER draw that many spectators in Las Vegas!

Just because they were mass shootings don't mean a damn thing. The devil is in the details.

I asked you a simple question.

Please tell me how the legal purchase of rifles in the U.S. made the death toll of the Las Vegas incident lower.

How do you know the rifles were purchased illegally?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

The guns the Las Vegas shooter used were illegal. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Was the Las Vegas shooter stopped by an armed citizen?

The guns the Las Vegas shooter used were illegal.

that yet remains to be seen

Your argument doesn't hold water.

that strengthens his position not yours

 

[AVISSSER]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

So more 'people' managed to go on the rampage with weapons even though they were banned.
How does this help your 'case'?

Dont do it...this guy is like talking to someone drunk with dimentia.

 

[xotoxi]

Please tell me how the legal purchase of rifles in the U.S. made the death toll of the Las Vegas incident lower.

It's true. In essence, he is saying that the 2nd Amendment may have saved about 90 lives from being killed in Las Vegas.

 

[Lewdog]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

So more 'people' managed to go on the rampage with weapons even though they were banned.
How does this help your 'case'?

First off, the weapons in the France incident were purchased in Belgium. They were able to cross country borders without a visa per the Schengen Agreement.

The OP tried to make the assertion that less people died in the U.S. because we can in fact buy rifles legally here. That's not true because the attacker wasn't stopped by a citizen who had legally purchased a rifle.

 

[Lewdog]

Please tell me how the legal purchase of rifles in the U.S. made the death toll of the Las Vegas incident lower.

It's true. In essence, he is saying that the 2nd Amendment may have saved about 90 lives from being killed in Las Vegas.

Right, despite the fact the shooter was only stopped by SWAT team members who broke into his room causing him to shoot himself.

 

[AVISSSER]

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

But the fact that the US has 10.5 deaths per 100,000 people compared to France's 2.83 per 100,000 means absolutely nothing.

Yeap and they are a Social Democracy, drink more wine than we do per capita and have a 35 hour work week. Your point? If you want to be like France be like the rest of the Middle East and move there.

Hilarious .gif BTW...that shit makes me laugh every time I see it.

My point is that I'm comparing France to the US just like the OP is comparing France to the US.

Your point?

I am comparing the ease of gaining weaponry in a banned state versus the ease of gaining weaponry in an open state. We can easily by example provided at the Bataclan that when people WANT weapons they are certainly readily available. If you would like a little more education on radical Islam and their immense gun caches in Europe the information is readily available.
Post Bataclan they seized thousands of firearms...some in Mosques. Banning guns really bans nothing.

 

[Lewdog]

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

The guns the Las Vegas shooter used were illegal. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Was the Las Vegas shooter stopped by an armed citizen?

The guns the Las Vegas shooter used were illegal.

that yet remains to be seen

Your argument doesn't hold water.

that strengthens his position not yours

We do know that. It's not legal to have fully automatic rifles unless you have them registered with the ATF and are given permission to do so.

 

[AVISSSER]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

So more 'people' managed to go on the rampage with weapons even though they were banned.
How does this help your 'case'?

First off, the weapons in the France incident were purchased in Belgium. They were able to cross country borders without a visa per the Schengen Agreement.

The OP tried to make the assertion that less people died in the U.S. because we can in fact buy rifles legally here. That's not true because the attacker wasn't stopped by a citizen who had legally purchased a rifle.

So following your logic train if an attacker is not stopped by an armed citizen the right to carry is moot?