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

[ph3iron]

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......

Why don't you compare total gun deaths?
20000 here, France?
Australia?
England?
So stupid
You'll be telling us Muslims kill more than white boys. In the USA since 911 next

 

[ph3iron]

No one ever says we should ban cars or trucks after all the car and truck attacks.

Well we should ban leftists wearing masks.

How about the KKK??

 

[ph3iron]

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.

Facts don't matter to our high school white boys

 

[Faun]

Idiot...

it ended here at 59 (so far) because the shooter killed himself. Not because civilians were armed.

Right. If just one of those people had a handgun, they could have stood their ground, looked up, tried to figure out where the shots were coming from how many stories up?, then picked him off through the window hole they were firing through.

LOL

You have no evidence that not one of the roughly 22,000 people at that concert was carrying.

You have no evidence anyone who was, could stand there while bullets rained down on the crowd, locate the shooter inside a hotel room from some 400 yards away, and pick him off with a handgun.

You loco.

You STUPIDO. Another moron who just does not bother to read before putting foot in own mouth. I was saying JUST THE OPPOSITE, that it would have been impossible for a person to fire back at the shooter, unless maybe they had a high powered rifle with a good scope!!! Amazing how you Libtards CONTINUOUSLY show your stupidity. You are actually arguing with WHAT YOU SAID a few posts up! Imbecile.

And had a person on the ground HAD a gun or rifle, they would have been mistaken for one of the attackers themselves and probably killed trying to defend everyone, or stopped at the gate for carrying a firearm. How funny that everything liberals do always ends in the EXACT OPPOSITE of their stated intent!

Now your trying to back track because you realized what a dumb ass you were for suggesting someone with a gun shoot at the massively armed shooter.

Now you're trying to pass yourself off as a halfway intelligent bonehead.

Why not just answer the question....

If you don’t think anyone suggested armed civilians reduces the number of victims in an attack such as this one, then what do you think this thread is about?

 

[toobfreak]

Right. If just one of those people had a handgun, they could have stood their ground, looked up, tried to figure out where the shots were coming from how many stories up?, then picked him off through the window hole they were firing through.

LOL

You have no evidence that not one of the roughly 22,000 people at that concert was carrying.

You have no evidence anyone who was, could stand there while bullets rained down on the crowd, locate the shooter inside a hotel room from some 400 yards away, and pick him off with a handgun.

You loco.

You STUPIDO. Another moron who just does not bother to read before putting foot in own mouth. I was saying JUST THE OPPOSITE, that it would have been impossible for a person to fire back at the shooter, unless maybe they had a high powered rifle with a good scope!!! Amazing how you Libtards CONTINUOUSLY show your stupidity. You are actually arguing with WHAT YOU SAID a few posts up! Imbecile.

And had a person on the ground HAD a gun or rifle, they would have been mistaken for one of the attackers themselves and probably killed trying to defend everyone, or stopped at the gate for carrying a firearm. How funny that everything liberals do always ends in the EXACT OPPOSITE of their stated intent!

Now your trying to back track because you realized what a dumb ass you were for suggesting someone with a gun shoot at the massively armed shooter.

Now you're trying to pass yourself off as a halfway intelligent bonehead.

Why not just answer the question....

If you don’t think anyone suggested armed civilians reduces the number of victims in an attack such as this one, then what do you think this thread is about?

ONE LAST TIME: No ordinarily conceivable firearm that could be concealed carried into that concert would have been effective in THAT situation to stop the shooting. That was no accident. The shooter planned for these people to be sitting ducks with the intention of massacring hundreds and hundreds. Too bad they couldn't take him alive.

 

[Faun]

LOL

You have no evidence that not one of the roughly 22,000 people at that concert was carrying.

You have no evidence anyone who was, could stand there while bullets rained down on the crowd, locate the shooter inside a hotel room from some 400 yards away, and pick him off with a handgun.

You loco.

You STUPIDO. Another moron who just does not bother to read before putting foot in own mouth. I was saying JUST THE OPPOSITE, that it would have been impossible for a person to fire back at the shooter, unless maybe they had a high powered rifle with a good scope!!! Amazing how you Libtards CONTINUOUSLY show your stupidity. You are actually arguing with WHAT YOU SAID a few posts up! Imbecile.

And had a person on the ground HAD a gun or rifle, they would have been mistaken for one of the attackers themselves and probably killed trying to defend everyone, or stopped at the gate for carrying a firearm. How funny that everything liberals do always ends in the EXACT OPPOSITE of their stated intent!

Now your trying to back track because you realized what a dumb ass you were for suggesting someone with a gun shoot at the massively armed shooter.

Now you're trying to pass yourself off as a halfway intelligent bonehead.

Why not just answer the question....

If you don’t think anyone suggested armed civilians reduces the number of victims in an attack such as this one, then what do you think this thread is about?

ONE LAST TIME: No ordinarily conceivable firearm that could be concealed carried into that concert would have been effective in THAT situation to stop the shooting. That was no accident. The shooter planned for these people to be sitting ducks with the intention of massacring hundreds and hundreds. Too bad they couldn't take him alive.

One last time?? What the **** is your malfunction?

How about one first time?

You didn’t answer the question. I didn’t ask you if it was feasible for someone to shoot back, which is the question no one asked but you answered anyway.

I asked you what you think this thread is about?

 

[boedicca]

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......

Good catch. The Bataclan holds 1,500 people, so the fatality rate was 8.7%. The LV fatality rate was. 0.27%. Quite a difference. If Paddock hadn't been able to purchase guns, what would the fatality rate have been if he drove a bomb laden truck through the fence into the crowd? Certainly much higher than 0.27%.

 

[2aguy]

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?

No....but other mass shooters have been stopped...so you have no argument.

 

[2aguy]

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.

70-80% of those murders are criminals killing criminals......and the criminals in France get all the guns they want and need, they just don't se them to commit murder.


Also...the unarmed people of France were handed over to the Germans during the war and murdered in gas chambers....there are bigger issues here.

The 12 million Unarmed Europeans murdered by the Germans outnumber all of our deaths by criminals.....they kill in the millions.....that is what guns stop.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yeah...thanks for making my point...France banned guns and the terrorists still got them...and murdered more people at their concert than this guy did.......

No dip shit. That isn't my point...my point is that banning guns doesn't stop criminals from getting them......they ban all those rifles....a complete ban....and they got actual, fully automatic rifles, many of them...over and over again, attack after attack........

 

[2aguy]

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

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.

But it does cut down on the murder rate.

You can also see it in the states.

Firearm death rate per 100,000:
Alaska 19.59
Louisiana 19.15
Alabama 17.79
Mississippi 17.55
Wyoming 17.51
Montana 16.94
Arkansas 16.93
Oklahoma 16.41
Tennessee 15.86
New Mexico 15.63
South Carolina 15.60
West Virginia 15.10
Missouri 14.56
Arizona 14.20
Nevada 14.16
Kentucky 14.15
Idaho 14.08
Indiana 13.04
Georgia 12.63
Florida 12.49
North Carolina 12.42
Michigan 12.03
Maine 11.89
North Dakota 11.89
Oregon 11.76
Colorado 11.75
Utah 11.69
Kansas 11.44
Pennsylvania 11.36
Ohio 11.14
Delaware 10.80
Texas 10.50
Virginia 10.46
Vermont 10.37
Wisconsin 9.93
Maryland 9.75
South Dakota 9.47
Washington 9.07
Nebraska 8.99
Illinois 8.67
Iowa 8.19
California 7.89
Minnesota 7.88
New Hampshire 7.03
New Jersey 5.69
Rhode Island 5.33
Connecticut 4.48
New York 4.39
Massachusetts 3.18
Hawaii 2.71

Wrong....nice try.......many of those stats are not murder, they include suicide.....since Alaska has a high suicide rate, and Wyoming has a high gun ownership rate but low gun crime rate.....nice try though.

 

[2aguy]

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......

Ridiculous comparison, dupe. they have Isis terrorists we have nuts who can buy machine guns anywhere. Thanks GOP!

Wrong....the terrorists all had fully automatic rifles...military rifles.......they are completely banned in France...and they still got them.

 

[2aguy]

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.

As was posted earlier in another thread, take out the minority gang violence and where do we rank? Right about with France and their laws are more strict.

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

And those stats in those states are for suicide...not murder.....suicide doesn't count. Japan and South Korea have absolute gun control, only cops and criminals can have guns there.....and their suicide rates are higher than ours...as are many countries in gun controlled Europe.

 

[2aguy]

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.

As was posted earlier in another thread, take out the minority gang violence and where do we rank? Right about with France and their laws are more strict.

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

The data you cited was from 2015. In 2015, the major city in my state had homicides due to gun deaths triple over the previous year. Now what could possibly lead to that much of an increase? Gang violence?

We have a winner!

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

Louisiana is the exception.....they actually have high gun murder...because of criminal gangs......and their biggest cities have been controlled by democrats for almost 100 years......

I have info I can link to later that shows the comparisons you show don't hold up...I will get them later.

 

[francoHFW]

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......

Ridiculous comparison, dupe. they have Isis terrorists we have nuts who can buy machine guns anywhere. Thanks GOP!

Wrong....the terrorists all had fully automatic rifles...military rifles.......they are completely banned in France...and they still got them.

Ok yes, they are terrorists, Einstein. Hear any nut can buy one everywhere...

 

[2aguy]

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.

As was posted earlier in another thread, take out the minority gang violence and where do we rank? Right about with France and their laws are more strict.

Show me the stats.

Looking at the breakdown of the firearm deaths per state, some of the states with the highest death rates (Alaska, Wyoming, Montana) don't have much minority gang violence.

The data you cited was from 2015. In 2015, the major city in my state had homicides due to gun deaths triple over the previous year. Now what could possibly lead to that much of an increase? Gang violence?

We have a winner!

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

 

[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?

No....but other mass shooters have been stopped...so you have no argument.

OTHER MASS shooters aren't what you put in the OP.

 

[2aguy]

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......

Ridiculous comparison, dupe. they have Isis terrorists we have nuts who can buy machine guns anywhere. Thanks GOP!

Wrong....the terrorists all had fully automatic rifles...military rifles.......they are completely banned in France...and they still got them.

Ok yes, they are terrorists, Einstein. Hear any nut can buy one everywhere...

And yet........they don't. 6 mass shootings in 2016...71 murdered.......and knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every single year....cars accidentally kill over 35,000 people every single year.......


8 million rifles with magazines in private hands......and two were used last year for mass shootings........2.........out of 8 million.

Not a problem.

 

[xotoxi]

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

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.

But it does cut down on the murder rate.

You can also see it in the states.

Firearm death rate per 100,000:
Alaska 19.59
Louisiana 19.15
Alabama 17.79
Mississippi 17.55
Wyoming 17.51
Montana 16.94
Arkansas 16.93
Oklahoma 16.41
Tennessee 15.86
New Mexico 15.63
South Carolina 15.60
West Virginia 15.10
Missouri 14.56
Arizona 14.20
Nevada 14.16
Kentucky 14.15
Idaho 14.08
Indiana 13.04
Georgia 12.63
Florida 12.49
North Carolina 12.42
Michigan 12.03
Maine 11.89
North Dakota 11.89
Oregon 11.76
Colorado 11.75
Utah 11.69
Kansas 11.44
Pennsylvania 11.36
Ohio 11.14
Delaware 10.80
Texas 10.50
Virginia 10.46
Vermont 10.37
Wisconsin 9.93
Maryland 9.75
South Dakota 9.47
Washington 9.07
Nebraska 8.99
Illinois 8.67
Iowa 8.19
California 7.89
Minnesota 7.88
New Hampshire 7.03
New Jersey 5.69
Rhode Island 5.33
Connecticut 4.48
New York 4.39
Massachusetts 3.18
Hawaii 2.71

Wrong....nice try.......many of those stats are not murder, they include suicide.....since Alaska has a high suicide rate, and Wyoming has a high gun ownership rate but low gun crime rate.....nice try though.

I labeled my list "firearm deaths".

But there are fewer firearm deaths in states with fewer firearms and more firearm deaths in states with more firearms.

Why is that?

 

[2aguy]

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?

No....but other mass shooters have been stopped...so you have no argument.

OTHER MASS shooters aren't what you put in the OP.

Wow...you are slow........the point is that in France...these rifles are completely banned....and they still got them...lots of them and used them to murder even more people ......when they are completely banned....

Your attempt to side track that truth is stupid..........

And by the way...the Texas Tower shooter in the 1960s...was pinned down by civilian students with their rifles before the police arrived...moron.