Especially since it would mean curtailing your hobby!

No. They wish to prevent gun massacres only by means of attacking gun rights/gun ownership.

Outside those parameters, they, like their brother/sister organizations, could care less, just like a whole lot of their supporters.

There is just no discussion to be had with those who already made up their minds that 'its the guns'.


I've yet to see one of you folks explain the failures of all that gun control in CA, and how and why any new proposal would succeed where layer upon layer of them have failed.

Care make a go of it? If not, then its just gun control for the sake of gun control.

And even you can see that the reason that these people had guns in California, in spite of the strict gun laws, is because they were able to get them from other states without strict gun laws. Surely even you can see that.

And yes, we do wish to prevent gun massacres by means of attacking gun rights and gun ownership.

Normal people don't see a problem with curtailing the current state of gun rights and levels of gun ownership because, see, these things are leading to weekly - going toward daily - gun massacres, and normal people don't like gun massacres.

Normal people think frequent gun massacres are sufficient reason to curtail even the most beloved of hobbies.

In other news, water is wet.



Its always someone elses fault when gun control fails, isn't it? But in this case, that argument fails, and falls, on its face:



Even YOU can see that you are wrong and have been proven so. But hey, its still the guns fault, amirite?

Hurrah for you, you knew the guns were purchased in state! And somehow you think that means it was not the proliferation of guns that led to this gun massacre, one of three this week.

It is debatable whether those guns were purchased legally

And if they were, all that says to me is that the laws are not strong enough. Which the same article says seems to be the case:


Your hobby is STILL responsible for weekly massacres.

I reject the notion that it is the proliferation of guns that led to this weeks terrorist event, and the idea that a terrorist event would not have happened, absent civilian legal firearms in this country.

Have you ever heard of France by chance?



Another gun law fail? Say it isn't so. So, whos fault is it this time?



Oh yes, another loophole.


People like you who want total control of all firearms seem to have forgotten that you live in a country that just over 20 years ago did not have federal background checks at all for regular gun purchases. Or maybe you just didn't know.



No. The people that commit massacres are responsible for their actions.

Do you blame all drinkers (or the alcohol they drink) for those who drink and drive too?

I have heard of France. Does France have a massacre every week? Because we have them a lot more often even than that. And coincidentally, we have a lot more guns than France has. Gee. I wonder if there's a correlation there.

That's nice that you know when background checks were instituted. Congratulations.

Do I want total control? Because I never said anything of the sort.

And no, the people who feel entitled to unrestricted gun "rights" so they don't have to modify their hobby, and who fight for it tooth and nail in their little corners of the world, enable the lunatics who are massacring people each week. So they bear a good part of the guilt.

Define "strong enough", and metric you'll use to measure it by.



But France, like CA, has strict gun laws. France, like CA, had that strict gun control fail.

Tell me why and how whatever gun control you propose will work where the gun control of France and CA didn't.

Explain it to me.



How much control over guns do you want, if not total control?



LOL what a joke. So called "unrestricted gun rights" haven't existed in this country since before 1934. Your characterization of supporters as fighting for "unrestricted" rights and the accompanying implication that the landscape of gun rights is somehow measurable or even describable in any meaningful or objective way as "unrestricted", both betrays and highlights your extremism on the issue.





In other words, you DO blame people who drink, and the alcohol they drink, for alcohol related deaths (which outnumber gun deaths by the way) OR, you're making special exceptions because you like your booze and/or hate guns.

Got it.

France's licensing and registration, including a ban on machine guns like the ones used, were ineffective in preventing a terrorist attack; You are saying the Gun Control Act's ban on unlicensed interstate sales wouldn't prevent going to the next state; You are saying stricter laws will solve the problem. BTW, if French law enforcement estimates are correct, illegal guns out number people in France.
I think the Israeli government's, Detroit's police chief, and former INTERPOL secretary general Ron Noble is starting to make more sense.

No, the guns were not legally purchased by them.

five. Charlie Hebdo, the Deli, the concert where over a hundred were killed, plus a couple of restaurants. The number of mass murders not reported in the US, who knows. I do know that when adjusted for inflation, France is 11th of Europe and the US. The US is ninth. Netherlands is 10th. Macedonia is number one.
Shall we discuss Mexico?

That is before we discuss the art gallery in Brussels, and a bar in Copenhagen. The later believed to be part of a gang hit.

the US in 2014, a slow year.
http://www.shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2014

each of those were separate events.
As for shooting tracker, it is ran by some activists in Reddit, headed by a username Gnome Chomsky who is a student in propaganda. In not so many words, he even says it is propaganda. Most of those counted have no citations, and most of the ones that are listed are people injured by airsoft guns. IOW, it is dishonest bullshit and deserves the same weight as Trump's claim of dancing Muslims.
https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/3o91bv/auditing_the_mass_shooting_tracker_part_3_a_look/
https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/3nxdz4/auditing_the_mass_shooting_tracker_alternate/

using the FBI definition, we had 21. Adjust for population.

And frankly, they seem content to leave off the table the social programs which might reduce these casualties. It's always the BigNewz stuff that grabs 'em.

Why have some liberals taken up with that dubious lover: Prohibition? Maybe it is because they have become demoralized by the full-court press of the FR on social programs that they have chosen prohibition and culture war; almost like they were led to it.

People do...and it's not progressive to destroy rights.