Why is it Easier to be a Mass Murderer in the USA than in Europe?

Today, Barack Obama went before the press for the 20th time during his presidency to decry a mass murder committed in the United States. Why does the United States have the highest murder rate and the largest number of mass killings in the industrialized world. There are many more people who would like to be mass murderers in Western Europe, people who have been trained by ISIS or al-Queda, but they have much more difficulty in acquiring guns designed specifically for the purpose of killing large numbers of people quickly. In the USA, an influential minority, led by the NRA, believes that crazies have a constitutional right to carry guns that enable them to kill dozens of people within a few minutes.

Orlando Mateen walked into a gun shop and legally purchases his assault weapon, capable of holding a 30-shot clip and piercing body armor. In no other Industrialized country could he have done that.

 

he legally got a job at a security company, he legally was supposed to be armed for his job, he legally bought a gun and had a background check when purchasing one of the recent guns... so the question is, what laws if any did he break, what laws would have stopped him from having a gun since he was a security guard licensed to carry...

he passed the background check, he had a job in the security field where people are armed, what more do people want to prevent this... a muslim ban?

- - - Updated - - -

if he committed a crime why didn't the FBI arrest him, twice apparently? or did he commit no crime yet? if he did commit a crime why did the FBI let him go, twice?

should we arrest people for thought? or should we arrest them for crimes?

 

In a thread (http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...upport-gun-rights-put-leash-these-idiots.html) recently discussing images like this:-



so many pro gun posters were stating that it is their right to carry these guns around, One poster wrote this "As long as they aren't bothering anyone" - this latest murderer wasn't bothering anyone until he started his murder spree. But hey, it is his right to carry those guns

 

The answer to that is easy. Guns that are designed solely for the purpose of killing large numbers of people in a short period of time should be banned from the market. These guns have no other purpose. They are not defensive weapons. I made that point in the original post, but you seemed to have missed it.

 

These Muslims got to go.

- - - Updated - - -

Ever hear of the second amendment?

 

so what guns would be left, as they are all designed to fire rapidly... the only one I can think of would be a bolt-action rifle, but I've seen people who are insanely quick at shooting tournaments...

but you STILL failed to address my concerns... he was a legal citizen, who got a legal job, who legally allowed him to own and carry a weapon... so how would you have stopped him from doing any of this if he followed all the laws and was one of the few people in society licensed to carry a weapon as a security guard...

are you missing the fact anyone could go get training and get a license to carry a weapon like him as a security guard, and do exactly what he just did, so once again, how would you have prevented this incident when society gave him a license to carry a weapon as a security guard...

you could take ALL the guns away from all the regular citizens, you would still be left with people like him, in fact you likely would have MORE people like him, because now they would be drawn to the few jobs where they could get weapons to cause mass harm... do you propose disarming police and security personnel too???

P.S. and MORE important, how do you plan to address 3D printers that are making guns today, untraceable, unlicensed, and unable to be detected... criminals will have all the guns soon... no matter how many guns you take away from anyone else... what do we do in the VERY near future when this is common practice and not just novelty?

 

I am not so sure we are looking at the problem from the right angle. Canada allows assault style rifles with a five round limit in clip size, yet it would be very easy to smuggle a 30 round clip over the border. So why is it that Canada has far fewer mass shootings. Personally I think it has less to do with gun laws and more to do with a national mindset as Canada is seen as more of a polite and tolerant society while we in the USA We are less tolorant of different views and many try to impose their will upon others. Not to say that this does not happen in Canada but from my time in Canada it happens to a far less extent.

 

you just answered your own question to be fair
in europe you just dont have easy acces to guns like this,
infact in belgium a security guard is not even allowed to carry a regular gun for his profession outside a few rare exceptions and a regular more difficult to get for the general public then this assault weapon in the us.
a assault rifle like this would only be available trough illegal means and even then its probably difficult to get,

if some guy gets a idea here even if he did get a gun to kill people with it would probably be a handgun or something like that,
and the mindset is very different in western europe compared to the US to, if i remember correctly iceland has alot of guns to yet they dont kill eachother for silly things

 

So you think he carried an AR-15 while on the job at the security company?

How about a limit on the amount of ammo someone can carry at one time?

We should make it harder for nutjobs like this to walk around with guns, period.

 

many security companies not only issue AR-15s but allow those with them to use them while on duty, just like police officers who have the rifles in their trunks...

so you want to ban the number of bullets someone can "carry" at any given time... how will you enforce this, or will this simply be another charge after the fact?

how could we have made it any harder for him, he was hired by a security company who no doubt did some investigation on him, he passed a background check, he was investigated by the FBI, TWICE... what more do you want an individual to submit to if the FBI can't determine if he's a danger or not, TWICE?!?!?!?!

so you tell me, what more could have been investigated or done on him when the FBI and background checks found nothing illegal or wrong with him?!?!?!?!

YOU TELL ME!

P.S. for an example of security guards who carry AR-15's... look for any nuclear power plant around this country with this SAME security company hired to protect it, in some cases they have AUTOMATIC rifles not just the semi-auto rifles...

 

Let me ask all you people screaming gun control, Is it your beliefs that if it was harder to or impossible for this man to legally purchase a firearm that this wouldn't have happened?

 

A) As a security guard this individual should not be allowed in possession of his weapon after hours (I am not sure if he was but if so alarm-bells should go of right away with his employer)
In that case, this individual could have been tracked down, simply because he would have gone AWOL with his employers weapon.

(But one suspects that this man would have passed a mental health-check to be able to work with weapons in the first place...)

B) If not using a weapon acquired on the job, he shouldn't be able to walk into a 7-Eleven and buy the gun of his choice...

Here some common sense to counter all the debate about the ‘’impossibility’’ of gun-control

Gun-control is NOT impossible, in fact very possible..

 

Americans aren't a race. We come from every nation on the earth, including western Europe, to be free. We have a bounty of liberty. And while liberty allows for us to be our best, it unfortunately also allows for the worst according to the choices people make. Our laws punish such evil. In the end, liberty allows us to measure or prove ourselves by our conduct. This is how our Forefathers have established this country. Every country chooses how it will establish and conduct itself. In the end I believe that allowing for individual success or failure in liberty is superior to other forms of government because it keeps the failure small or manageable. The alternative concentrates power at the top where when failure comes, there is no escape. Not to mention the countless successes and excellence born of liberty in science, medicine, technology, art, and so on. Liberty makes a people strong. Can it be said that western Europeans are fit or trustworthy having never exercised those attributes and proven themselves one way or another without the liberty to do so?

 

I think that his being a licensed and trained security guard, this man, like the Police, would have had weapons even if there were no second amendment.

 

So then what good would gun control do?

 

I all for banning guns but this particular statistic is meaningless. We re globally about average, maybe a little better than average as a nation. People just add "industrialized" to avoid the inconvenience of having to acknowledge that Africa and Central America are hell on earth.

 

History has not ended and there will be far more killings in Europe, many more mass murders. It's already begun and the police are finally beginning to take the threat more seriously. The Europeans are also caving in more quickly to Muslim demands.

 

Not in much of Eastern Europe

.[video=youtube;hwbklh6UgOg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwbklh6UgOg[/video]

 

You're absolutely right and I should have been more specific about Western Europe. Good for the Eastern Europeans! They know what these 'isms' are all about.

 

Which would do what to stop someone from simply stocking up ahead of time?

So you have no problem with those considered "nutjobs" to be walking around in general? You are fine with potentially violent people being free in society, just so long as they are not armed?

 

And in other countries it is legal to buy a minor for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

What is your point?

 

With very few exceptions, all firearms are capable of being discharged in a rapid manner. Would you care for videos demonstrating that trained individuals can empty a revolver in under a second as proof?

So what? According to the supreme court in Heller and again in McDonald the ownership of firearms is connected to self defense, meaning the deployment of deadly force against someone who is trying to harm or kill you.

All firearms are deadly weapons. Nothing will change that fact. Stop obsessing about the irrelevant.

And yet many people from all walks of life select them for defensive purposes. Who should be more believed on this matter, them or yourself?

 

How many guns were used in the Paris attacks? Does it really matter that the Orlando Shooter bought his legally, and the Paris attackers didn't? I don't believe that it does. A ban on all guns or specific weapons will only stop law abiding people from owning them. It will not stop criminals from acquiring them.

 

I'm not a gun person. I do know a little bit though. I fired an AR 15 once and I thought it was a piece of junk. It kept jamming on me. So I'm going to ask this because really don't understand. What advantage does an AR15 have over another semi-auto rifle that takes a .223 round? Because the way I see it I don't want to be shot with any gun and all of them could kill you. I haven't fired too many rifles. The only guns I've fired that used the same round were a few different .22LRs and they all seem to have about the same range and accuracy no matter how they were configured.