Comments by "chaosXpert" (@chaosXP3RT) on "President Obama's Responses to 16 Mass Shootings in Eight Years" video.

  1. Seriously, from 2009-2013, Europe had the same number of mass shootings as the U.S. source: crimeresearch.org
    28
  2. +StevieTime it's about the same population and each state acts like it's own country because each state can decide it's own gun control laws. Think about that
    15
  3. +Ben ch (BENCHY21) It's about the same population and each state acts like it's own country because each state can decide it's own gun control laws.
    3
  4. +Aizen Kazama You think borders matter in people getting access to guns? Well America has 1 border, Europe has 50+ borders.
    2
  5. +Matthew Atta If the FBI are investigating someone and have sufficient evidence, they should have the balls to arrest them and charge them with a crime and solve the issue in court! What happened to innocent till proven guilty?! Knowing people are armed is a deterrent. People may really feel safer in a "gun free zone", but all their doing is giving a criminal 20 minutes or more to shoot everyone there until the police arrive. And btw, that Orlando terrorist didn't shoot everybody within minutes. He shot hostages while the police were outside in a stand off with him. The police can only do so much to protect us. What made the Orlando terrorist attack and Paris attacks so awful is that those gunman knew they could walk in anywhere and shoot anybody they wanted. AK-47s are illegal in France, yet those terrorists had them. The North Hollywood bank robbers had full-auto (a semi-auto AK-47 is legal) AK-47's, which are illegal, but they still threatened the lives of hundreds of people and they still injured dozens.
    2
  6. Matthew Atta 1) You can NEVER guarantee no causalities to civilians. 2) Criminals still buy guns through illegal channels and all you're doing is preventing the people from defending themselves from criminals and corrupt government. 3) Making the purchasing process more robust is possible through the state governments. Why does the federal government need to know who purchases what and who can purchase what? Leave gun control up to the states.
    2
  7. +Aizen Kazama They have less deaths than the U.S.? I find that hard to believe. Cite your sources. Also, veterans killing themselves isn't funny. I hope that isn't seriously your honest opinion about veterans, because if it is, nobody will ever take you seriously. You sound like a joke.
    1
  8. +Jamie Marr I like how the police showed up after everyone was killed. Yet you argue that somehow removing good guys access to guns will stop criminals who already buy guns illegally. And deaths from mass shootings pale in comparison to the number caused by gangs. Gangs do most of the killing in America and they use handguns, but you want to remove rifles. And yes, no matter the gun laws, mass shootings still happen just as frequently. Europe has the same number of mass shootings as America. California and Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but the rank the highest in gang related deaths. California had the mass-shooting in San Bernardino despite its strict gun laws. In conclusion, it doesn't matter who is going to win this debate, the federal government shouldn't be able to take away our guns. Gun control should be left up to the states.
    1
  9. +Matthew Atta All 50 U.S. states already do background checks. So the problem is solved. The debate is over. Everybody go home.
    1
  10. +Colin_Union Point C: Civilians armed with firearms has worked against the U.S. in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Civilians with firearms worked in the American Revolution. Meanwhile in 1989, thousands of unarmed civilians were slaughtered by the Chinese Communist Party during the Tiananmen Square protests.
    1
  11. +Colin_Union Point B: Semi-auto rifles (I refuse to accept the made-up term "assault weapon".) hardly cause any deaths compared to hand-guns. Why aren't you trying to ban handguns? They are used by gangs and criminals far more often than semi-automatic rifles. Secondly, the rifle is a tool, like a car or a bat, but it's people that make it dangerous. The Bill of Rights clearly outlines that the American people may possess what they want and do what they want as long as they aren't harming others. That is freedom. It the people who need to be prosecuted for their actions. Just because some bad apples spoil things doesn't mean you should take away others rights. Look, I am not against background checks. But all 50 U.S. states already have them, and to varying degrees. The federal government has no need to have background checks on gun owners. The federal government is the government that abuses their power the most and it can be seen by federal government's everywhere. Today, they want to know who buys guns. Tomorrow they take the guns. Every corrupt government has done it: from Communist China to Nazi Germany. If you want stricter gun laws petition your state government, but even California couldn't stop the San Bernardino shooting or the North Hollywood Shootout.
    1
  12. +Owen Cox Petition your state government or elect the appropriate state officials. Doesnt it seem fishy to you that a group of several hundred in Washington D.C. would want to know who has guns? Why not leave it to the states? Also, California has the strictest gun laws and they did nothing to lower gang violence, stop the San Bernardino shooting or North Hollywood Shootout
    1
  13. Matthew Atta My point was, if the criminals knew that someone could have a gun, they'd be deterred from carrying out their attacks, but in Orlando and Paris, the criminals knew that civilians didn't have anyway to defend themselves. It must be fun laying face down on the floor as criminals (who acquired their guns illegally) execute people one by one. The fact that I or anybody can be defenseless while armed gunman murder them is what pisses me off. A criminal will get a gun, but those people never even had a chance to fight for their lives.
    1