Right. And so did France.
France also happens to not be an island far as shit away from everyone, that Muslims extremists have shown little interest in.
You keep pointing to France, but they have far lower gun violence than the United States.
In France there are about 1,800 gun related deaths each year.
In the United States there are 33,000.
France also has a lot harder time keeping guns out of their country than America, but that's a different story altogether.
Stop pointing to a few isolated incidents in France as if that's proof that gun control doesn't work, because there are far more examples of it working than not, and the example you're picking is weak.
No I'm not, I'm saying gun laws wouldn't have done anything in the face of today's motivations. Which has been proven, more than one time.
We have already discussed and agreed upon the fact that no normal person should be able to walk in off the street and buy assault weapons. Especially not one who has been investigated for connections to terrorism on multiple occasions. But that only means the patrons of this club would have died via fire, precussion, or at the end of an illegal assault rifle instead of a legal one
That hasn't been proven though... you think there aren't people in Australia that would like to commit a crime with a high powered firearm? Of course there are, there are nut jobs everywhere, and Australia is also not immune to Islamic extremism... and yet there hasn't been a mass shooting there in decades.
If you make it more difficult for someone to do something, it is less likely that they'll do it. Passing gun control laws might not stop every psychopath that wants to murder a bunch of people, but it will stop some, and it will certainly make things better than worse, because when it comes to mass shootings being stopped by the fabled, "good guy with a gun," the scoreboard shows the bad guy winning by a landslide.
I just don't understand what compels you to dance around the very simple and
proven logic that fewer guns=fewer gun deaths.