Las Vegas Attack

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:The murders in Chicago are a whole different beast than these mass murders.

How is murder caused by a handgun different then murder caused by a rifle, for example, mass murder or not?
How is the death of a person shot by a handgun different than the death of a person shot by a rifle?
Are you saying that the shooting deaths in Chicago should be easier to accept because handguns were used?

No, I'm saying they would need to be dealt with differently.

Be kind enough to explain in detail how the different methods of death (handgun or rifle) need to be dealt with.

Quit being a dumbass.

Let's see... in your world a person murdered with a rifle is worse then a person murdered with a handgun therefore rifles must be banned, right?

Never said that. Quit being a dumbass and go re-read what I said. Or better yet, quit twisting my words, like a dumbass, because you can't come up with a coherent reply.

Jammer wrote:
Turns out the killing weapon was Obama's fault:

 Now the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history has drawn attention to the devices, which critics say flout federal restrictions on automatic guns.

The stocks have been around for less than a decade. The government gave its seal of approval to selling them in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law.

Jammer wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Turns out the killing weapon was Obama's fault:

 Now the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history has drawn attention to the devices, which critics say flout federal restrictions on automatic guns.

The stocks have been around for less than a decade. The government gave its seal of approval to selling them in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law.

Hey asshole, when are you going to condemn Obama for this crime.  After all, it was his fault this guy had this type of weapon.  Or are you just another HYPOCRITE?  But then again, I suspect we already know the answer to that question don't we?

Dr. Evil wrote:How to tell when somebody is trying too hard to create a narrative....

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/10/03/fox-friends-host-speculates-las-vegas-shooters-motive-was-he-didnt-have-god/218117

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Turns out the killing weapon was Obama's fault:

 Now the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history has drawn attention to the devices, which critics say flout federal restrictions on automatic guns.

The stocks have been around for less than a decade. The government gave its seal of approval to selling them in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law.

Hey asshole, when are you going to condemn Obama for this crime.  After all, it was his fault this guy had this type of weapon.  Or are you just another HYPOCRITE?  But then again, I suspect we already know the answer to that question don't we?

In my best imagined whiney Skeptical voice.... Please explain to our readers how the approval pricess works at the governmental level. Who is directly involved. You apparently know.

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Turns out the killing weapon was Obama's fault:

 Now the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history has drawn attention to the devices, which critics say flout federal restrictions on automatic guns.

The stocks have been around for less than a decade. The government gave its seal of approval to selling them in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law.

Hey asshole, when are you going to condemn Obama for this crime.  After all, it was his fault this guy had this type of weapon.  Or are you just another HYPOCRITE?  But then again, I suspect we already know the answer to that question don't we?

In my best imagined whiney Skeptical voice.... Please explain to our readers how the approval pricess works at the governmental level. Who is directly involved. You apparently know.

The government department that gave this approval was in the Executive Branch of the federal government and REPROTED DIRECTLY TO OBAMA.  IT WAS HIS FAULT.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Turns out the killing weapon was Obama's fault:

 Now the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history has drawn attention to the devices, which critics say flout federal restrictions on automatic guns.

The stocks have been around for less than a decade. The government gave its seal of approval to selling them in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law.

Hey asshole, when are you going to condemn Obama for this crime.  After all, it was his fault this guy had this type of weapon.  Or are you just another HYPOCRITE?  But then again, I suspect we already know the answer to that question don't we?

In my best imagined whiney Skeptical voice.... Please explain to our readers how the approval pricess works at the governmental level. Who is directly involved. You apparently know.

The government department that gave this approval was in the Executive Branch of the federal government and REPORTED DIRECTLY TO OBAMA.  IT WAS HIS FAULT.

Got a link?

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Turns out the killing weapon was Obama's fault:

 Now the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history has drawn attention to the devices, which critics say flout federal restrictions on automatic guns.

The stocks have been around for less than a decade. The government gave its seal of approval to selling them in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law.

Hey asshole, when are you going to condemn Obama for this crime.  After all, it was his fault this guy had this type of weapon.  Or are you just another HYPOCRITE?  But then again, I suspect we already know the answer to that question don't we?

In my best imagined whiney Skeptical voice.... Please explain to our readers how the approval pricess works at the governmental level. Who is directly involved. You apparently know.

The government department that gave this approval was in the Executive Branch of the federal government and REPORTED DIRECTLY TO OBAMA.  IT WAS HIS FAULT.

Got a link?

Sure do:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was responsible for this decision.  Its director reported to Eric Holder who reported to Obama.  Direct line of responsibility.  

https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart

OBAMA – GUILTY AS CHARGED
NOW WATCH THE HYPOCRITE JACKOFF JONES SQUIRM

Dr. Evil wrote:https://www.ammoland.com/2017/10/slide-fire-bump-fire-gun-stocks-not-automatic-weapon-says-atf/

According to these gun nuts the ATF didn't have jurisdiction. So again, who in the Obama administration signed off on these?

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:https://www.ammoland.com/2017/10/slide-fire-bump-fire-gun-stocks-not-automatic-weapon-says-atf/

According to these gun nuts the ATF didn't have jurisdiction. So again, who in the Obama administration signed off on these?

I see that your George Soros funded website is working overtime to cover Obama's tracks on this one.  

How does this gun toting nuckle dragger website have anything to do with George Soros? Or any other website I have ever cited for that fact?

What was stated was that the ATF said they didn't have jurisdiction, in other words "they bailed" on the decision.  If they would have ruled otherwise and outlawed these devices, it would have been against the law to produce and sell these things in the US, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

How could they rule on something that wasn't under their jurisdiction? How was the product positioned? Were they lied to and told that it was designed to make it easier for handicapped people to use them? We're they told that this product would make a non-automatic behave like an automatic?

Obama never had any problem taking control over issues that was not under his responsibility when it came to Obmacare, pervert rights and other things.  I guess he was just in bed with the gun manufacturers and was taking money from them under the table.

ObamaCare was passed by the full legislative body and voted on by the American people. Twice. Also even with it's flaws it's still more popular than anything the republicans have come up with. You fail. Try again.

 TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRITE.

YOU LOSE AGAIN ASSHOLE  

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:https://www.ammoland.com/2017/10/slide-fire-bump-fire-gun-stocks-not-automatic-weapon-says-atf/

According to these gun nuts the ATF didn't have jurisdiction. So again, who in the Obama administration signed off on these?

I see that your George Soros funded website is working overtime to cover Obama's tracks on this one.  

How does this gun toting nuckle dragger website have anything to do with George Soros? Or any other website I have ever cited for that fact?

What was stated was that the ATF said they didn't have jurisdiction, in other words "they bailed" on the decision.  If they would have ruled otherwise and outlawed these devices, it would have been against the law to produce and sell these things in the US, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

How could they rule on something that wasn't under their jurisdiction? How was the product positioned? Were they lied to and told that it was designed to make it easier for handicapped people to use them? We're they told that this product would make a non-automatic behave like an automatic?

Obama never had any problem taking control over issues that was not under his responsibility when it came to Obmacare, pervert rights and other things.  I guess he was just in bed with the gun manufacturers and was taking money from them under the table.

ObamaCare was passed by the full legislative body and voted on by the American people. Twice. Also even with it's flaws it's still more popular than anything the republicans have come up with. You fail. Try again.

 TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRITE.

YOU LOSE AGAIN ASSHOLE  

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:https://www.ammoland.com/2017/10/slide-fire-bump-fire-gun-stocks-not-automatic-weapon-says-atf/

According to these gun nuts the ATF didn't have jurisdiction. So again, who in the Obama administration signed off on these?

I see that your George Soros funded website is working overtime to cover Obama's tracks on this one.  

How does this gun toting nuckle dragger website have anything to do with George Soros? Or any other website I have ever cited for that fact?

What was stated was that the ATF said they didn't have jurisdiction, in other words "they bailed" on the decision.  If they would have ruled otherwise and outlawed these devices, it would have been against the law to produce and sell these things in the US, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

How could they rule on something that wasn't under their jurisdiction? How was the product positioned? Were they lied to and told that it was designed to make it easier for handicapped people to use them? We're they told that this product would make a non-automatic behave like an automatic?

Obama never had any problem taking control over issues that was not under his responsibility when it came to Obmacare, pervert rights and other things.  I guess he was just in bed with the gun manufacturers and was taking money from them under the table.

ObamaCare was passed by the full legislative body and voted on by the American people. Twice. Also even with it's flaws it's still more popular than anything the republicans have come up with. You fail. Try again.

 TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRITE.

YOU LOSE AGAIN ASSHOLE  

YOU LOSE ONCE AGAIN

The FRAMEWORK for Obamacare was passed by Congress, but it has been the bureaucrats that have filled in all the blanks with the various regulations and later interpret them.  But the ATF "BAILED ON THIS GUN ISSUE" and they always followed Obama's instructions in the DOJ.

CHECKMATE ASSHOLE - OBAMA AND YOU DUMBASS LIBERALS OWN THIS ONE

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:https://www.ammoland.com/2017/10/slide-fire-bump-fire-gun-stocks-not-automatic-weapon-says-atf/

According to these gun nuts the ATF didn't have jurisdiction. So again, who in the Obama administration signed off on these?

I see that your George Soros funded website is working overtime to cover Obama's tracks on this one.  

How does this gun toting nuckle dragger website have anything to do with George Soros? Or any other website I have ever cited for that fact?

What was stated was that the ATF said they didn't have jurisdiction, in other words "they bailed" on the decision.  If they would have ruled otherwise and outlawed these devices, it would have been against the law to produce and sell these things in the US, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

How could they rule on something that wasn't under their jurisdiction? How was the product positioned? Were they lied to and told that it was designed to make it easier for handicapped people to use them? We're they told that this product would make a non-automatic behave like an automatic?

Obama never had any problem taking control over issues that was not under his responsibility when it came to Obmacare, pervert rights and other things.  I guess he was just in bed with the gun manufacturers and was taking money from them under the table.

ObamaCare was passed by the full legislative body and voted on by the American people. Twice. Also even with it's flaws it's still more popular than anything the republicans have come up with. You fail. Try again.

 TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRITE.

YOU LOSE AGAIN ASSHOLE  

YOU LOSE ONCE AGAIN

The FRAMEWORK for Obamacare was passed by Congress, but it has been the bureaucrats that have filled in all the blanks with the various regulations and later interpret them.  But the ATF "BAILED ON THIS GUN ISSUE" and they always followed Obama's instructions in the DOJ.

CHECKMATE ASSHOLE - OBAMA AND YOU DUMBASS LIBERALS OWN THIS ONE

This is one of those times that I wish real people read this. So I could be done with your dumb ass.

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:https://www.ammoland.com/2017/10/slide-fire-bump-fire-gun-stocks-not-automatic-weapon-says-atf/

According to these gun nuts the ATF didn't have jurisdiction. So again, who in the Obama administration signed off on these?

I see that your George Soros funded website is working overtime to cover Obama's tracks on this one.  

How does this gun toting nuckle dragger website have anything to do with George Soros? Or any other website I have ever cited for that fact?

What was stated was that the ATF said they didn't have jurisdiction, in other words "they bailed" on the decision.  If they would have ruled otherwise and outlawed these devices, it would have been against the law to produce and sell these things in the US, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

How could they rule on something that wasn't under their jurisdiction? How was the product positioned? Were they lied to and told that it was designed to make it easier for handicapped people to use them? We're they told that this product would make a non-automatic behave like an automatic?

Obama never had any problem taking control over issues that was not under his responsibility when it came to Obmacare, pervert rights and other things.  I guess he was just in bed with the gun manufacturers and was taking money from them under the table.

ObamaCare was passed by the full legislative body and voted on by the American people. Twice. Also even with it's flaws it's still more popular than anything the republicans have come up with. You fail. Try again.

 TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRITE.

YOU LOSE AGAIN ASSHOLE  

YOU LOSE ONCE AGAIN

The FRAMEWORK for Obamacare was passed by Congress, but it has been the bureaucrats that have filled in all the blanks with the various regulations and later interpret them.  But the ATF "BAILED ON THIS GUN ISSUE" and they always followed Obama's instructions in the DOJ.

CHECKMATE ASSHOLE - OBAMA AND YOU DUMBASS LIBERALS OWN THIS ONE

This is one of those times that I wish real people read this. So I could be done with your dumb ass.

I see you've got NOTHING, but that is no surprise LOSER.  But you are at a disadvantage being on the wrong side of an issue and trying to win an argument over it.  Better luck next time Jackass.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:https://www.ammoland.com/2017/10/slide-fire-bump-fire-gun-stocks-not-automatic-weapon-says-atf/

According to these gun nuts the ATF didn't have jurisdiction. So again, who in the Obama administration signed off on these?

I see that your George Soros funded website is working overtime to cover Obama's tracks on this one.  

How does this gun toting nuckle dragger website have anything to do with George Soros? Or any other website I have ever cited for that fact?

What was stated was that the ATF said they didn't have jurisdiction, in other words "they bailed" on the decision.  If they would have ruled otherwise and outlawed these devices, it would have been against the law to produce and sell these things in the US, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

How could they rule on something that wasn't under their jurisdiction? How was the product positioned? Were they lied to and told that it was designed to make it easier for handicapped people to use them? We're they told that this product would make a non-automatic behave like an automatic?

Obama never had any problem taking control over issues that was not under his responsibility when it came to Obmacare, pervert rights and other things.  I guess he was just in bed with the gun manufacturers and was taking money from them under the table.

ObamaCare was passed by the full legislative body and voted on by the American people. Twice. Also even with it's flaws it's still more popular than anything the republicans have come up with. You fail. Try again.

 TYPICAL LIBERAL HYPOCRITE.

YOU LOSE AGAIN ASSHOLE  

YOU LOSE ONCE AGAIN

The FRAMEWORK for Obamacare was passed by Congress, but it has been the bureaucrats that have filled in all the blanks with the various regulations and later interpret them.  But the ATF "BAILED ON THIS GUN ISSUE" and they always followed Obama's instructions in the DOJ.

CHECKMATE ASSHOLE - OBAMA AND YOU DUMBASS LIBERALS OWN THIS ONE

This is one of those times that I wish real people read this. So I could be done with your dumb ass.

I see you've got NOTHING, but that is no surprise LOSER.  But you are at a disadvantage being on the wrong side of an issue and trying to win an argument over it.  Better luck next time Jackass.

You're the one trying to pin the tail on the donkey here. You cut your insane theory out if whole white cloth. A theory that wasn't even supported in the quote you cited as your source. Then I proved you wrong. Which can be hard to do with theories that people pull out of their ass, because they are so absurd, as in this case, that there isn't any direct data agsinst them. You're an idiot, and your theory holds no water.

Skeptical wrote:

Since the tragedy in Las Vegas the worshippers of the former HMWAIC and head socialist are again like sheep and following in lockstep formation calling for more gun control legislation.

There are enough gun control laws/regulations on the book already and still there was carnage in Las Vegas.

Everybody but the liberal mind understands the gun was simply used by a person to carry out this horrible deed.

What new restrictions could/would be imposed on the law abiding gun owner/prospective gun owner with additional gun control laws that will not prevent future mass murders?

Skeptical wrote:

Since the tragedy in Las Vegas the worshippers of the former HMWAIC and head socialist are again like sheep and following in lockstep formation calling for more gun control legislation.

There are enough gun control laws/regulations on the book already and still there was carnage in Las Vegas.

Everybody but the liberal mind understands the gun was simply used by a person to carry out this horrible deed.

What new restrictions could/would be imposed on the law abiding gun owner/prospective gun owner with additional gun control laws that will not prevent future mass murders?

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Since the tragedy in Las Vegas the worshippers of the former HMWAIC and head socialist are again like sheep and following in lockstep formation calling for more gun control legislation.

There are enough gun control laws/regulations on the book already and still there was carnage in Las Vegas.

Everybody but the liberal mind understands the gun was simply used by a person to carry out this horrible deed.

What new restrictions could/would be imposed on the law abiding gun owner/prospective gun owner with additional gun control laws that will not prevent future mass murders?

How did these countries do it?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Since the tragedy in Las Vegas the worshippers of the former HMWAIC and head socialist are again like sheep and following in lockstep formation calling for more gun control legislation.

There are enough gun control laws/regulations on the book already and still there was carnage in Las Vegas.

Everybody but the liberal mind understands the gun was simply used by a person to carry out this horrible deed.

What new restrictions could/would be imposed on the law abiding gun owner/prospective gun owner with additional gun control laws that will not prevent future mass murders?

How did these countries do it?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html

Australia's citizens who may want to own a gun is subject to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), also sometimes called the National Agreement on Firearms, the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program, or the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms

As for the UK, The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom. ... The right to bear arms was not specifically protected in the United Kingdom until the Bill of Rights of 1689, and then only for Protestants

If you had used a little effort to search you would notice neither country has a constitutional guarantee of a natural right therefore it was quite easy for them to override common sense with misguided emotions and ban or at least make gun ownership extremely difficult as well as restricted to certain types.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Since the tragedy in Las Vegas the worshippers of the former HMWAIC and head socialist are again like sheep and following in lockstep formation calling for more gun control legislation.

There are enough gun control laws/regulations on the book already and still there was carnage in Las Vegas.

Everybody but the liberal mind understands the gun was simply used by a person to carry out this horrible deed.

What new restrictions could/would be imposed on the law abiding gun owner/prospective gun owner with additional gun control laws that will not prevent future mass murders?

How did these countries do it?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html

Australia's citizens who may want to own a gun is subject to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), also sometimes called the National Agreement on Firearms, the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program, or the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms

As for the UK, The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom. ... The right to bear arms was not specifically protected in the United Kingdom until the Bill of Rights of 1689, and then only for Protestants

If you had used a little effort to search you would notice neither country has a constitutional guarantee of a natural right therefore it was quite easy for them to override common sense with misguided emotions and ban or at least make gun ownership extremely difficult as well as restricted to certain types.

Did they get the job done?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Since the tragedy in Las Vegas the worshippers of the former HMWAIC and head socialist are again like sheep and following in lockstep formation calling for more gun control legislation.

There are enough gun control laws/regulations on the book already and still there was carnage in Las Vegas.

Everybody but the liberal mind understands the gun was simply used by a person to carry out this horrible deed.

What new restrictions could/would be imposed on the law abiding gun owner/prospective gun owner with additional gun control laws that will not prevent future mass murders?

How did these countries do it?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html

Australia's citizens who may want to own a gun is subject to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), also sometimes called the National Agreement on Firearms, the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program, or the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms

As for the UK, The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom. ... The right to bear arms was not specifically protected in the United Kingdom until the Bill of Rights of 1689, and then only for Protestants

If you had used a little effort to search you would notice neither country has a constitutional guarantee of a natural right therefore it was quite easy for them to override common sense with misguided emotions and ban or at least make gun ownership extremely difficult as well as restricted to certain types.

Did they get the job done?

Considering neither country had the obstacle of a Constitutional guaranteed preservation of a natural they were effective in denying/hampering people the ability to own guns.

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Since the tragedy in Las Vegas the worshippers of the former HMWAIC and head socialist are again like sheep and following in lockstep formation calling for more gun control legislation.

There are enough gun control laws/regulations on the book already and still there was carnage in Las Vegas.

Everybody but the liberal mind understands the gun was simply used by a person to carry out this horrible deed.

What new restrictions could/would be imposed on the law abiding gun owner/prospective gun owner with additional gun control laws that will not prevent future mass murders?

How did these countries do it?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html

Australia's citizens who may want to own a gun is subject to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), also sometimes called the National Agreement on Firearms, the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program, or the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms

As for the UK, The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom. ... The right to bear arms was not specifically protected in the United Kingdom until the Bill of Rights of 1689, and then only for Protestants

If you had used a little effort to search you would notice neither country has a constitutional guarantee of a natural right therefore it was quite easy for them to override common sense with misguided emotions and ban or at least make gun ownership extremely difficult as well as restricted to certain types.

Did they get the job done?

Considering neither country had the obstacle of a Constitutional guaranteed preservation of a natural they were effective in denying/hampering people the ability to own guns.

Did they stop their mass murders?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Evil wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Since the tragedy in Las Vegas the worshippers of the former HMWAIC and head socialist are again like sheep and following in lockstep formation calling for more gun control legislation.

There are enough gun control laws/regulations on the book already and still there was carnage in Las Vegas.

Everybody but the liberal mind understands the gun was simply used by a person to carry out this horrible deed.

What new restrictions could/would be imposed on the law abiding gun owner/prospective gun owner with additional gun control laws that will not prevent future mass murders?

How did these countries do it?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html

Australia's citizens who may want to own a gun is subject to the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), also sometimes called the National Agreement on Firearms, the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program, or the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms

As for the UK, The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom. ... The right to bear arms was not specifically protected in the United Kingdom until the Bill of Rights of 1689, and then only for Protestants

If you had used a little effort to search you would notice neither country has a constitutional guarantee of a natural right therefore it was quite easy for them to override common sense with misguided emotions and ban or at least make gun ownership extremely difficult as well as restricted to certain types.

Did they get the job done?

Considering neither country had the obstacle of a Constitutional guaranteed preservation of a natural they were effective in denying/hampering people the ability to own guns.

Did they stop their mass murders?

Do your own research