How will stricter gun control laws prevent any more mass homicides?

It won't. The left wing thinks guns are evil and war is evil and unnecessary. They ignorantly argue that war and guns create violence. They ignorantly over look history that proves they are tools used by violent people and wars have to be fought to stop them. Wars are started when one person with power attacks another. The one attacked uses the power they have to go after the attacker to stop them. In the same way when a massacre happens by one or a few the ones with power will go after them. Those who do not fight back become enslaved or murdered.

Many far left wing and some liberals can not see that it is evil because most do not believe in good or evil. They know evil and good is a religious philosophy and because they do not believe in God they say God who is good and Satan who is evil were created by people to stop others from doing things they disagree with.

The largest massacre in a school in the US was in 1927 where a man killed 45 with dynamite because he was angry he had to pay taxes for schools.

Evil acts out in violence with force. Often it is to hurt as many as they can. They will find a means any way they can to accomplish that end result. Guns are not evil; they are a means to an end. Without guns they will seek the next best thing to accomplish their goal even turning to chemical weapons which will kill even more. Removal of weapons is not the answer. History proves that. We have created better and bigger weapons in the US to protect our self from this. The answer is doing what we can to cherish the lives of everyone and that starts with fixing our moral code and getting back to values that make a difference.

Philip:

You can not say having less bullets would have made a difference. Especially with Adam who shot each person 3-5 times on average. He was precise in what he did and had more than one weapon so all he had to do is switch from one weapon to another. It is like saying knives do not kill like guns do. Knife killings have gone up in China. I have a huge list of them in schools alone. They also used swards, kitchen knives, and meat cleavers.

The most bazaar was a female teacher that rode a motor bike and attacked her own students with a sledge hammer then took one last student and lit her and the student on fire. Removing guns has not stopped violence and if you think about it guns are more humane. Dying by knife and other means are a painful death.

Claire:

Good point but spur of the moment murders happen with anything, blunt objects, knives, whatever is at hand. Mass murders are rarely spur of the moment and they can be done with anything.

They wont...they havent and never will..

Stricter gun control laws do not effect criminals since they dont follow the existing gun control laws as it is.

How will stricter gun control laws prevent a criminal from killing his mother and stealing her legally purchased firearms and shooting up a school?

How will stricter gun control laws prevent a criminal from buying an illegal firearm on the street and shooting up a school?

Simple answer, they wont....

As for restricting magazine sizes to 10 rounds that will only effect the law abiding citizens.

If I was a criminal and needed a 20 or 30 round magazine for a rifle I could buy one on the street or take a little bit of time and some slight mechanical ability and make a 30 round magazine in my garage.

As for banning semi-automatic rifles that will only effect the law abiding citizens.

If i was a criminal and needed one I could buy one on the street..

People dont realise that fully automatic wepaons can be purchsed on the street along with high capacity magazines, handguns, armor penetrating ammo, teflon coated cop killers, tracer rounds, ect. criminals have more access to illegal firearms than citizens do..

Because the shootings in Tuscon, Aurora and Newtown all involved high capacity clips and magazines. The judge who sentenced the shooter in the Tuscon wrote an OP-ED piece where he stated , based on court testimony of witnesses, that the shooter could have been subdued sooner if he had to pause to reload. I see no reason why there should even be a debate regarding the issue. It may not reduce the number of shooting incidents, but such a ban could reduce the number of victims at those shootings. Even if the death toll in Newtown had been reduced by just 10%, the ban would have been worthwhile and no ones constitutional rights would be infringed upon.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/20/opinion/la...

regrettably, maximum folk do not understand the supply of a weapon would not in the present day correlate to homicide. If that have been the case, Switzerland (the place each physique is interior the army reserve and is issued an attack weapon with the help of the government) could be the homicide capital of the international. greater, gun regulations in elementary terms result those that actual obey the regulation interior the 1st place. If shall we bypass a regulation that would make murderers think of "oh, this could be a gun unfastened zone. I better not pop a cap in that guy." then Detroit could be the main secure city interior the international.

As everyone who has any brain could see, if it isn't possible for mass-murderers to get weapons, especially those that are designed to murder dozens of people in a few seconds, then there will be a LOT fewer people who can murder dozens of people in a few seconds.

I guess that's way to complex for the sub-human moron mind to grasp.

Stop allowing violent people to buy guns at gun shows and second-hand; stop selling rapid-fire weaponry, and fewer people in the future who want to murder lots of people in a few seconds will have a harder time doing so.

It would, of course, be better to do what Australia did, and buy back all those rapid-fire weapons and huge ammo-loaders. But, unfortunately, that probably won't even be proposed.

Australia USED to have a mass murder every year; since banning and buying back all rapid-fire weaponry, they have had ZERO mass murders, for several DECADES.

Us HUMANS think it's better to have FEWER mass murders, rather than MORE mass murders. YOU obviously feel otherwise.

It's possible - for those few mass killer wannabes who don't have much imagination about getting & using all the types of guns that will still be legal, or the mentally ill mass killer wannabes who have already been certified as having mental problems, if background checks were made mandatory - and if they also couldn't figure out how to get a gun from family/friends/robbery, etc.

It would only prevent, IMO, a very, very small percentage of people who decide they want to shoot up a crowd.

We cannot predict what stricter gun laws will or will not do in a specific case. And yes, there will be mass murders in the future.

We do know that if there had been restrictions on large clips and on semiautomatic weapons, there would have been fewer victims in both Sandy Hook school and at the Gaby Gibbs shootings. What if ten families instead of twenty-six were mouring their dead? Wouldn't that be an improvement?

The easier it is to get a gun, the easier it is to kill someone. If you get really mad its harder to kill or injure someone without a weapon and takes more planning to use poison. Guns allow a spur of the moment reaction you might regret later. guns that rapid fire or have bigger ammo cause more deaths faster. Its also death at a distance. People are more likely to intervene to stop someone if the attacker isn't armed

They won't. People will get killed more often if they don't arm themselves and their homes.