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

Not 5%, we have 5 times greater population.

The CPRC has also collected data on the worst mass public shootings, those cases where at least 15 people were killed in the attack.

There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany’s and five times the U.K.’s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher.

Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater. If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US.

 

America=slaughter house.

 

His legacies live on today.

 

Source please?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you understand what per capita means?

 

When was the last time you had anything remotely resembling a 'tyrannical' government? This absurd 'right' is about as relevant in the 21st century as rubbing sticks together to make fire.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's about 20%.

 

Why are they selective on their dates, and why limit terrorism stats to the number of people killed? Islamic terrorism has been going on for several decades so starting with 2009 seems a rather odd place to begin.

 

He passed two FEDERAL background checks.

 

The AR15 is no more "high speed" than any other semi-automatic rifle.
You hate them because they look like military weapons; your irrational fear is does not constitute a sound reason to ban them.

 

Since you did not get it the first time...
The 2nd protects the right to own all classes of firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes; that nuclear weapons can be banned has no bearing on this.

I'm sorry you do not understand my answer. It is as clear as it can be.

 

The word "firearms" is not in the 2nd amendment.

 

For every gun in the US used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.

 

So....?
Oh wait... you are ignorant of US legal jurisprudence.
Short version:
The 2nd protects the right to own all classes of firearms in common use for traditionally lawful purposes; that nuclear weapons can be banned has no bearing on this.

 

So your saying that here in the 21st century there are absolutely no nor will there ever be again a tyrannical government ever?

 

And I would bet my very life that if the founding fathers heard you suggest that about them they would back hand you across the face. What you just said goes against the very fundamental principles they fought and died for. That they couldn't "imagine" what weapons would be like today is completely irrelevant.

I would even go as far as to say that if they could see how the US government today has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and the civilian population does not, they would lose thier literally (*)(*)(*)(*). The US government has nuclear weapons at their disposal, and you're losing your head over a few people who buy semi automatic 30 round magazine rifles that look scary? Yeah. They'd pimp hand the snot out of you.

 

As opposed to France, Belgium - Europe? Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt ....?

 

Actually...I dislike them because they have been used in the vast majority of mass shootings in my country resulting in many dead , innocent people.

 

Total gibberish. The founders passed the Alien and Sedition laws. That was President Adams, the most accomplished legal mind of the group. Fairy tales are no substitution for reason.

 

Yes, another gay psycho, out of the closet Islamic terrorist passed background checks.
Background checks clearly have nothing to do with stopping terrorism, or protecting the American public..

 

Ummm... What the actual hell does that have to do with firearms, the second amendment or this shooting? Lmfao. That was just sad. This your attempt at deflection?

 

Tyranny has been the human norm for hundreds of thousands of years. It is our default state.

 

Plenty of times it works.

And it's because humans naturally have an Alpha mentality.

 

It is easier because we have more freedoms than most countries in the world allow. With freedom comes inherent risk of citizens abusing that freedom. I think the real question is should we allow terrorist actions to influence us to strip future generations of Americans of the rights that we now are responsible for? Would making it harder to acquire guns lower the number of mass shootings? I dont think so since those people are dedicated to the prospect of violence. Would it perhaps lower the amount of gun crimes? I think it could to a degree. But ever since 9/11 we have allowed our government to strip protections away from us in the name of preventing terrorist acts. Where does it end? At what point do we say that the rights of the people outweigh the promised protections against the terrorists? Which rights are you willing to strip from your children in order to protect yourself?

 

Perhaps they're just lacking focus. http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/h...violent-extremism-with-political-correctness/

 

Orwell illustrated how the leviathan state requires political correctness to empower its evolution and expansion.
Comprehensive databases and "Truth" are essential.

 

It was essential so long as primitive tribal warfare was a constant. IOW, for virtually all of human existence save a very few thousand years.