Canada's population is a tenth of the U.S. The same is true for "most of Europe" if you are thinking in terms of individual countries rather than Europe as a whole. They are also more socially stable places than the U.S (for now.) You still hear of mass shootings in Europe though. The other day I was thinking about this as well, one never really hears about subway bombings in the U.S, but in the early to mid 2000's there were tons of them around Europe. It is also interesting how 50 people dead is the largest mass shooting deathcount in the U.S, while Europe in recent years has had much higher death-counts (Breivik's attack, last year's Paris attacks, etc.) I think it is possibly because the targetted areas are much more centralized and dense than in the U.S, and possibly a matter of efficiency in law enforcement (is it not true that most European police are unarmed or does that vary greatly by country?) 

An interesting way to look at things, is to compare death rate by mass shootings per capita. The U.S actually doesn't rank that high, even if the shootings are more numerous in the U.S than elsewhere. One must remember how big the U.S really is, and how many decently sized cities there are. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

<Double post> 

1. Only reporting stories that support an already held belief is absolutely biased. As is ignoring the larger sample of available data to prove a point.

2. Once again, using a single case to try and paint an entire issue is silly. People are killed by seat belts every year. Should they take them out of cars?

3. Should we be removing suicides from gun violence? Does it not matter that suicides are more likely to be successful if a gun is involved? It's really hard to help the mentally ill if they're dead.

But even removing that. Homicides in the home increase with gun prevalence aswell.

https://law.stanford.edu/2015/10/12/professor-john-donohue-facts-do-not-support-claim-that-guns-make-us-safer/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-agree-guns-dont-make-society-safer/

I dont believe ISIS, they like to claimed every massacre so everybody thinks they are more harmfull than they already are, this looks 100% like a hate crime.

They don't claim everything.

They didnt' claim San Berneado shooting when that was people doing it for ISIS as well. 

This isnt an "immigrant issue", this is islamic terrorism. Whole different problems. And while extremists group like Isis, who claim responsibility for this, exist, stuff like this will keep happening. Closing your borders from Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Greenland, Denmark, the Holy Empire of Harmonia, and just basically every country that exists in the world, wont change this. The shooter was an american, lived in amerca and was born in america. Just like the ones of St Bernardino. If you dont get that extremists and immigrants are different things, represent different problems and circumstances and need to be adressed separately then congratulations, you are part of whats wrong.

1. You'd have a point if I only read these media source. In fact, most of these I heard from the local or national news (which are skewed contrary to these stories) , and I just googled them out of memory. Reporting a specific thing that happened truthfully is all that was required for the point I was making. 

2. False equivalency. I was providing an example of somebody's right being abridged and affecting their ability to take care and defend themselves. If the minority of cases when it came to rights didn't matter, then we'd have no problem with death penalties because the few percent who are innocent but are killed by the state don't make up for the many guilty who are killed by the state. I can provide many other examples as well, but nothing is as satisfying as an analysis of collaborating empirical studies (which don't exist.) 

3. Plenty of countries have high suicide rates and no guns. Just look at Japan. I really don't buy the concept that shooting yourself in the head to death (it isn't as easy as you might think) is any easier than jumping off a bridge, for example. This also brings me to the point that these are aggregate data measurements. For some individuals a gun in the home will make them safer, while for others it might make them greater at risk. That is for the individual to decide for themselves, based on their own risk factors. Not everybody is an identical statistic. Obviously somebody who has zero risk of sucide is not going to have an 80% higher chance of commiting suicide because a gun is in their house, for example. 

Your first link is just a regugitation of the faulty study you provided before based solely on data from 1994 ( more than twenty years ago.) 

Your second link says nothing about individual gun ownership, but rather societal gun ownership. And polling social scientists and stating there is a concensus among "scientists" is laughable. 70% of social scientists agreeing is not a consensus. 

Here is a much more thorough analysis of the discussion of societal gun ownership which analysizes data over a 40 year period 1966 - 2006 and throughout the whole world comparing the effect of gun policy on death and suicide rates. 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.

Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world. Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophis‐ticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐ guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.

If a bus with enough Americans on it crashed into a tree, ISIS would try to claim they planted the damn tree, I'm with Nightmoon on this, given the report from the guys partner saying he was mentally ill, his parents saying he was a homophobe I mean... it seems like the reason he done the attack is pretty clear.

As for this story... it's awful, just a terrible reason to hate other humans because of who they love, I mean could there be a more disgusting reason to kill someone? over their love of others, I mean... it's just the lowest of the low really.

As for calls for more gun laws? I'm fairly certain there are laws in place which clearly state you shouldn't go in a club, hold people hostage and murder others around you.... this person was mentally ill and was breaking laws to murder people... if there was another law which said he shouldn't break the laws he was breaking by using a gun... he would have just been breaking another law, it would not have stopped this.

This is terrible.

He just happened to have parents who migrated from the Islamic world.

Your claim is ridiculous. It's as if you haven't even heard about the terrorist attacks in France and Belgium, commited by immigrants and their children.