Your point being?

That the terrorist attack in Norway (and France and Belgium, also countries with strict gun laws) shows that it's not mainly an issue about gun control. As a Norwegian himself he has had an opportunity to be aware of this.

Edit: Comment deleted. I apoligize comment was kinda douchey and ads nothing to the conversation, people are dead afterall.

Turkey has had I think 7-8 female head of state. Women can drive, etc etc. That is a Muslim country. How many women have been elected for head of state in the US? Anyways yeah, Hillary might be the first.

Pakistan and Bangladesh is not the same. Indonesia and Saudi Arabia is not the same. I hope you get my point.

That's what I mean. It's a Muslim majority country.

It's hardly the one to go by though. Homosexuals are not only oppressed in Saudi Arabia. They are oppressed in the majority of Islamic countries. I am not gonna clap for Turkish people for loosely basing their life on Islamic teachings the same way I am not clapping for the west for loosely basing their life on the Bible. 

And let's hope Turkey doesn't stumble back to darkness, Erdogan recenlty bashed homosexuality to attract voters.

When adjusting for population size (as should be done for measuring frequency) the U.S isn't that high actually. Also Australia is not the United States. There is no reason to expect things to happen the same. 

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

Do you think those attacks would've been avoided if there had been less strict gun laws?

Any fool can buy a gun anywhere through the black market. Legitimate means in America make it so that you have to pass psyche evaluations and can't just go buy a gun- there's a waiting period between purchase and obtaining the gun.

This guy also chose the perfect place to do this, since gays are overwhelmingly liberal, and liberals typically don't own guns. Had he done this at a bar in Texas, there would have been no less than a quarter of the people there fighting back with their own guns. 

Choosing to disarm your population won't stop stuff like this. It just prevents them from defending themselves. 

Bill Clinton balanced the budget and took America from a deficit given by George H.W. Bush to a surplus (which was then turned into a deficit again by George W. Bush). 

People you're likely talking to are hateful old people who think it was appalling that he lied in an attempt to keep from admitting to his wife and the world that he cheated. Bill Clinton was a horrible person, but one of our better presidents. 

Hillary will just be a train wreck, though. 

This is the wrong logical question. It doesn't matter if they could have been avoided or not with "less strict gun laws." The question is whether or not more strict gun laws prevent them (the burden of proof is on those making the restriction), and there is no evidence that this is the case when looking at all of the emprical data.