General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[DonQuigleone]

@GundamFan0083: Your points use generally sound logic, but I think you overestimate the differences between the USA and the rest of the world. I've been extensively on both sides of the Atlantic, and the only real difference I could see was that the US had a lot more guns. Criminals, however, are pretty much the same everywhere.

Don't underestimate America, in a lot of ways it's much better then Ireland, and that includes in terms of law enforcement. There's grime everywhere, but if you live in a place a long time, you see that grime more clearly then you do the grime elsewhere. If you asked Irish people to compare Ireland to America, they'd use a lot of the same language as you do, but in reverse. Though, in truth, Irish people are a lot more aware of what goes on in America then the other way around. We receive tons of your movies, TV and news, and can talk with you about many details of your politics. On the flipside, while traveling in America I've met Americans who didn't even know Ireland was even an independent state, and a great many more who seem to think it consists only of this, when the reality is that a lot of Ireland looks more like this.

Generally, gun control would work in America, provided there is the will among politicians and the populace at large to carry it out, alas that will does not exist, but it has existed in the past, and may exist in the future. What can work elsewhere in world can work in the USA. Despite what many Right wing pundits might assert the USA is not "Special", neither in good ways, or bad ways.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Hah, never gonna happen. Also, you may not realize this, but in the US there is a big gap between federal and state/local government, with the vast majority of interaction being on the state/local level. What you're proposing would entail a massive expansion of the ATF both in size and jurisdiction/authority, or the creation of a brand new federal agency with equivalent power, neither of which would be "cheap", or for that matter legal for the federal government to do.

I know a lot more about the US then you realize. You overestimate the difficulty of such a thing. Registries already exist, they're just spread over a dozen agencies. By consolidating them money will be saved and they will be harder to circumvent.

1. In the US? not in a hundred years (or two, or forever). To expect otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the US's inherently different social-economic state, and resulting policing needs to a tiny nation like Ireland's.

There are no fundamental differences between the US and Ireland (in terms of crime). Spend some time here and you'll quickly realise that. Economically, Ireland is far worse off then the USA.

2. Maybe this is a result of your unfamiliarity with the US, but this is really a reach here. You'd need to have daily shootouts for it to have anything remotely close to what you're suggesting here.

Any cop spending time in a hospital is a cop who could be out on the beat.

3. No, just no. It's when you get lax and complacent that things goes wrong. This includes assuming the person you're talking to is not armed, firearms or otherwise. Also, shirking duty? people who would "shirk their duty" because they're afraid of getting shot wouldn't want to be, and shouldn't be, be a police officer, and I resent your implication otherwise here.

Cops are not perfect human beings (read a newspaper, watch "The Wire"), they don't want to risk their lives. If they feel there's a risk of their getting killed, they'll avoid the confrontation. No one wants to be added to the DC cop memorial.

4. From a cost perspective, it's really negligible. Cities pays out far more money in settling police brutality lawsuits than training replacement officers (which btw, is often paid for by those aspiring to be a LE officer themselves).

There's also paying the pensions of deceased cops.

No, it'll just end up being both, and I've already mentioned in the previous post why that would be a bad idea.

You really don't trust the government, don't you? If it's so bad, why don't you just leave?

A prescription medicine is something that is prescribed for your personal use ONLY, and has no legal use outside of personal consumption for specific medical conditions. Firearms on the other hand is not. People can (and often do) loan out their guns to family or friends.

You own a firearm for your (and our household's) defense. It's not an appliance like a washing machine.

We'd better start arresting every car salesman out there, god knows how many cars were sold to irresponsible drivers every year who then go out and kill/injures other drivers and bystanders.

Are Cars the same as Guns?

Oh ffs, as if any resale regulations will stop that from happening. All they'll have to do is claim they lost it or it was stolen. Or are you going to criminalize losing stuff or getting stuff stolen? too

The short answer is yes (that will throw you into a tizzy ). The long answer is that you should be required to keep your gun in a gun safe, like in Australia. You may say "Americans will never say yes to it", why? What's so unreasonable about requiring people to safely secure dangerous objects? As Uncle Ben says "With great power, comes great responsibility". A gun is a powerful thing, you must have the responsibility to keep it secure, or you are not of fit mind to keep one.

[quote]
Yea, fees to buy the gun, fees to get the gun, fees to register the gun, fees to carry the gun, and fees to sell the gun. Anything else you'd like? perhaps fees to clean the gun? maybe fees to look at the gun? or a fee for every time you touch the gun?
[/quote Poor you . Isn't it terrible that you have to pay Vehicle Registration Taxes too?

and no, the government don't, and shouldn't have the right to regulate the sale of private prop

They already do.

Never going to happen in the US, there is no political will or population consensus to force the issue. Your suggestions runs face-first into the wall that is the 2nd Amendment so many times it's not even worth dreaming about.

That is patently obvious. As for the 2nd amendment, that is not an obstacle. The constitution can be amended, you know. It is not a holy document given to us from the gods. If people think something in the constitution is wrong, it can be amended. It's happened a surprisingly large number of times.

[0utf0xZer0]

And at this point, I've had quite my fill of this thread and much of the rhetoric within.

Kyp, Ithekro, thanks for having some respect for me and my time. Apologies for being too damn tired at this point to give you the good fight you two deserve. See you again when I'm in a better mood.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Are Cars the same as Guns?

Just as an aside, cars are still far more dangerous (in the US) than firearms (any type of gun). About 1 out of every 10,000 deaths per year (in the US) is caused by a car and around twice as many kids (ages 10-24) die from car accidents a year as opposed to homicide.

---

Personally, I would be very happy if both the firearm and automobile licensing system was updated (with an added emphasis on educating the populace and creating more stringent licensing laws), but cars are even more prevalent than guns, so the likelihood of any changes in law surrounding car safety is even less than gun safety.

[Ledgem]

Been busy over the past few days, looks like I'm now a few pages behind...

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That being, would criminals move to knives if guns were banned.
Answer is a definitive yes.
Most crime takes place at short range.
...
Have you ever trained for knife fighting?
I have.
Our Krav Maga instructor had us take black magic markers and use them like a knife to attack one another.
You don't get out of that match without getting black marker on you and in a real knife fight (where your attacker has the element of surprise) you get cut.

Point #1: I'm not arguing that banning guns would cause a reduction in crime. I have said this repeatedly. I understand that it's a common argument, but I'm not making it nor do I think it's true.

Point #2: Yes, I have trained for knife fighting (assailant has a knife, you have nothing). I did Ninjitsu for a while, which focused on street fighting: you're outnumbered, assailant has a knife, assailant has a bat, assailant has a gun, and so on. Who cares if you come away with some cuts and punctures from a knife? I'd take that over a shot to the head and/or major organs that would become life-threatening very quickly.

Here's the thing with guns vs. fists: if you're in close enough, it's largely a matter of reaction timing and getting control. If you're close but not close enough, you're in major trouble. Depending on how close you are, you're better off running for your life, since the chances of you getting hit will decrease with distance (and just pray that the shooter isn't a trained marksman).

What it comes down to is that I'm not particularly impressed by your fear of knives. On the other hand, I think you're overestimating what you can do with a gun.

And yes, I've been shot at. Took out my rear car window while I was at a stop light in New York City. Even if I'd had a gun on me, so what - am I going to draw, get out of my car, and start firing on a crowded sidewalk?

I'll take knives any day.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Using your own scenario, I could easily say that a person with a CCW could have shot and killed Holmes before he attacked (knife, bomb, or shotgun doesn't matter).

I already addressed this, and Vexx did as well: nobody's going to fire in a dark theater if there's a chance of hitting innocent bystanders.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I already addressed that as Ithekro pointed out.
It is the hollywood effect of these nuts thinking guns are some kind of magic item that hits everything you aim at.
Holmes learned quickly that his AR-15 was useless in that theater and went for the weapon that was the deadliest on him: the shotgun.
The reason a shotgun is often chosen if because it is the easiest to use, acquire, and buy ammo for.

I think you're twisting around what happened. Holmes didn't "learn that his AR-15 was useless in that theater," the gun jammed and was unusable.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The problem with the numbers game is that it rarely reflects reality and as LostCause pointed out, they are often skewed by both sides due to the political nature of this issue.

I agree with this, you always need to scrutinize who is presenting the data and also examine their collection methods.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Because they cost money.
Even stolen they are far more expensive than cheap guns like in the TIME article.

Why are they more expensive? Is it because they're banned, and thus not manufactured as heavily? Supply and demand? If so, wouldn't banning guns have the same effect?

Don't outright disagree with that point. Your knowledge of guns is more intricate than mine: think that one through and give me an honest, unbiased answer.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No actually it isn't since they link to all of the local news stories that report on the incidents where guns save lives.
So you are dead wrong here.

Critical thinking, man. I didn't claim that they crafted those numbers out of thin air, I was asking what the metric was. Did you read every single one of those news stories? How many of those stories involved accounts where a gun owner simply suspected that their gun was what scared a criminal off? A story like that might be valid, but it might also just be a case where the gun really had nothing to do with it. Of course, the "pro-gun nuts" would be all too happy to add that to the tally of "a case where a gun saved a life."

Do you see what I mean?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No that's what started happening in this country when the 1994-2004 ban was in effect.

Why doesn't it happen in other countries?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I should also add that overall, as gun possession has remained steady, violent crime has been decreasing since 1991.
Crime Stats (FBI source)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl01.xls

Gun Ownership (gallup)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

Doesn't matter, because I haven't been arguing that guns are linked to crime.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That's total delusion on your part. There are so many variables involved in the situation you are talking about that is is foolish to even discuss, which is why I didn't bring it up.

I've seen you bring it up before, there's no delusion about it.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Homicides in the US run between 15000 and 20000 a year (out of a total population of 300 million) according to CDC statistics. That's 0.006%. Media hyper-focus and repetitive reporting often make it seem like 10% or worse. Murder-by-stupidity (also known as automobile fatalities) run 0.011% -- almost twice as high (40000 people a year roughly). I find it interesting that no such outrage heads in that direction since most accidents are due to lack of skill, lack of caring, lack of training, lack of sobriety. I would dearly like to see the majority of Americans not needing a car before I kick the bucket.

Originally Posted by james0246

Just as an aside, cars are still far more dangerous (in the US) than firearms (any type of gun). About 1 out of every 10,000 deaths per year (in the US) is caused by a car and around twice as many kids (ages 10-24) die from car accidents a year as opposed to homicide.

Dual reply to Vexx and james0246: when discussing statistics, it's easy to say that the numbers are incredibly low compared to others. What you need to remember is that each number represents a human life. If banning guns resulted in a "net savings" of one thousand people's lives each year, would it be worth it? How about one hundred?

I don't think that gun laws are the most pressing matter facing the country right now, but I also don't see why it's necessary to bring up deaths by cars or other statistics when we're discussing guns. The two issues aren't related, and we're not restricted to choosing between dealing with guns or dealing with cars. We can deal with both, and save even more people in the process.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Though, in truth, Irish people are a lot more aware of what goes on in America then the other way around. We receive tons of your movies, TV and news, and can talk with you about many details of your politics.

Which has little semblance to reality, despite many of them being labeled "reality" shows. If that's what you're using to learn about the US, then I pity you.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Generally, gun control would work in America, provided there is the will among politicians and the populace at large to carry it out, alas that will does not exist, but it has existed in the past, and may exist in the future. What can work elsewhere in world can work in the USA. Despite what many Right wing pundits might assert the USA is not "Special", neither in good ways, or bad ways.

There isn't. The debate will always be there, as it should. But an overwhelming consensus in either direction? I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I know a lot more about the US then you realize. You overestimate the difficulty of such a thing. Registries already exist, they're just spread over a dozen agencies. By consolidating them money will be saved and they will be harder to circumvent.

I don't think you fully appreciate the number and scale of the bureaucracy involved. It's been over a decade since 9/11, and they STILL can't get the few intelligence agency to work well with each other and local LE.

Something else I don't think you really understand, the federal government is almost entirely dependent on state and local LE agencies to enforce applicable regulations. There's no "consolidating" to save cost, that's not how law enforcement agencies are structured in the US - there's no US Department of Police, as everything is done at the local level, with their own set of laws and regulations, including the ability to NOT enforce certain laws and regulation.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

There are no fundamental differences between the US and Ireland (in terms of crime). Spend some time here and you'll quickly realise that.

Yea ok, if you ignore the cultural differences, population densities, border (cartel and gangs) issues. Yup, no difference indeed.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Any cop spending time in a hospital is a cop who could be out on the beat.

Yea, because getting shot is the only way cops gets injured or sick or otherwise unable to "walk the beat".

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Cops are not perfect human beings (read a newspaper, watch "The Wire"), they don't want to risk their lives. If they feel there's a risk of their getting killed, they'll avoid the confrontation. No one wants to be added to the DC cop memorial.

You're missing the point. I've spent over 10 years in the Marine Corps, occasionally in a MP capacity, there are many people in my unit who are also cops, from new boots working traffic to SWAT officers. None of us want to risk our lives, but we do so anyway because that's what's required of us. We are at risk of losing our life EVERY DAY we're on the job, whether it's on a battlefield or out on the street, but it's part of the job and something we all know when we signed up. Saying that we would avoid confrontation because there's a risk of us dying shows just how little you know about the mindsets of cops, and at the same time highly insulting.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

There's also paying the pensions of deceased cops.

Are there any other miniscule and completely irrelevant things you want to bring up? maybe the cost of coffees for cops? office space maybe? phone bills?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

You really don't trust the government, don't you? If it's so bad, why don't you just leave?

It's not a matter of trust, but rather being realistic about how it functions based on its past records and personal experience. The only one spouting off about trust and it being so bad is just you.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

You own a firearm for your (and our household's) defense. It's not an appliance like a washing machine.

People can own their firearm for whatever the hell they want. Whether it be self defense, hunting, sports/recreation, collection, or if they just want to stare at it all day.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Are Cars the same as Guns?

The short answer is yes (that will throw you into a tizzy ). The long answer is that you should be required to keep your gun in a gun safe, like in Australia. You may say "Americans will never say yes to it", why? What's so unreasonable about requiring people to safely secure dangerous objects? As Uncle Ben says "With great power, comes great responsibility". A gun is a powerful thing, you must have the responsibility to keep it secure, or you are not of fit mind to keep one.

Yea, because all I'll have to do is ask the bad guys to hold on while I go to my safe, unlock it, grab my gun, unlock the section storing the bolt and the ammo, put the gun together, load the rounds into the magazine, then load the magazine and ready the weapon. Maybe I should treat them to a wine dinner while they wait?

People should be responsible for securing their own weapons, or any other of their property that can potentially do harm. But the manner in which they decide to secure it is also their responsibility, it's not for the government to step in and legislate how.

Parents need to be responsible when raising a child, but should the government step in and legislate how they should care for the baby? or what to feed the kids? That's not being responsible, that's simply delegating your responsibility away.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Poor you . Isn't it terrible that you have to pay Vehicle Registration Taxes too?

They already do.

My $25,000 car has a $90 registration fee, which goes towards my state's DMV to offset the cost of running the state's motor transport infrastructure, which my car uses. My weapons sits in my house and doesn't require the use of public facility or funds, why should I incur an excessive fee for simply owning them? How would you feel if you have to pay registration fees for your car that may well add up to the same amount or more than the cost of the car itself?

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

That is patently obvious. As for the 2nd amendment, that is not an obstacle. The constitution can be amended, you know. It is not a holy document given to us from the gods. If people think something in the constitution is wrong, it can be amended. It's happened a surprisingly large number of times.

Adding an amendment to the Constitution is hard enough as it is (good luck getting 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree on anything). Only once has the Constitution been amended to repeal another amendment, which ironically was the Prohibition. The idea of repealing one of the original Bill of Rights is so repulsive and toxic that you're never going to find a politician to back it, nor anyone but the ultra left that would seriously consider it.

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

And at this point, I've had quite my fill of this thread and much of the rhetoric within.

Kyp, Ithekro, thanks for having some respect for me and my time. Apologies for being too damn tired at this point to give you the good fight you two deserve. See you again when I'm in a better mood.

I always enjoy a good debate and who knows, maybe people on both sides can learn something from the other side.

[Vexx]

We can't even get a ball rolling on something that should be a "durrr, derp" -> the Equal Rights Amendment for women (not that several other amendments don't already spell out how we should treat human being citizens but they used the word "men").

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Been busy over the past few days, looks like I'm now a few pages behind...

things moves fast

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I already addressed this, and Vexx did as well: nobody's going to fire in a dark theater if there's a chance of hitting innocent bystanders.

If there was enough light for Holmes to identify and direct fire at his targets, then there would be for CCW holder to return fire as well, especially given the constant muzzle flash would readily reveal Holme's location.

Not saying it would be an ideal situation, and depending on where the CCW holder was situated, he/she may very well have no shot, but it's certainly not impossible.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Why are they more expensive? Is it because they're banned, and thus not manufactured as heavily? Supply and demand? If so, wouldn't banning guns have the same effect?

There are plenty of automatic (military) weapons in the US, but they're manufactured for military use. The ones that are legally owned and sold to/by civilians are older(pre-1984) military hardware for collection purposes, as there are very few of them available and thus rare, at least through the legal channel. Also, their high cost isn't solely because of the rarity, as they are expensive to begin with - a single M249 SAW costs the govt over $4k, and a M240 nearly $7k.

Banning civilian guns would not have the same effect, as these were never openly available on the market in the first place, while semi-auto weapons are far more numerous and saturated. The difference is akin to banning morphine vs banning otc pain medications.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Dual reply to Vexx and james0246: when discussing statistics, it's easy to say that the numbers are incredibly low compared to others. What you need to remember is that each number represents a human life. If banning guns resulted in a "net savings" of one thousand people's lives each year, would it be worth it? How about one hundred?

That's a question with no correct answer, as it vary depending on each person's own POV. What about erecting cameras everywhere in the public to deter crime? what about suspending the constitutional rights of suspected criminals? artificial lock on automobiles to make sure you can't exceed the speed limit? or built-in breathalyzer that test you before you can start your car? Heck, how about outright banning smoking cigarette or alcohol? that alone would save a ton of lives.

Yet how many people would find those to be acceptable?

[Ithekro]

One other side effect of gun banning would be the loss of tax dollars from the various industries involved in the manufacture, retail, and maintenance of firearms. Plus the added uneployment...some of which would be skilled gunsmiths. (and that won't go for Representatives and Senators of States with those industries).

That is if the ban makes it so they cannot produce new weapons outside military and or police use...because that is about the only way to stop the gun flow. This takes all pistols and rifles out of production for anyone for any reason, including recreaton, hunting, and defense if you are not with a government agency.

Somehow I would not feel more safe with that. One because the criminals would still have older weapons for a good long time afterwards, and the only ones with new guns would be the goivernment, which in college courses tends to lead yoi the believe the end result would be either "Brave New World" or "1984". This also seems to be what Hollywood goes for when it isn't talking "Star Trek" type utopias...and firearms appear to still be legal on Earth in Star Trek.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

With over 200 years of the Constitution being in place, their is a fairly deep seated desire to hold on to it. Now the Europeans may find that silly to want to hold on to our weapons because of a small, seemingly outdated ammendment to our Constituton, but that is how we are.

There is a certain almost religious reverence in the United States for the constitution that I find incredibly odd, and is also perhaps a bit unhealthy. The constitution was written by men, fallible as any other, and should not be revered as a holy document. If something is wrong, and the constitution permits it, then the constitution (in this respect) is wrong. Saying "it's against the constitution" as proof that something is morally right is no more proof then citing the Bible, Koran or Bhagavad Gita (and unlike those books, the constitution does not consider itself any kind of divinely revealed truth, but instead a work of man).

Now the US constitution does not need to thrown out, it's a fine document, but if the people of the United States consider the pros and cons gun control, and believe that implementing it is the best course, then it would be perfectly right for them to repeal the 2nd amendment, if that stands in the way of it's implementation.

Originally Posted by james0246

Just as an aside, cars are still far more dangerous (in the US) than firearms (any type of gun). About 1 out of every 10,000 deaths per year (in the US) is caused by a car and around twice as many kids (ages 10-24) die from car accidents a year as opposed to homicide.

Personally, I would be very happy if both the firearm and automobile licensing system was updated (with an added emphasis on educating the populace and creating more stringent licensing laws), but cars are even more prevalent than guns, so the likelihood of any changes in law surrounding car safety is even less than gun safety.

Indeed. Though the vital difference between cars and guns is that death from cars is due to accident and misadventure, while the death due to guns is intentional.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Which has little semblance to reality, despite many of them being labeled "reality" shows. If that's what you're using to learn about the US, then I pity you.

You may find it incredibly surprising, but I have, in fact, lived in the US, and have holidayed there extensively. In truth, our media's depiction of the US is probably, ironically, more balanced and realistic then yours, largely because American news isn't worth the bandwidth it's broadcast on.

There isn't. The debate will always be there, as it should. But an overwhelming consensus in either direction? I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

I would agree that something like gun control should require consensus on the part of the american population. I will continue to argue in it's favour in my conversations with Americans, and, hopefully, persuade a few that it is not such an apocalyptic proposition (right along with Universal Health Care and High Speed Rail).

There's no "consolidating" to save cost, that's not how law enforcement agencies are structured in the US - there's no US Department of Police, as everything is done at the local level, with their own set of laws and regulations, including the ability to NOT enforce certain laws and regulation.

And the Department of Justice?

Yea ok, if you ignore the cultural differences, population densities, border (cartel and gangs) issues. Yup, no difference indeed.

US states vary a lot. Ireland is quite similar to states like Massachusetts, Washington state or Ohio, and well within that variation. I'd never argue that Ireland is like Texas.

You're missing the point. I've spent over 10 years in the Marine Corps, occasionally in a MP capacity, there are many people in my unit who are also cops, from new boots working traffic to SWAT officers. None of us want to risk our lives, but we do so anyway because that's what's required of us. We are at risk of losing our life EVERY DAY we're on the job, whether it's on a battlefield or out on the street, but it's part of the job and something we all know when we signed up. Saying that we would avoid confrontation because there's a risk of us dying shows just how little you know about the mindsets of cops, and at the same time highly insulting.

Do cynical cops join the marine corps, an outfit world renowned for it's courage and Esprit de Corps? Cops do a great job, but are ultimately normal people.

It's not a matter of trust, but rather being realistic about how it functions based on its past records and personal experience. The only one spouting off about trust and it being so bad is just you.

Let's talk about past records and personal experience. From the past records and personal experience of most of the Western World, Gun control works, and it certainly doesn't cause the catastrophic loss of public safety American gun proponents seem to think it will.

People can own their firearm for whatever the hell they want. Whether it be self defense, hunting, sports/recreation, collection, or if they just want to stare at it all day.

Unlike your average appliance, the primary use of the Gun, throughout history, and in all of it's depictions, it to kill another person. So you think instruments used primarily for killing other people shouldn't be tightly regulated?

Yea, because all I'll have to do is ask the bad guys to hold on while I go to my safe, unlock it, grab my gun, unlock the section storing the bolt and the ammo, put the gun together, load the rounds into the magazine, then load the magazine and ready the weapon. Maybe I should treat them to a wine dinner while they wait?

Perish the thought that some kid might come across the gun and start playing with it.

People should be responsible for securing their own weapons, or any other of their property that can potentially do harm. But the manner in which they decide to secure it is also their responsibility, it's not for the government to step in and legislate how.

It becomes the government's business when your actions (or lack thereof) cause harm to befall another innocent human being through no fault of their own.

Parents need to be responsible when raising a child, but should the government step in and legislate how they should care for the baby? or what to feed the kids? That's not being responsible, that's simply delegating your responsibility away.

The government does legislate how you can take care of a child. For instance:
1. You can't physically mutilate your child (EG female genital mutilation)
2. You can't sexually abuse your child.
3. You are liable if yours (or any) child comes to harm on your property and you have not taken adequate precaution to prevent it. In legal parlance, you owe all children a "duty of care". If you know your neighbour's kid regularly enters your yard (and you don't try to prevent it), and one day that kid impales himself on one of your pitchforks you can be criminally charged.
4. You can't give your child alcohol beneath a certain age.
5. If you feed your child such a poor diet that they die, or suffer from serious illness, you are criminally responsible.
6. If you choose not to take care of your kids, and instead play warcraft all day, you are criminally responsible.

The government legislates that we behave responsibly. Leaving a gun unsecured is highly irresponsible, especially given that for most of us children will be in the household at some time (many own guns to protect their children after all), an unsecured gun, is an accident waiting to happen.

My $25,000 car has a $90 registration fee, which goes towards my state's DMV to offset the cost of running the state's motor transport infrastructure, which my car uses. My weapons sits in my house and doesn't require the use of public facility or funds, why should I incur an excessive fee for simply owning them? How would you feel if you have to pay registration fees for your car that may well add up to the same amount or more than the cost of the car itself?

You want to own a powerful object which is not essential to your lifestyle. There's worse things in the world (like gun proliferation).

Adding an amendment to the Constitution is hard enough as it is (good luck getting 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree on anything). Only once has the Constitution been amended to repeal another amendment, which ironically was the Prohibition. The idea of repealing one of the original Bill of Rights is so repulsive and toxic that you're never going to find a politician to back it, nor anyone but the ultra left that would seriously consider it.

That Americans won't like it is not an argument against gun control, though it certainly shows how difficult it is to implement. If Gun Control is right, and Americans think it is wrong, then the necessary course is to try to persuade americans to reconsider the issue.

I don't care how practical it is to implement gun control over whether or not it is a good thing. Once we agree on whether it is right or wrong, only then do we need to try to figure out how to implement it.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

One other side effect of gun banning would be the loss of tax dollars from the various industries involved in the manufacture, retail, and maintenance of firearms. Plus the added uneployment...some of which would be skilled gunsmiths. (and that won't go for Representatives and Senators of States with those industries).

I don't worry too much about the loss of tobacco jobs when talking about how terrible cigarette smoking is for public health. So the same here.

That is if the ban makes it so they cannot produce new weapons outside military and or police use...because that is about the only way to stop the gun flow. This takes all pistols and rifles out of production for anyone for any reason, including recreaton, hunting, and defense if you are not with a government agency.

None of us are suggesting bans, we're suggesting control.

Somehow I would not feel more safe with that. One because the criminals would still have older weapons for a good long time afterwards, and the only ones with new guns would be the goivernment, which in college courses tends to lead yoi the believe the end result would be either "Brave New World" or "1984".

People would still be able to buy new guns if they wish, they just would need to fill out additional paperwork (paperwork that already required in most existing sales anyway). However the additional restrictions would cause it to be much harder for guns to flow from gun owning civilians to criminals, as deterrents would be in place to prevent the sales that cause guns to flow to criminals. After gun control was implemented, things would not get worse, and they would not immediately get better, but the situation would get better over time as slowly the number of guns in circulation declined.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by kyp275

If there was enough light for Holmes to identify and direct fire at his targets, then there would be for CCW holder to return fire as well, especially given the constant muzzle flash would readily reveal Holme's location.

Not saying it would be an ideal situation, and depending on where the CCW holder was situated, he/she may very well have no shot, but it's certainly not impossible.

Nothing is impossible, but who says that Holmes had to identify anything? Did they do an analysis on the theater to see whether he was just randomly firing? I mean, this was a packed movie theater - if anything, I'm surprised that he didn't kill or injure even more people. Even if he was trying to go for people, he would have had a much easier time hitting someone, as there were a lot of people present. If someone else were trying to hit him and avoid hitting anyone else, it would have been a much more challenging scenario. He was one person among many.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Banning civilian guns would not have the same effect, as these were never openly available on the market in the first place, while semi-auto weapons are far more numerous and saturated. The difference is akin to banning morphine vs banning otc pain medications.

It sounds reasonable, but I still have my doubts. Again, I don't have much faith in the government's ability to enforce a ban on many things, but guns are a bit different. If we talk about substances, those are things that people can grow, develop, and use in the privacy of their own home. Because people can do that without getting caught, there's a market for it, and production grows to meet demand.

A gun can be produced in secret, but where will it be used? It gives itself away very easily. The demand for guns produced in secret would likely be very low, and would only diminish with time as society would accept a culture without guns. As a result, production would also decrease, which would make guns much more expensive, and difficult to acquire.

Come to think of it, GundamFan0083, you're a gunsmith, aren't you? Is part of your reason for being pro-gun because anything else would eat into your business?

Originally Posted by kyp275

That's a question with no correct answer, as it vary depending on each person's own POV. What about erecting cameras everywhere in the public to deter crime?

This experiment was tried London, and the data indicates that it doesn't affect crime rates or successful resolution to crimes.

Originally Posted by kyp275

what about suspending the constitutional rights of suspected criminals?

Goes against our nation's concept of fairness.

Originally Posted by kyp275

artificial lock on automobiles to make sure you can't exceed the speed limit? or built-in breathalyzer that test you before you can start your car?

The lock concept isn't technologically feasible to implement at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if we'll hear about it in our lifetimes (assuming the Google car doesn't become much more common before then). The breathalyzer is mandatory for and installed in the vehicles of people who are charged with driving while intoxicated, however it represents a major inconvenience (and added expense) and thus is deemed unnecessary for the average person, who does not drive under the influence of alcohol.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Heck, how about outright banning smoking cigarette or alcohol? that alone would save a ton of lives.

I'm in the medical field, you think I have an issue with this suggestion?

Originally Posted by kyp275

Yet how many people would find those to be acceptable?

I've given you a bunch of one-liner replies of dissent, but I understand what you're getting at. No matter what we do, we can't make the world perfectly safe. Even if we could, given some of the things that we would have to do, would such a world be worth living in?

So to answer your question of "how many people would find those to be acceptable," the answer is very few. Yet as I've said before, this is society's decision to make, not mine or any one of us. All that I ask is that people make an informed decision, and take responsibility for that decision. On the topic of guns specifically, it's easy to make the claim that guns serve a protective purpose. I don't dispute that they can be used that way. It's easy to claim that guns don't cause crime, which I also don't dispute. However, we need to be honest with ourselves and recognize that guns do have a great destructive potential, and they can be used for very negative things. This is not to suggest that banning guns will remove all guns from society, or to say that criminals magically will no longer use guns. But logically speaking, if there are fewer guns to go around, fewer criminals who otherwise would use guns, will not be using guns. If there are fewer guns, there will be fewer children who accidentally shoot themselves or each other when they find a gun and play with it. We don't have statistics on that data in America, but we can look at other countries to get a sense of the lives and livelihoods saved.

I don't mind at all that people speak out for guns. Even though I'm arguing for banning guns, my own personal opinion is undecided. I haven't decided for myself whether the good offered by guns outweighs the bad, or if it's the other way around. But I don't like that none of the "pro-gun" crowd are willing to accept the reality of the destruction and harm that is caused by having so many guns around. If you bring it up, suddenly the conversation shifts to "well, cars kill more people... well, more people die from obesity... why focus on guns?" I'm not impressed by distractors. It shows that a person is unwilling to take responsibility for the negatives of their stance.

So take some responsibility.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

One other side effect of gun banning would be the loss of tax dollars from the various industries involved in the manufacture, retail, and maintenance of firearms. Plus the added uneployment...some of which would be skilled gunsmiths. (and that won't go for Representatives and Senators of States with those industries).

Sorry, when I chose a career I went for science and medicine instead of business. Putting tax revenues above people's lives is something that I don't understand or agree with, and hopefully I never will.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

None of us are suggesting bans, we're suggesting control.

To be fair, I've been arguing on the stance for a full ban... but that's just because it's easier to argue for one extreme. As I've said before, my true personal opinion is undecided, so I also can't argue for a more detailed plan.

[Ithekro]

Sorry, when I chose a career I went for science and medicine instead of business. Putting tax revenues above people's lives is something that I don't understand or agree with, and hopefully I never will.

That was mainly to show a side effect and a reason why a total ban will likely not happen. It would effect too many people in certain congressional districts and thus might cost a congressmen his or her seat...and that's something they can't allow. Politicians being politicians afterall. Their own job security comes ahead of most other things.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

To be fair, I've been arguing on the stance for a full ban... but that's just because it's easier to argue for one extreme. As I've said before, my true personal opinion is undecided, so I also can't argue for a more detailed plan.

Well, there are certain professions who need to use guns. Most particularly are farmers, who need to use guns to shoot predators and pests that kill their livestock and eat their crops.

Likewise, park rangers need access to guns in case a bear happens to become crazed, and to keep the animals in his park under control.

Finally, sporting use of guns is not inherently harmful, as the guns can be restricted to being kept in safes and are only used on rifle ranges.

It would be a tough nut for pro-gunners to swallow, but I don't see anything wrong with "banning" guns for self defense. I've said it before but I don't even think guns are a very effective form of self defense. Great offensive weapon though.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

@GundamFan0083: Your points use generally sound logic, but I think you overestimate the differences between the USA and the rest of the world. I've been extensively on both sides of the Atlantic, and the only real difference I could see was that the US had a lot more guns. Criminals, however, are pretty much the same everywhere.

Thank you, you have presented very good arguments in defense of your position and it is appreciated.

Don't underestimate America, in a lot of ways it's much better then Ireland, and that includes in terms of law enforcement. There's grime everywhere, but if you live in a place a long time, you see that grime more clearly then you do the grime elsewhere. If you asked Irish people to compare Ireland to America, they'd use a lot of the same language as you do, but in reverse. Though, in truth, Irish people are a lot more aware of what goes on in America then the other way around. We receive tons of your movies, TV and news, and can talk with you about many details of your politics. On the flipside, while traveling in America I've met Americans who didn't even know Ireland was even an independent state, and a great many more who seem to think it consists only of this, when the reality is that a lot of Ireland looks more like this.

I have to take your word for it because I've never been to Ireland.

Generally, gun control would work in America, provided there is the will among politicians and the populace at large to carry it out, alas that will does not exist, but it has existed in the past, and may exist in the future. What can work elsewhere in world can work in the USA. Despite what many Right wing pundits might assert the USA is not "Special", neither in good ways, or bad ways.

Ooh...I don't know DQ, we loooooove our guns, like our cars, our TVs, our booze, our womenz, and our freedom.
It would require a complete transformation of US culture for that too happen, and the end to the gangs.

I think Ithekro is right, if any fool politician were to attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment right now, the population would go ballistic.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Been busy over the past few days, looks like I'm now a few pages behind...

No problem, take you time, I don't think this thread is going anywhere.

Point #1: I'm not arguing that banning guns would cause a reduction in crime. I have said this repeatedly. I understand that it's a common argument, but I'm not making it nor do I think it's true.

Then we agree that there's no need for gun control/banning weapons/magazines of any kind (meaning more than what is already restricted).
Glad that confusion is cleared up.

Point #2: Yes, I have trained for knife fighting (assailant has a knife, you have nothing). I did Ninjitsu for a while, which focused on street fighting: you're outnumbered, assailant has a knife, assailant has a bat, assailant has a gun, and so on. Who cares if you come away with some cuts and punctures from a knife? I'd take that over a shot to the head and/or major organs that would become life-threatening very quickly.

Ninjitsu? No way!
Not to sidtrack too much, but which school, the Steven K. Hayes or Masaki Hatsumi school?
I ask because my GF studied under a teacher that went to Hatsumi's school.
She made 1st don.

I don't want to be cut or shot or blugeoned thank you.
Having a gun is indended to equalize your ability to protect yourself from being assaulted/murdered.

Here's the thing with guns vs. fists: if you're in close enough, it's largely a matter of reaction timing and getting control. If you're close but not close enough, you're in major trouble. Depending on how close you are, you're better off running for your life, since the chances of you getting hit will decrease with distance (and just pray that the shooter isn't a trained marksman).

Absolutely, I agree.
As you know, it is always best to flee if you can, but if you can't it is better to have a gun then not.

What it comes down to is that I'm not particularly impressed by your fear of knives. On the other hand, I think you're overestimating what you can do with a gun.

I like having maximum potential for survival at my fingertips. I don't want to take a chance that some thug has a gun or knife and not have a weapon that is equal to or greater than that of my attacker.

And yes, I've been shot at. Took out my rear car window while I was at a stop light in New York City. Even if I'd had a gun on me, so what - am I going to draw, get out of my car, and start firing on a crowded sidewalk?

It sucks doesn't it?
The part that freaked me out was how you don't hear the report of the rounds until AFTER they hit. When my car was shot at in the Applebee's parkinglot I heard the "ding, ding, ding" before the "bang, bang, bang."
My asshole got so tight from fear I could've cut rebar with it.

I already addressed this, and Vexx did as well: nobody's going to fire in a dark theater if there's a chance of hitting innocent bystanders.

I asked a Weld County deputy about that today (he's a buddy).
He told me that what is missing from the conversation is the fact that the shooter's weapons are all making a flash when fired, thus giving away his position and providing an excellent target to shoot at with a considerable measure of accuracy at that range.
He of course feels he could have taken down Holmes before he switched to his pistol, though that wouldn't have saved the 10 people killed from the shotgun, but it may have reduced the injuries.

My opinion is different, I have already said that the situation was too difficult to say with any measure whether a person with a CCW could have stopped him.
It's an unknown as far as I'm concerned.

I think you're twisting around what happened. Holmes didn't "learn that his AR-15 was useless in that theater," the gun jammed and was unusable.

I'd say he learned his mistake after he fired the shotgun into the crowd and saw the damage. Survivors have said that Holmes reloaded the shotgun during the attack.

I agree with this, you always need to scrutinize who is presenting the data and also examine their collection methods.

I am glad we agree.

Why are they more expensive? Is it because they're banned, and thus not manufactured as heavily? Supply and demand? If so, wouldn't banning guns have the same effect?

They always have been. Even when you could buy them through the mail direct from Thompson, or Browning, completely unregulated to your house.
Why they've always cost more is beyond me, but they have.
That's why banning lesser guns will not have the same effect, for whatever reason machine guns are like the rolex watches or rolls royce of guns.
It's the same reason a Fiat car is $22,000 US, and a Bentley is $195,000+ US, quality of production and demand.
There simply is just not the demand for machine guns and there never has been.
Even notorious mobsters only bought them as a symbol of wealth/prestige. The weapons they used most was the sawed off shotgun.
However, even when they were legal, mobsters still chose to steal them.
Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie and Clyde fame) said his favorite weapon was the BAR (fully auto .30-06 rifle) he stole from a National Guard Armory.

Critical thinking, man. I didn't claim that they crafted those numbers out of thin air, I was asking what the metric was. Did you read every single one of those news stories? How many of those stories involved accounts where a gun owner simply suspected that their gun was what scared a criminal off? A story like that might be valid, but it might also just be a case where the gun really had nothing to do with it. Of course, the "pro-gun nuts" would be all too happy to add that to the tally of "a case where a gun saved a life."

They claim they do not report those types of encounters Legem.
From the website:

We also feel that the overall number of crimes that were stopped/prevented by firearms is not fully represented on this site. Obviously crimes that were prevented by the presence of a legal firearm often go unreported (since there was no crime).

And going through the first 250 of the stories listed I found only 1 about a 14 year old that scared off an intruder with a shotgun, the police later caught the intruder. So, no there aren't any stories on there (now at 551) like what you are describing.

Why doesn't it happen in other countries?

It does happen in other countries. South America, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe. Much of the world is worse than the US, or did you mean only Western countries?
That answer IMHO, is because they lack the gangs we have here, and don't have the ongoing drug war we have in the US among other factors (such as government corruption like Fast & Furious).
You don't see Canada selling fully automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords do you?

Doesn't matter, because I haven't been arguing that guns are linked to crime.

Oh, well then there is no justification to ban them or pass further restrictions.
Our laws are fine the way they are, we just need them enforced and get the damn government to stop selling guns to gangs.

I've seen you bring it up before, there's no delusion about it.

Only when Mangamuscle asked about it.

[Yu Ominae]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

I’ve been to places in Continental Europe where SMGs are standard issue for a good chunk of the non-SWAT officers.

That would be true as well. Some police forces are gendarmerie-types after all like in France, Italy and Romania would fall under this since they are armed.

Unless I'm wrong, Britain/Ireland have unarmed police (At least the majority).

This guy is exactly right. We have an unarmed police force. Standard issue is just a baton, stabproof vest, pepper spray and cuffs. The citizenry feels less intimidated when the guy giving them a traffic ticket is unarmed.

Well the first AGS commissioner Michael Staines said "The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people."

No, not in the US it doesn't.
Perhaps in Ireland it does, and if so, good for you all in the British Islands.
Here, a criminal will stab you to death if they can.

For that part, I'll say it depends on where you are. For instance, there is strict penalties in Malaysia/Singapore for having a firearm unless you're a cop/soldier/sportsmann playing in shooting contests. Among said penalties include death.

So yeah, there is good gun control there. But that doesn't stop some individual from getting a smuggled gun if he/she is successful.

[Lost Cause]

"You really don't trust the government, don't you? If it's so bad, why don't you just leave?"
Neither did our Founding Fathers! You must understand that when they hammer out the Constitution they had just finished a bloody war with England, and had no want or need for another monarchy!
And they distrusted any form of government that may at some future date become a despot controlled tranny. So they made the Bill of Rights which protect certain fundamental right like speech, barring arms, and of course the protection against self incrimination, and equal rights. They wanted to make certain the people could mount their own "checks and balances" is the government were to go down the wrong path.
Owning a gun is all about RESPONSIBILITY, and unfortunately that trait is not exactly in vogue today!

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

"You really don't trust the government, don't you? If it's so bad, why don't you just leave?"
Neither did our Founding Fathers! You must understand that when they hammer out the Constitution they had just finished a bloody war with England, and had no want or need for another monarchy!
And they distrusted any form of government that may at some future date become a despot controlled tranny. So they made the Bill of Rights which protect certain fundamental right like speech, barring arms, and of course the protection against self incrimination, and equal rights. They wanted to make certain the people could mount their own "checks and balances" is the government were to go down the wrong path.
Owning a gun is all about RESPONSIBILITY, and unfortunately that trait is not exactly in vogue today!

I'd argue that those who will not solely use their guns for the purpose stated in the constitution, should not be able to own guns. Former felons are already barred from being able to legally acquire guns from licensed vendors, after all...

Originally Posted by Yu Ominae

That would be true as well. Some police forces are gendarmerie-types after all like in France, Italy and Romania would fall under this since they are armed.

Unless I'm wrong, unless Britain/Ireland have unarmed police (At least the majority).

I have never seen an armed Garda. I think our system works pretty well.

Well the first AGS commissioner Michael Staines said "The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people."

Nice quote.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Ooh...I don't know DQ, we loooooove our guns, like our cars, our TVs, our booze, our womenz, and our freedom.
It would require a complete transformation of US culture for that too happen, and the end to the gangs.

The gang issue is more complex. But I think US attitudes are not so static. Just consider how more and more americans are supporting gay marriage, which would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. Many aspects of American culture are changing, whether one of those will be attitudes to guns, well time will tell.

I think Ithekro is right, if any fool politician were to attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment right now, the population would go ballistic.

Very likely correct. It will be the first step on the path to "Der Fuhrer" Obama!

Oh, well then there is no justification to ban them or pass further restrictions.
Our laws are fine the way they are, we just need them enforced and get the damn government to stop selling guns to gangs.

That would be a good start. I also think it would be good if there weren't guns floating around out there that were unregistered. Having a whole gun registration apparatus is somewhat pointless when guns can be legally sold without registration. I would guess that a registered gun is a lot less likely to make it's way into the hands of criminals.

People can agree to disagree on how well guns serve for self defense, but we should at least take measures that ensures that it's only sane law abiding people that can easily get their hands on guns, and stem the flow of weapons to criminals. Maybe it's impossible to achieve total success, but you can have half-success or 3/4 success. I'd argue that current regulation already stem some of the flow of guns to criminal gangs and thugs. There's some obvious wide open loopholes still left to be plugged though.

[Ithekro]

the population would go ballistic.

...With ballistics


Sorry, it was too good of an opening.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Then we agree that there's no need for gun control/banning weapons/magazines of any kind (meaning more than what is already restricted).
Glad that confusion is cleared up.

You're dismissing this point too readily. Just because I don't think crime rates would be affected by a gun ban doesn't mean that crime-related deaths or [/i]crime-related injuries[/i] would not be affected. The point here is that there are plenty of weapons that can be used in crimes instead of guns, but none of those weapons has the destructive potential of a gun. It still makes banning or strictly controlling guns worthwhile.

I know you've argued previously that knives are as bad as or worse than guns, and thus you may be inclined to disagree with that point. As you know, I completely disagree that a knife has more destructive potential than a gun. I can't think of much that would convince me otherwise. If you're still in disagreement, we may just have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Ninjitsu? No way!
Not to sidtrack too much, but which school, the Steven K. Hayes or Masaki Hatsumi school?
I ask because my GF studied under a teacher that went to Hatsumi's school.
She made 1st don.

I'm actually not sure - it was a group at my university that I joined. My guess would be that the founder (who was not a student) came from some higher-level place, but I don't know much about his background. Unfortunately I wasn't able to stay with it for more than a year (and now I'm out of shape from sitting on my butt and studying all day, every day), but I really enjoyed it while I went through it.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I don't want to be cut or shot or blugeoned thank you.
Having a gun is indended to equalize your ability to protect yourself from being assaulted/murdered.

Nobody wants to be injured. That's partly what this is all about.

You want your guns as a force equalizer, and as a way to ward off confrontations before they happen. However, simply having a gun on you isn't protection. Whether you have a gun or not, if you get shot, the injury is still the same. And if someone draws on you, it doesn't matter if your gun is at your side: you'll likely be shot before you can get it into your hands and raised to your assailant.

What if we could lessen your chances of getting shot entirely? Reducing the number of guns won't completely eliminate your chances of encountering a criminal with a gun, but it will decrease them.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It sucks doesn't it?
The part that freaked me out was how you don't hear the report of the rounds until AFTER they hit. When my car was shot at in the Applebee's parkinglot I heard the "ding, ding, ding" before the "bang, bang, bang."
My asshole got so tight from fear I could've cut rebar with it.

That's for sure. I had no idea what was going on - my Jeep shuddered, but at first I thought that maybe someone had just smashed a bottle against the side of the vehicle. Then my wife turned around and remarked that the window was totally shattered. I calmly drove on and calculated from people's reactions that the shot must have come from one of the upper apartments, but if anyone had run into the street and taken aim at me, I might have flipped out.

I don't know what's wrong with people. Doing that is stupid, senseless destruction, but to add insult to injury, this occurred the night before Christmas Eve. We coastal dwellers generally aren't a fan of the "God and guns" mantra, but I guess it's even worse when it's "Godless and guns"

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I asked a Weld County deputy about that today (he's a buddy).
He told me that what is missing from the conversation is the fact that the shooter's weapons are all making a flash when fired, thus giving away his position and providing an excellent target to shoot at with a considerable measure of accuracy at that range.
He of course feels he could have taken down Holmes before he switched to his pistol, though that wouldn't have saved the 10 people killed from the shotgun, but it may have reduced the injuries.

My opinion is different, I have already said that the situation was too difficult to say with any measure whether a person with a CCW could have stopped him.
It's an unknown as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not trying to say that taking Holmes out would have been impossible. There are two major factors that make it extremely unlikely, though.

The first, as I mentioned before, is that Holmes was one person among a crowd of many. If our theoretical movie-going gun carrier was sitting in the front row and thus had a clear shot, then yes, I'd say that he could have realistically been stopped. But what if the person with the gun were sitting in the middle of the theater? How about the back? The fact that it was a dark theater and that Holmes was tossing smoke canisters (or was it tear gas?) only confounds the situation: the argument that I'm making would apply even to a crowded cafe in bright daylight.

The second factor has to do with people's reactions. If we're talking about an army veteran who has seen combat, I'd find it believable that they could have seen Holmes, taken fire, and then returned fire with reasonable accuracy, all while maintaining a fairly level head. If we're talking about the average armed citizen who has never been fired on before, I'm not so certain that they would be thinking straight. They might not draw their gun at all; in a bad scenario, they would begin to fire in a panic, possibly hitting more innocent people in the crossfire. In a worst-case scenario, there would be multiple armed people firing around the theater, hitting more innocents.

One of the greatest dangers of having everyone armed is the distrust. It's easy to think that Holmes would have been put down very quickly if everyone in the theater were armed, and that would be the end of it. But how would the people holding guns know that the other armed people in the theater weren't working with Holmes? Even if everyone stopped firing once Holmes dropped dead (presuming that's how it would play out), what would happen if someone were a crappy shot and accidentally hit an innocent bystander? Wouldn't it be safer to assume that at least one of the other gun-wielding people were also acting with malicious intent?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I'd say he learned his mistake after he fired the shotgun into the crowd and saw the damage. Survivors have said that Holmes reloaded the shotgun during the attack.

I think he had a general priority list of weapons to use. The AR-15 was first in line, followed by the shotgun. It's not that he "learned his lesson" - the entire reason he switched to the shotgun was because the AR-15 wasn't working. If it hadn't jammed, there's a good chance that he never would have changed weapons.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

They always have been. Even when you could buy them through the mail direct from Thompson, or Browning, completely unregulated to your house.
Why they've always cost more is beyond me, but they have.
That's why banning lesser guns will not have the same effect, for whatever reason machine guns are like the rolex watches or rolls royce of guns.
It's the same reason a Fiat car is $22,000 US, and a Bentley is $195,000+ US, quality of production and demand.

The high-cost items that you're comparing to don't cost so much because of their build quality, but because of the brand name. (Otherwise, explain Ferrari and Jaguar to me )

A machine gun is a more complicated piece of machinery than a standard gun, but that alone doesn't explain the price disparity.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

They claim they do not report those types of encounters Legem.
From the website:

We also feel that the overall number of crimes that were stopped/prevented by firearms is not fully represented on this site. Obviously crimes that were prevented by the presence of a legal firearm often go unreported (since there was no crime).

And going through the first 250 of the stories listed I found only 1 about a 14 year old that scared off an intruder with a shotgun, the police later caught the intruder. So, no there aren't any stories on there (now at 551) like what you are describing.

The point behind my statement here is to be skeptical of people who are reporting these figures. The website clearly has an agenda. It doesn't mean that they're lying or stretching the truth, but it means that they're more likely to put their own slant on things. I don't have the time to go through each of their stories to gauge their accuracy or see if they're engaging in truth-stretching.

However, this all leads away from a larger point: is the number of lives saved and/or crimes averted comparable to the number of people killed by guns?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It does happen in other countries. South America, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe. Much of the world is worse than the US, or did you mean only Western countries?
That answer IMHO, is because they lack the gangs we have here, and don't have the ongoing drug war we have in the US among other factors (such as government corruption like Fast & Furious).
You don't see Canada selling fully automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords do you?

I was particularly interested in the countries that either have very strict gun control laws, or that have outlawed guns entirely. We don't need to limit ourselves to Western countries, although I suppose that such comparisons would be more appropriate.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The gang issue is more complex. But I think US attitudes are not so static. Just consider how more and more americans are supporting gay marriage, which would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. Many aspects of American culture are changing, whether one of those will be attitudes to guns, well time will tell.

This is a good and interesting point. There are many people who don't want society to change at all (these people are "conservative" by the very definition of the word); these are the people who will always want guns to be a part of society, because it's a part of the Bill of Rights (2nd amendment) and thus a part of what America is. Then there are the people who are willing and desire to change society to conform to more modern ways of thinking (these people are "liberal" by the definition of the word).

Ultimately, no matter how people desire to keep things static, everything changes.

[Vexx]

There there are those of us who think some things shouldn't change, some things need changing, but how to change them should be analyzed carefully for the "effect of unintended consequences".

Every decade I get just a little more fed up with politicians with college degrees who write laws that read like they were written by stoners and then whine "that's not what we meant" when the laws explode in our faces.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

There there are those of us who think some things shouldn't change, some things need changing, but how to change them should be analyzed carefully for the "effect of unintended consequences".

Every decade I get just a little more fed up with politicians with college degrees who write laws that read like they were written by stoners and then whine "that's not what we meant" when the laws explode in our faces.

The generalization of people is broad, but the point is that things are constantly changing. The world is not the same as it was even 20 years ago, let alone the time when the most basic laws defining gun ownership were formed. Things don't have to change (especially not simply for the sake of changing), but they also don't have to stay the same (especially not simply for the sake of staying the same).