General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Ithekro]

Just because the occational wackjob has seen one to many hollywood movies and goes on a spree with a high-cap mag, doesn't mean diddley when it comes to crime in general.

That and the latest wackjob's rifle failed him anyway and resorted to the relatively low capacity shotgun to kill and injure his victims.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is a respected publication.
You may not like their findings, or agree with their politics, but they are spot on.
There is no "pretending" in that piece.

It's a low ranked journal, but that is not the problem. The authors have drawn a conclusion based on their own convictions and try to cherry pick evidence. Personally I'm not opposed to gun ownership but I am against shoddy craftsmanship in academic writing, that paper should not have passed peer review.

Some respected sources on the topic:
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3589.pdf

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705

You can check the references for related papers on sub topics of interest.

[ganbaru]

RUN. HIDE. FIGHT. Surviving an Active Shooter Event - English
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5VcSwejU2D0

Note than never say to carry a gun just in case ...

[Lost Cause]

I start out amused, then get frustrated, then angry, and finally absolutely resolute when I see these anti-gunners spout statistics here, there and everywhere about the dangers of guns, crime rates and the effectiveness of gun control. Bullchips!

These arguments are then most times followed from the pro-gun side by another set of endless statistics that completely counter the arguments just made by the anti-gun crowd. Unfortunately, these pro-gun statistics will never convince the anti-gunners no matter how obvious the numbers.

Nobody ever seems to believe the other guys’ statistics and there is a sound reason for that—statistics are a liar’s best friend and liars know that better than anyone.

I studied statistics in college and found that I could easily develop a long list of impressive numbers to support any argument on either side of an issue, creating virtually any impression I fancied. Politicians and the media do it all the time.

“So what good are all these statistics Colonel if we can’t use them to prove gun control just doesn’t work?”

Although statistics are good facts to have in your pocket, you really don’t need numbers to prove this point. The founders didn’t have any statistics so all you need is what they had in abundance—common sense. “What do you mean Colonel?”

Here are just 4 common sense points that illustrate why gun control is a myth, not a pathway to crime control—and not one point uses statistics.

Common Sense Point #1: Thugs ignore gun laws. To think that thugs who ignore laws against murder, robbery, rape and assault will, by some stretch of lunacy, obey gun control laws is the purest form of lunacy. Does anyone think that a gang planning a bank robbery will trash those plans because they would first be required to register their guns before the job went down?

Let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy planning…The Big Heist

“Well, Bugsy, there it is. Our plans for robbing the Last National Bank are absolutely fool-proof and dat cool million is just waitin’ on us. It’s just a cryin’ shame we can’t pull it off though.”

“Why Mugsy? What do you mean?” asks Bugsy incredulously.

“Because da law says we can’t carry unregistered guns or we could get into real trouble” says Mugsy as he resigns himself to the life of a law abiding citizen.

“You’re right.” admits Bugsy with a tear in his eye. We’ll just have to forget about dat million smackers. I certainly wouldn’t want to break any gun laws.”

And who really thinks that requiring a solid citizen to register his gun will prevent crime? He isn’t planning The Big Heist—never has, never will. So the point is?

Common Sense Point #2: Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens. Amazing bit of deductive reasoning isn’t it? Anti-gunners hope you never discover that truth on your own. Think about it though from the shoes of Mugsy and Bugsy. Who would you rather confront, an armed citizen or an unarmed one? Where would you rather focus your life of crime? In areas where guns are outlawed or where guns are prevalent? Who would you rather prey on, the defenseless or the armed? And where is violent crime more prevalent? Washington D.C. where gun laws are strictest or Florida where gun laws are more relaxed? I’ll give you one guess but let’s listen in on Mugsy and Bugsy again.

“OK Bugsy, the bank job was a flop I admit dat, but we can always pull a stick-up like in da ol’ days.”

“Yeah, dats right Mugsy. We can always get a little fast bread dat way.” says Bugsy, his excitement for the old days of street crime growing. “But where do we target da mark Mugsy?”

Well Bugsy, we sure can’t pull stick ups in Florida, too many guns there. We might could get shot by one of dem ol’ southern boys. You know how they are. A lot of ‘em is packin’ these days since Florida OK’d concealed carry—ya just never know down there anymore—a real shame ain’t it?”

“You’re right Mugsy. That could be way too dangerous for us.” “I got it!” says Bugsy, “We’ll hit every schmuck in Washington D.C. None of dem bums got guns…it’s against the law…we’ll be the only ones there what got heaters!”

“Great idea!” says Mugsy, “Let’s load up and git goin’. Easy pickins, here we come!”

Common Sense Point #3: Crime is deviant behavior. A gun is an inanimate tool not deviant behavior and crime is deviant behavior not an inanimate tool. You can’t prevent deviant behavior by regulating tools because tools are incapable of behavior and the number of tools available to the world’s deviants is endless.

Even if you could legislate guns out of existence, deviants could, would and have used other things that gave them a power advantage over their victims—knives, clubs, rocks or even sharp sticks—all of which are very legal and very accessible.

Commons Sense Point #4: The Trump Card. The strongest point of all consists of a mere 27 words and is absolute in its nature. It trumps all statistics ever concocted by man and all arguments ever made—and not one of the 27 words is a number… “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” #4, my friends, is absolute, unambiguous and supersedes all arguments and all statistics.

Now go forth soldier, well armed with common sense, the absolute truth of the II Amendment and ready to fight the good fight.

One last note: If you ever find any staunchly committed anti-gunner actually and honestly willing to listen to common sense or interpret the II Amendment simply as written by our founders, please let me know. I’m still looking for one.
Just a little food for thought.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Bri

It's a low ranked journal, but that is not the problem. The authors have drawn a conclusion based on their own convictions and try to cherry pick evidence. Personally I'm not opposed to gun ownership but I am against shoddy craftsmanship in academic writing, that paper should not have passed peer review.

With this issue that is common on both sides of the debate.
Take the case of the historian Bellsiles when he actually fabricated evidence to push his hoplophobic viewpoint of the 2nd amendment.
So it does happen, but their findings concur with the variables/LATE data of the first article you posted below (thanks for that link BTW, very interesting).

The simple fact is that while gun-crime may be reduced by limiting guns, homicide is not.
If the goal is not disarmament of society (for whatever reason) and it is for public safety, then reducing firearms is not the answer.
Crime control is needed, and that means dealing with the factors that are responsible for individuals turning to crime or committing crime.

Some respected sources on the topic:
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3589.pdf

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705

You can check the references for related papers on sub topics of interest.

I knew about the New England Journal of Medicine piece, and had already read it.
Their findings were essentially inconclusive as they were focusing on people with mental health issues who commit suicide using a firearm. Their findings were that a gun in the home of a mentally ill person will increase the likelihood of them using it to kill themselves. If the NEJOM article had left it at that it would be interesting, but then they went on to suggest the "guns may always be bad" crap even though they lacked the evidence to back it up and admitted such.
The exact words of the article were:

People who own firearms should carefully weigh their reasons for keeping a gun in the home against the possibility that someday it may be used in suicide.

I've read that study a few times and still *facepalm* over the closing statement.
If someone is serious about killing themselves, having a gun is the least of their problems. Again, it is a study going after a symptom not the source of the issue.

The other article was great, but also inconclusive due to a lack of hard data which the researchers themselves admitted to.
However, they state that criminals will not be deterred by any form of gun control and that's the key to this whole debate.
If gun control cannot deter crime, then it is simply a harrassment of the law abiding population, and in the United States, a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

RUN. HIDE. FIGHT. Surviving an Active Shooter Event - English
Note than never say to carry a gun just in case ...

OH my gawd, that was just...I'll just summarize it.

SUMMARY:

First: RUN! Fuck everybody else, just get your ass to safety, use others as a body shield if necessary, and then call the police and hope their not stuck in rush hour traffic.

Second: Hide! Because psychos really enjoy a good game of hide and seek. That way when he finds you in a room you can't get away from him and are easy prey.

Third: FIGHT! NO, not with a gun, what are you crazy? You need to use things that bullets go through easily like a chair or a notebook folder. You need to disarm him, take him down, but not fill him full of bullets.

I love how after the "FIGHT" part they tell you to be aware of your environment.
SHOULDN"T THAT HAVE BEEN FIRST!

Security Guard standing next ot the elevator: "Oh, look that guy is reaching into his backpack and pulling out a shotgun. I think I'll just stand here and get shot."

Oh, but when the cops show up (about 15 minutes later) they're fucking armed to the teeth.
Yes, they're well trained, but have no obligation to protect your sorry ass, so get out of the way.

Somewhere, Edward Bernays is smiling from ear to ear.

Whatever agency created that jackassery needs to have its budget cut by half...oh wait, it's the Department of Fatherland Security. They don't need a budget cut, they need to be abolished.

END SUMMARY.

I have my own "THREE THINGS" to do when a criminal brandishes a weapon.

DRAW, AIM, and FIRE.

That DHS video reminds me of this:

[Bri]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

W
However, they state that criminals will not be deterred by any form of gun control and that's the key to this whole debate.

This is true however countries that are able to control the flow of weapons to the black market can have success in lowering gun related crimes. I'd have to look up which paper, but I've read one one on juvenile crime and gangs which made a cross country comparison.

The argument is: criminals don't like to posses traceable weapons so they will rely on the second hand market or theft. Requiring registration and identification with purchase and resale does not seem to impede on any second amendment rights of gun owners that I know of.

Basically the issue is not legal gun ownership, but how easily a random person can acquire a weapon anonymously.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

RUN. HIDE. FIGHT. Surviving an Active Shooter Event - English
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5VcSwejU2D0

Note than never say to carry a gun just in case ...

Thanks... just in case you can't escape... pretending to be dead is also helpful....

[Ithekro]

I think I'm with Vexx on this issue. Proper Gun Control is not regulation of weaponry, it is training of civilians to properly handle and respect said weaponry. Even those that will never own a gun in their life should at least be aware or what they are, how they work, and properly respect them so they don't categorize things incorrectly and fly off the deep end because of the sensationalist news media.

This isn't the Old West anymore, but people attest to the times they were growing up in the 40s, 50s, and 60s that guns were just part of life and they didn't have the massive gun violence problems like we seem to have today. To be sure there was gun violence, but not as much and certainly not as sensational as in today's world.

The 20s and 30s had the prohabition issue and gang violence increased. Also there were a lot of ex-military hardware running around from the end of World War One in civilian hands as they were not quite illegal yet. But Prohabition ended and certain kinds of military hardware were banned for most uses in 1934. Soldiers from World War II didn't generally get to take their weapon home with them like soldiers from previous wars. Some weapons (M1 carbines and M14 rifles) would get into general circulation as military surplus. But these were legal single shot weapons, not machine guns like the Vietnam era M16.

Total most of the military weapons that come up for sale are pistols. And many of those are Italian designed (Beretta) or old Colt pistols (1890s style revolvers or M1911A1s).

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

One last note: If you ever find any staunchly committed anti-gunner actually and honestly willing to listen to common sense or interpret the II Amendment simply as written by our founders, please let me know. I’m still looking for one.
Just a little food for thought.

I don't know if I fit those criterias (plus the fact than I am not american might not help ) but I might try.
''#1: Thugs ignore gun laws'': of course they don't but are every criminals a thug or can a ''normal'' citizens comit a crime ? The individual than would ''lose it'' and start to shoot at passen-by and barricade himself isn't likely to had buy his gun on the black market.
''#2: Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens.'' Isn't just moving the problem ? To start to carry a weapon won't stop a crime, they might simply go for another victim. And what happen if they choose to shoot first any of their victim, nullifying the possible advantage of a weapon to their victim ?
''#3: Crime is deviant behavior. A gun is an inanimate tool not deviant behavior and crime is deviant behavior not an inanimate tool.'' Gun are tools, right, but can we really put them in the same category than a hammer , a saw or a kitchen knife ? You could kill someone with thoses, used in a way far from their original purpose, which isn't the case of the gun.
''#4 the 2nd Amendment '' This one had already been talked before. What would be considered a ''A well regulated militia''? Anyone or would it need to be part of a organisation? to have some formation? to be selected for the job? Some could even doubt the usefullness of a Militia given the current situation ( the advance of the weaponery in the last 200 years, the politic situation, etc), but it's something than I wont touch.

[Vexx]

Historically, 'militia' meant any member of the community who owned a firearm.

In modern terms, I contend it best means some sort of civil defense network of community members, preferably ones that actively participate in disaster planning as well as marksmanship.

As for #2 on your list... having *some* of the population with concealed carry raises the risk for *any* one planning a mugging/robbery. The result is actually usually an increase in petty theft or other crimes that don't require confrontation.

As for #1 .... well, that's a problem with any sort of tool that can kill, hammers, bats, gasoline, etc. But we could DEFINITELY use better integration of mental health data with the NCIS checking system. That would have flagged Holmes, for example.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

In CQB they are more deadly than a handgun or rifle, but a shotgun...not so much.
A cut to the jugular is as dangerous as a shot to the head with a pistol.
However, a gut-shot with a shotgun is fatal, period.

Once again, the article you quoted isn't helping your case. Did you miss this part?

"At close range a knife is as deadly as or more deadly than a gun."

This is a key point that you don't seem to be considering, and this sort of gets back to kyp275's question about whether I'd prefer to be shot or sliced with a knife. I choose a knife because an assailant has to get within arm's reach of me to do anything. (Let's not get into the tangent of throwing knives.) At that point, whether armed or unarmed, I can fight back. If an assailant has a gun, it doesn't matter how crappy their aim may be, they have the capability to reach me from very far away. I don't like that. Unless you don't care about the potential for "collateral damage," it doesn't matter whether you're armed with a gun: you shouldn't like it, either.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Yes, being the intelligent individual that James Holmes is, he would have prepared his attack differently.
Since we are speculating (imagining if you prefer) I can see him coming back into the theater going to the back of it and then throwing his tear gas grenades while slitting throats in the back row seats as people choke on the fumes.
How many would have died then?
Probably a lot, maybe even as many as he did kill or more.

Or maybe he would have moved in close to one person, who would have grabbed his arm, removed the knife, and pinned him down. Zero deaths.

Do you know what the difference is between our fantasy scenarios and reality as it actually happened? Either of our fantasy scenarios could have happened. Yet in reality, because Holmes was using a gun, I can't even come up with a scenario where he would have been stopped. (I'm guessing you'll want to say that you can, and envision a scenario where a move patron pulls a gun and shoots him. Not realistic - Holmes could fire in a dark theater because his intent was to kill others. He was also armored. Anyone else would want to avoid hitting others in the crossfire.)

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Keep in mind he also had incendiary bombs in his apartment. The Aurora bomb squad said they were well made and lethal. Now, I wonder, in a crowded theater, how many could he have killed with those fire-bombs?

I was waiting for you to bring up bombs. Bombs can take out a lot more people than guns. Why is it that more people aren't using them? Why do we hear about guns more than bombs?

Got any theories of your own?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That's quite a claim to make considering the research they did in that piece.
Let's see you back up your claim that it stretches data or skews the facts.

I don't debate the numbers, I debate their take on the numbers, their explanation of what the numbers mean. LostCause somewhat touched on this point, and I disagree with her (and will reply to her in turn). There are two things that we can attack with these types of presentations: the numbers themselves (whether by criticizing the data collection method, or simply providing another study (that needs to be better) that has different numbers), and the interpretation of the numbers. Simply put, they're presenting numbers, but then they make some very large leaps in their interpretations of what those numbers indicate.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Automatic weapons (I assume you mean machine guns) are a red-herring.
They have been prohibitively expensive since the late 1800s and still legal to purchase with a class III license, so their availability has no impact on the gun control debate as they are hardly ever used.

Prohibitively expensive? Who cares? Aren't you arguing that criminals aren't getting their guns like the rest of us? Why should they care about expense? Why are they hardly used by criminals?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Actually it has risen to 551 (oops, make that 552 since this morning).

You know, with a web URL like "guns save lives .net" I think 552 seems a little low, don't you? This is a very poor source. Is there a study conducted by a less biased and more professional group available?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Black market means the serial numbers were removed, nothing more.

Did the study indicate that to be the sole criteria by which they're gauging "black market" guns, or is that your own take on it?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Are you kidding, the Black Market would balloon out to the point of guns becoming completely untracable. You'd have millions of guns with their serial numbers burned or machined off, you'd have underground gun factories, ammo factories, and who knows what else.

Is that what happened in countries that have very strict gun control? Rhetorical question; this is pure fantasy on your part.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The way to safeguard is to enforce the rules/laws we already have.
In the case of James Holmes, he was a psychiatric patient.
It is already illegal to sell to such a person, so if you want to improve the chances of stopping another Holmes you need to allow NCIS to have access to the psychiatric records of patients deemed to be dangerous.
Holmes was one such patient.
If you wish to protect the public from people like him, then let the FBI have the mental health records.
I have no objection to that, unless it gets abused to stop all gun transfers.

The article you linked to doesn't state it, but in other articles it is indicated that Holmes saw the psychiatrist once (or was it twice?), and I believe he saw her less than a month before he went on his shooting rampage. Records indicate that he was purchasing his guns and other supplies four months prior.

In other words, the current guidelines would not have prevented this.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

These arguments are then most times followed from the pro-gun side by another set of endless statistics that completely counter the arguments just made by the anti-gun crowd. Unfortunately, these pro-gun statistics will never convince the anti-gunners no matter how obvious the numbers.

I'm not arguing with the numbers. I argue with the interpretation of the numbers. There is a very large difference between the two. Take a look: I invited GundamFan0083 to provide statistics, and I've only thrown out one that he's supplied so far (and that's justified, I think, given that they don't clearly state their collection methods, and their bias is painfully clear).

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Here are just 4 common sense points that illustrate why gun control is a myth, not a pathway to crime control—and not one point uses statistics.

I'd love to converse with you, but I want you to understand something right from the start: I am not arguing that guns are related to crime rates. I am not arguing that control of guns will decrease crimes. That is an incredibly simplistic argument to make. What I am arguing is that getting rid of guns makes it a lot more difficult for a person to seriously hurt or kill other people, and in large amounts.

Go on, tell me about how guns are such great defensive devices. The "security blanket" for grown men and women argument, you want guns to defend you from other people who have guns. The argument that even if you ban guns, people will still have guns.

Sure, fine. Facts are that we have more gun-related deaths than other countries, as well as more gun-related injuries. This isn't surprising: it's because we have more guns. Is this a worthwhile trade-off, and why do you seem to think so?

[Vexx]

The saddest thing to me is that for all our banter, our politicians are either too incompetent to construct a reasonable constitutional protocol, too fearful of the firearms lobby, or like the status quo of 'fear and loathing'. "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right" goes the song lyric...

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The saddest thing to me is that for all our banter, our politicians are either too incompetent to construct a reasonable constitutional protocol, too fearful of the firearms lobby, or like the status quo of 'fear and loathing'. "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right" goes the song lyric...

I think they like the status quo. I was waiting for GundamFan0083 to bring up his argument about how guns are society's way to guard against a corrupt government to point out that it would never happen, and it's for this reason: the politicians have done a phenomenal job of dividing people into extremes. People may hate one extreme in the government, but because their extreme is present in some form, they're pacified. Even if their extreme were lost, an armed uprising would not accomplish anything, because society would remain divided. The uprising would either be too small, or it would be put down by both the government and the parts of society holding opposite views (and who fear persecution, or a government set up and run entirely by the opposite extreme).

We're a Western version of the Shiites vs. Sunnis, just without the background of formal religion to create the divisions.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Yet in reality, because Holmes was using a gun, I can't even come up with a scenario where he would have been stopped. (I'm guessing you'll want to say that you can, and envision a scenario where a move patron pulls a gun and shoots him. Not realistic - Holmes could fire in a dark theater because his intent was to kill others. He was also armored. Anyone else would want to avoid hitting others in the crossfire.)

TBH, if the people in the theater had decided to rush Holmes, he would've been subdued with far less casualties. The darkness, smoke, and the fact that he was wearing a gas mask means he was likely firing blind for the most part, making the rush a far more viable tactic. That said, it's an unrealistic expectation for a room filled with civilians.

As for the "armor", this is what they've been referencing to in the media reports (with the receipts etc.)

Images

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

It's a tactical vest, not armor, that thing has about as much protection against bullets as a t-shirt. Without further information that probably won't be released 'til the trial is underway, there's no way to know if Holmes wore an actualy kevlar vest in addition to what was shown, but as someone who've spent thousands of hours in one - they're not really bullet proof anyway.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I was waiting for you to bring up bombs. Bombs can take out a lot more people than guns. Why is it that more people aren't using them? Why do we hear about guns more than bombs?

Because explosives are not quite as personal, and many of the crazy types want to relish the feeling of killing their victims up close and personal. Second, the use of explosives would require some (though not high) degree of technical expertise. The Columbine shooters had rigged two IEDs iirc, but those failed to go off, the Norway shooters did kill 4 with his, but it was overshadowed by what he did on that closed-off island. Holmes on the other hand had no problem rigging explosives, but he chose to use guns instead, likely due to the reason mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Prohibitively expensive? Who cares? Aren't you arguing that criminals aren't getting their guns like the rest of us? Why should they care about expense? Why are they hardly used by criminals?

Because actual machine guns have little utility for your common criminals. They're large, heavy, and bulky, often requiring a bi/tripod, or other fixed mount to be fired with any semblance of accuracy. Why shell out extra dough for something that has little practical use? It'd be akin to robbing a bank with a RPG.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Is that what happened in countries that have very strict gun control? Rhetorical question; this is pure fantasy on your part.

I can actually offer some perspective on this part. Taiwan pretty much bans civilians from owning any firearms and ammunition, but that hasn't really stopped organized crimes and some gangs from smuggling or building their own, even back in the days when the island was still under marshal law. You'd see them announcing drug and gun busts on a constant basis on the news all the time. Over there, only the government and the gangsters have guns.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What I am arguing is that getting rid of guns makes it a lot more difficult for a person to seriously hurt or kill other people, and in large amounts.

If a person is committed to cause mayhem, they'll find a way to do it. If they were unable to obtain access to firearms, then they'll simply go to other methods such as explosives or arson.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Go on, tell me about how guns are such great defensive devices. The "security blanket" for grown men and women argument, you want guns to defend you from other people who have guns.

Actually, guns are great for defending yourself against both armed and unarmed assailants. Remember, guns are not only a force multiplier, they're also a force equalizer.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Sure, fine. Facts are that we have more gun-related deaths than other countries, as well as more gun-related injuries. This isn't surprising: it's because we have more guns. Is this a worthwhile trade-off, and why do you seem to think so?

Guns are good at what they do, which is why it's the default go-to choice for both the good guys and the bad guys. The sticking point is that some people believe that getting rid of guns equals less crime, while others don't, and would rather have the choice to defend themselves with one should they chose to do so. This more than anything else IMO is something that resonates especially strong in the US, people don't like it when you try to take their choices away.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Once again, the article you quoted isn't helping your case. Did you miss this part?

"At close range a knife is as deadly as or more deadly than a gun."

This is a key point that you don't seem to be considering, and this sort of gets back to kyp275's question about whether I'd prefer to be shot or sliced with a knife. I choose a knife because an assailant has to get within arm's reach of me to do anything. (Let's not get into the tangent of throwing knives.) At that point, whether armed or unarmed, I can fight back. If an assailant has a gun, it doesn't matter how crappy their aim may be, they have the capability to reach me from very far away. I don't like that. Unless you don't care about the potential for "collateral damage," it doesn't matter whether you're armed with a gun: you shouldn't like it, either.

Now you're moving away from the point that I made originally.
That being, would criminals move to knives if guns were banned.
Answer is a definitive yes.
Most crime takes place at short range.

Or maybe he would have moved in close to one person, who would have grabbed his arm, removed the knife, and pinned him down. Zero deaths.

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.

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).

The problem is these attackers have the element of surprise and nothing can prepare for that except prevention BEFORE it happens through profiling via the person's mental health record, if that will even do it.

Fact is, these types of mass killers are not comparable with the common killer because the motivations are different, and many are gang bangers.

Do you know what the difference is between our fantasy scenarios and reality as it actually happened? Either of our fantasy scenarios could have happened. Yet in reality, because Holmes was using a gun, I can't even come up with a scenario where he would have been stopped. (I'm guessing you'll want to say that you can, and envision a scenario where a move patron pulls a gun and shoots him. Not realistic - Holmes could fire in a dark theater because his intent was to kill others. He was also armored. Anyone else would want to avoid hitting others in the crossfire.)

Oh the armored crap.
Look I know the media keeps hyping up his ballistic-bomb suit, but I have news for you. A kevlar helmet doesn't stop bullets, neither do the shin guards or anything else he was wearing except the bullet-resistant vest.
We don't know what class of vest it was, so we don't know what types of bullets it could stop (if any, if it was only a flak vest then it was useless).

Just found the info on his "ballistic-vest" and it shows the media is once again full of shit.
He wore a tactical-vest which is NOT bullet resistant.

Also, we don't have any idea what would have happened if a person with a CCW was in the theater because it was a gun-free zone.
Perfect for what James Holmes wanted to do, and that's another problem.
These "gun free zones" need to end.

I was waiting for you to bring up bombs. Bombs can take out a lot more people than guns. Why is it that more people aren't using them? Why do we hear about guns more than bombs?

Got any theories of your own?

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 don't debate the numbers, I debate their take on the numbers, their explanation of what the numbers mean. LostCause somewhat touched on this point, and I disagree with her (and will reply to her in turn). There are two things that we can attack with these types of presentations: the numbers themselves (whether by criticizing the data collection method, or simply providing another study (that needs to be better) that has different numbers), and the interpretation of the numbers. Simply put, they're presenting numbers, but then they make some very large leaps in their interpretations of what those numbers indicate.

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.

Prohibitively expensive? Who cares? Aren't you arguing that criminals aren't getting their guns like the rest of us? Why should they care about expense? Why are they hardly used by criminals?

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

You know, with a web URL like "guns save lives .net" I think 552 seems a little low, don't you? This is a very poor source. Is there a study conducted by a less biased and more professional group available?

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.

Did the study indicate that to be the sole criteria by which they're gauging "black market" guns, or is that your own take on it?

That's the BATFE's take on it, and that was their source for the study.
The reason these guns are classified as "black market" is because they are not traceable due to the serial number being erased.

Is that what happened in countries that have very strict gun control? Rhetorical question; this is pure fantasy on your part.

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

The article you linked to doesn't state it, but in other articles it is indicated that Holmes saw the psychiatrist once (or was it twice?), and I believe he saw her less than a month before he went on his shooting rampage. Records indicate that he was purchasing his guns and other supplies four months prior.

In other words, the current guidelines would not have prevented this.

They would if NCIS had access to his mental health records, and I mentioned that already.

But if you're inferring that some new gun law would've stopped him, then think again.

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

I think they like the status quo. I was waiting for GundamFan0083 to bring up his argument about how guns are society's way to guard against a corrupt government to point out that it would never happen, and it's for this reason: the politicians have done a phenomenal job of dividing people into extremes. People may hate one extreme in the government, but because their extreme is present in some form, they're pacified. Even if their extreme were lost, an armed uprising would not accomplish anything, because society would remain divided. The uprising would either be too small, or it would be put down by both the government and the parts of society holding opposite views (and who fear persecution, or a government set up and run entirely by the opposite extreme).

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.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

*Not directed at you Vexx, this is me just venting in general*

I oppose it.
It will cause a spike in the cost of magazines for police officers like the first ban did.
They saw their magazine prices go from $5.00 per mag to $55.00/mag in less than four years during the 1994 ban.
Civilian pre-ban mags went clear above $100.00 before ATF got smart and began rolling back the restrictions on their own (too many people started making illegal magazines).
Criminals don't care how many rounds a gun holds, in fact the revolver is the most common pistol used and the shotgun is second.

Here according to TIME magazine are the top 10 guns used in crime in America:

1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz229ThIY7T

Gee, notice something?

Let me point it out for you.
Magazine/cylinder/tube bullet/shell capacity by number:

1) 6
2) 10 (in 2000, year of TIME magazine article)
3) 7
4) 5
5) 5+1 shell in chamber (6 total possible)
6) 10 (in 2000)
7) 6
8) 6
9) 6
10) 5

Only two of those guns have the ability to accept a hi-cap mag, and none of those weapons are "assault-rifles."
So we need a high capacity magazine ban why?

It's a bullshit law being proposed by a piece of shit senator and his cling-on co-sponsors.

Just because the occational wackjob has seen one to many hollywood movies and goes on a spree with a high-cap mag, doesn't mean diddley when it comes to crime in general.

This honestly feels like you're spamming statistics for the sake of spamming statistics, because you pretty much answered your own question: the law is designed to slow down the wackjobs, not deal with gun crime in general.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

This honestly feels like you're spamming statistics for the sake of spamming statistics, because you pretty much answered your own question: the law is designed to slow down the wackjobs, not deal with gun crime in general.

No, I showed how high-cap mags have no bearing on crime.
Therefore, there is no reason to ban them...none.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No, I showed how high-cap mags have no bearing on crime.
Therefore, there is no reason to ban them...none.

No, you showed that average criminals don't use high cap mags. It's a deflection from the issue you should be addressing, which is "do high capacity magazines allow people who go postal to do more damage?". People who go postal are not average criminals.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

No, you showed that average criminals don't use high cap mags. It's a deflection from the issue you should be addressing, which is "do high capacity magazines allow people who go postal to do more damage?". People who go postal are not average criminals.

It's debatable. Lower capacity magazines will increase the number of times the shooter will have to reload, which while sounds nice, it is something that doesn't seem to have been a problem for the shooters in those "postal" scenarios. They usually faces little to no opposition and have no problem reloading their weapons.