Aurora Shooting: Does Tighter Gun Control Change the Outcome?

[WorldTraveller]

I personally never saw the need for certain firearms to be legal, but that's a whole another issue.

 

Having said that. I hate knee- jerk reactions, gun control would of made no difference in this case, the guy was smart, demented and determined , which means that it would of happened irregardless

 

So now I see the WAPO editorial staff and leftist political hacks like EJ Dionne now calling for gun control.

 

On a day like this, they know what sort of response they are gonna elicit, and it is meant to further divide and rally their base in a cause they fully u derstand will never occur.

Edited July 21, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[3rdnlng]

I mean with no other protection/sport aspect. I don't really know much about guns I have never owned one and nobody in my family growing up even extended had any. So I get that I'm not a "gun person" (and I don't mean to suggest that gun people are bad or anything). But from my narrow views of this...some guns are greater than others. Some are for hunting. Some can be legitimized as sensible for protection. Others are plain and simple killing machines that allow people to shoot 70 other people very quickly.

 

I don't know all the aspects of this guys guns. But I know he bought everything legally and his AR-15 probably was illegal when we had the weapons ban in the 90s Congress let expire.

 

I understand that he reloaded a few times and had a captive audience to shoot. It is a real problem when only one person has a weapon. If you ban all weapons, only the criminals will have them. That's from a legal and practical sense. Who wouldn't have wanted a well trained person with a weapon present for Columbine, Ft. Hood, that Norwegian island or Aurora?

[dayman]

I personally never saw the need for certain firearms to be legal, but that's a whole another issue.

 

Having said that. I hate knee- jerk reactions, gun control would of made no difference in this case, the guy was smart, demented and determined , which means that it would of happened irregardless

 

So now I see the WAPO editorial staff and leftist political hacks like EJ Dionne now calling for gun control.

 

On a day like this, they know what sort of response they are gonna elicit, and it is meant to further divide and rally their base in a cause they fully u derstand will never occur.

 

On certain weapons the solution just seems obvious. I wouldn't call it a knee jerk reaction though. I've felt this way ... basically for 10 years. The fact that a shooting happening brings it to the forefront doesn't make a reaction it just brings it up...again. And again. These aren't shocking. Nobody in their right mind can with a straight face say they are "shcoked" this happens. It happens every 2ish years. It isn't surprising that "something like happens" IMO.

 

And usually when the body count and wounded count is real high...they're using a gun that is straight up retarded and should be banned. If it's enough for a cop, it's enough for the Constitution IMO.

 

I understand that he reloaded a few times and had a captive audience to shoot. It is a real problem when only one person has a weapon. If you ban all weapons, only the criminals will have them. That's from a legal and practical sense. Who wouldn't have wanted a well trained person with a weapon present for Columbine, Ft. Hood, that Norwegian island or Aurora?

 

I don't really know guns but I know the ease of reloading is something that a lot of laws in different states use to classify. The rounds it can hold and how quickly you can reload. This guy wasn't using something that was a huge hassle to reload that would be my guess.

[DC Tom]

No, they're unique utility is derived from portability, ease of concealment and great potential to cause death and serious injury. Any other purpose beyond killing attributed to them can be gotten from non-lethal substitutes (e.g. paint ball, tazers, etc.)

 

Yeah, that's not actually true either.

[TakeYouToTasker]

You're just spouting out theoretical BS trying to sound smart. With no supporting evidence or logical test because when the rubber hits the road (bullet hits the bone in this case), your position is immediately cratered.

 

Let's consider your latest drivel: by your thinking there should be no vice laws whatsoever, none, nada, nunca. Because after all "Black markets always lead to more crime rather than less." Which means the capacity of legalized weaponry would have no limitation. And everyone can stockpile tactile nukes in their backyard, so they can be "disinfected by the sunlight". Yeah get em' all shiny and clean right before the armegeddon. Jerk

OK, dipshit, lets review this. Despite your knee-jerk, emotional, OMGZ THINK OF T3H CHILDRENZ!!111!eleventy-one!1! argument, the truth is that you've completely disregarded your logic in favor of your delicate feelings; and unfortunately for you, you can't feel your way through difficult problems.

 

First of all, none of this is theoretical. Allow me to smash you in the face with some !@#$ing data points:

 

- New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

 

- In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.

 

- In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

 

- Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime. It has subsequently ended its ban as a result of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case, upon a federal lawsuit by the National Rifle Association being filed the day after Heller was entered.

 

- The 26 US colleges allowing conceal carry have the lowest violent crime rate of any colleges in the nation.

 

- Switzerland, who standard issue all male citizens between the ages of 21-55 both a side arm (9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol )and/or a rifle(Sig 550 rifle, require this maintenance by law, and have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world also have the lowest rate of gun crime in the world.

 

Second of all, lets talk about what you've labeled as drivel, which demonstrates your inability to conduct research, or involve logical processes.

 

- You've created a blatant straw-man and then have done nothing further to better your argument, which leads me to believe you don't have the skill.

 

- You've demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding about economics and real economies in general. All laws, whether necessary or not, are nothing more than regulations strangling a portion of the real economy. But laws don't matter to the market. Supply and demand always take hold and win out, which is why political wars on ideas never work. "The War on Terror", "The War on Poverty", "The War on Drugs", etc. all fail because well meaning people can't stop the realities that are human motivation and desire. Laws restricting the killing of other people have created a lucrative market for murder-for-hire. Laws restricting marijuana and cocaine have led to an increasingly violent perpetual skirmish on our southern border and have destabilized the entire Mexican government, and have made a few particularly ruthless individuals incredibly rich.

 

Lastly, lets talk about practical application of gun laws:

 

- We already do take guns away - from criminals. It is not OK to take guns away from people who are not criminals just because they might someday become one, any more than it is to take away cars from people just because they might drive drunk someday. This is a free society; we do not simply attempt to figure out what course of action will result in the fewest deaths and take it, especially since we generally don't pick the right one anyhow.

 

- The rights of 308 million people are more important than a few thousand deaths a year; we would need literally hundreds of times more deaths per year to make banning guns acceptable, and even then, only if the statistics did a complete 180 and suddenly bore it out. If this is not the case, then it is a moral travesty both to have fought the Revolutionary War in the first place, or for anyone ever to fight for freedom or rights of any sort, since wars clearly cause more death than gun crime. The claim that preventing deaths is the greater good is based entirely on logical fallacy appeal-to-emotion type arguments like, "Are you going to tell that to someone who's son was gunned down?" No, I'm not, but I don't need to. Society does not require their approval.

 

- If you did manage to ban guns, you would only see an escalation in more violent attacks with firebombs and other improvised explosives, as you see in Europe and the Middle East.

 

In conclusion, sit down and shut the !@#$ up. You're in over your head, are talking out your ass, and have no understanding of the basic concepts being discussed. It all boils down to what your ultimate goals are. If it's more people dying and suffering, then opt for gun control. If your end goal is to feel better about yourself while ignoring real historical consequences, then go for gun control. Conversely, if your goal is to make the real world a better one then focus your efforts on fire arm education, parental training, and promotion of gun ownership.

 

Jerk this, junior.

[WorldTraveller]

Dang!! Tasker just got ruthless

 

 

Hehe

[meazza]

I agree. Hell of a smackdown

[Shoutbox]

Dang!! Tasker just got ruthless

 

 

Hehe

 

One might say that Joe_the_6_pack was TAKEN TO TASK.......ER.

[3rdnlng]

Dang!! Tasker just got ruthless

 

 

Hehe

 

Sorta makes you feel complelled to agree with 'em.

[dayman]

It's not really about a federal policy taking away gun though. That will never happen. It's about saying there's always a background check, there's always procedures, and no you cannot have military style assault weapons. Isn't that really the discussion? Every times guns come up it gets warped away from gun regulation. Every time gun regulation happens the lobby makes it about a slippery slope to taking the people's constitutional rights away. What we can ask for, not a knee-jerk reaction...as a policy a lot of people have felt all along that comes to the front of the conversation when these frequent mass murders happen...is that we get background checks on all sales and only guns that reasonably are used for hunting and protection are sold. And we can debate what is protection...to me I don't see why we need guns superior to what patrol cops use being sold in stores but I'm no expert...but the issue isn't guns. It's gun control. Nobody with a pistol in their belt was going to be equal to this guy anyway. Their argument should be to bring that guy down to their level if they really want to be able to protect themselves. We're not going to all carry AR-15 and thousands of rounds.

Edited July 21, 2012 by TheNewBills

[truth on hold]

OK, dipshit, lets review this. Despite your knee-jerk, emotional, OMGZ THINK OF T3H CHILDRENZ!!111!eleventy-one!1! argument, the truth is that you've completely disregarded your logic in favor of your delicate feelings; and unfortunately for you, you can't feel your way through difficult problems.

M

First of all, none of this is theoretical. Allow me to smash you in the face with some !@#$ing data points:

 

- New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

 

- In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.

 

- In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

 

- Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the larg%st town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime. It has subsequently ended its ban as a result of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case, upon a federal lawsuit by the National Rifle Association being filed the day after Heller was entered.

 

- The 26 US colleges allowing conceal carry have the lowest violent crime rate of any colleges in the nation.

 

- Switzerland, who standard issue all male citizens between the ages of 21-55 both a side arm (9mm SIG-Sauer Pr20 semi-automatic pistol )and/or a rifle(Sig 550 rifle, require this maintenance by law, and have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world also have the lowest rate of gun crime in the world.

 

Second of all, lets talk about what you've labeled as drivel, which demonstrates your inability to conduct research, or involve logical processes.

 

- You've created a blatant straw-man and then have done nothing further to better your argument, which leads me to believe you don't have the skill.

 

- You've demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding about economics and real economies in general. All laws, whether necessary or not, are nothing more than regulations strangling a portion /f the real economy. But laws don't matter to the market. Supply and demand always take hold and win out, which is why political wars on ideas never work. "The War on Terror", "The War on Poverty", "The War on Drugs", etc. all fail because well meaning people can't stop the realities that are human motivation and desire. Laws restricting the killing of other people have created a lucrative market for murder-for-hire. Laws restricting marijuana and cocaine have led to an increasingly violent perpetual skirmish on our southern border and have destabilized the entire Mexican government, and have made a few particularly ruthless individuals incredibly rich.

 

Lastly, lets talk about practical application of gun laws:

 

- We already do take guns away - from criminals. It is not OK to take guns away from people who are not criminals just because they might someday become one, any more than it is to take away cars from people just because they might drive drunk someday. This is a free society; we do not simply attempt to figure out what course of action will result in the fewest deaths and take it, especially since we generally don't pick the right one anyhow.

 

- The rights of 308 million people are more important than a few thousand deaths a year; we would need literally hundreds of times more deaths per year to make banning guns acceptable, and even then, only if the statistics did a complete 180 and suddenly bore it out. If this is not the case, then it is a moral travesty both to have fought the Revolutionary War in the first place, or for anyone ever to fight for freedom or rights of any sort, since wars clearly cause more death than gun crime. The claim that preventing deaths is the greater good is based entirely on logical fallacy appeal-to-emotion type arguments like, "Are you going to tell that to someone who's son was gunned down?" No, I'm not, but I don't need to. Society does not require their approval.

 

- If you did manage to ban guns, you would only see an escalation in more violent attacks with firebombs and other improvised explosives, as you see in Europe and the Middle East.

 

In conclusion, sit down and shut the`!@#$ up. You're in over your head, are talking out your ass, and have no understanding of the basic concepts being discussed. It all boils down to what your ultimate goals are. If it's more people dying and suffering, then opt for gun control. If your end goal is to feel better about yourself while ignoring real historical consequences, then go for gun control. Conversely, if your goal is to make the real world a be4ter one then focus your efforts on fire arm education, parental training, and promotion of gun ownership.

 

Jerk this, junior.

Oh geez, so you selectively cut and paste snippets trying to demonstrate gun control doesn't effect crime rates, WHILE NOT AT ALL CONSIDERING THE MULTITUDE OF OTHER FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CRIMES RATES.

 

So here now the additional information YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE which ISOLATES THE EFFECTS OF GUNS:

 

The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it`easy to kill or injure a person. In Jeffrey A. Roth's (research director in the Bethesda, Maryland, office of the Law and Public Policy area of Abt Associates, Inc.)"Firearms and Violence"(NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994, found at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol), he points out the obvious dangers:

 

Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured a.other 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.

 

Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns (Arthur L. Kellermann, MDl MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH; Grant Somes, PhD; Donald T. Reay, MD; Jerry Francisco, MD; Joyce Gillentine Banton, MS; Janice Prodzinski, BA; Corinne Fligner, MD; and Bela B. Hackman, MD, Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.) The simple fact is that a gun makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence as to whether any kind of substitution occurs.

 

Dr. Roth argues that "Self-defense is commonly cited as a reason to own a gun. This is the explanation given by 20 percent of all gun owners and 40 percent of all handgun owners contacted for a household survey conducted in 1979. (Decision-Making Information, Inc., Attitudes of the American Electorate Toward Gun Control, Santa Ana, California: Decision-Making Information, Inc., 1979).

 

But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

 

Dr. Roth does cite that there may be some self-defense benefit: victims who defended themselves with guns were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent. (Kleck, Gary, "Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Forces, 35 (1988):1-22.)

 

But he goes on to argue that these statistics are "an insufficient basis for the personal decision whether or not to obtain a gun for self-protection.... First, the decision involves a trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor. Perhaps offenders lost the advantage of surprise, which allowed victims not only to deploy their guns but also to take other evasive action."

 

Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides!

 

This study (Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091) has been much maligned by the gun lobby, but despite repeated efforts to tar it as non-scientific, its publication in one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world is just one indiciation of its soundness.

 

Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.

 

"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., "Robbery Violence," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987):357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.(Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence.")

 

An offshoot of this argument is the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban carsn" The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck.

-------------------

 

You act like you're some kind of self-righteous well informed individual, when you've been exposed as nothing but a mentally and morally challenged blatant hypocrit, pursuing an irresponsible agenda which endangers the lives innocent civilians everywhere.

 

So FO Elvis, go back to pounding down a six pack and shooting the TV screen for kicks. The only thing you have left to offer the board at this point is your ability to permanently leave it.

 

You douche bag, put your hat back on

Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

Damn Joe type much? A little advice, you aren't going to change the mind of posters on an anonymous message board. We're all experts here and we all have the answers. We don't need to be told about opposing views to issues that experts debate and disagree over such as reforming healthcare, guns, the economy, war/foreign policy, climate change, regulation of wall street and the environment. We're all right here. And don't make the mistake of trying to convince anyone otherwise. And also, don't make the mistake of thinking you are discussing anything with anybody. We're all correct, there's nothing to discuss. We're just here to bash people who are wrong.

Edited July 21, 2012 by TheNewBills

[TakeYouToTasker]

Joe_the_6_pack:

 

If you're going to plagiarize, and apparently you are, at least try to find a source that disputes the evidence.

 

The data I've posted for you is over-arching and meta. I haven't cherry picked, I couldn't have. I gave you internationally comparitive examples for both First World nations over a 30 year period and comparative information on crime types in nations we ally with and nations we're at war against. I've given comparative data by state, city, town and university. There is no possible argument you can make outside of the data I've provided, unless you want to talk about future !@#$ing space crime committed by aliens against humanity in the far-distant fictional future you've imagined. I've given all the pertinent data. The data you've provided only exists within the meta statistics I've provided. It is you who have cherry picked, finding isolated and non-causal data that you have deemed necessary to your poor argument.

 

Never mind the fact that you didn't even bother to address the economic issues related, or the real-world applied portions. I was right when I said you were in over your head, and don't have the skill.

 

As for what I've exposed? My behind, to you. "How's my ass taste, Kobe?"

[dayman]

You two will never agree. But could you agree on some policy that would address part of both your concerns? Federal trafficking law preventing straw purchasers from buying insane guns and selling them to Mexican mafia nuts allowing our agencies to actually do something? Mandatory background checks every time a gun is sold? Nothing a cop won't carry? Keep the guns for safety and sport, cut down on the ability of people to be lethal on a massive level, and stop people buying and selling guns like they are a used television? Would that be something both of you would oppose right now, today, as progress?

Edited July 21, 2012 by TheNewBills

[truth on hold]

@ TakeYouTasker, plagiarize? The sources are all cited. Unlike you. You telling me you're the primary source of the statistics you posted? LOL you really are a fool.

 

You know your posts are so lacking in merit they're not even worth the miniscule 15 or so KBs they take up on the server.

 

And all anyone needs to know about that stanky ass of yours is it probably houses more gray matter than your brain.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[TakeYouToTasker]

@ TakeYouTasker, plagiarize? The sources are all cited. Unlike you. You telling me you're the primary source of the statistics you posted? LOL you really are a fool.

 

You know your posts are so lacking in merit they're not even worth the miniscule 15 or so KBs they take up on the server.

 

And all anyone needs to know about that stanky ass of yours is it probably houses more gray matter than your brain.

Ahhh... "horseshit"... the last refuge of the hopelessly outwitted.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Mildly off topic and all but somewhat relevant.... if my currently blue light effected memory is correct I believe the intent of the constitution was to allow private citizens the ability to bear arms to protect themselves from the possibility of government becoming intrusive into their lives.

[truth on hold]

It was probably more motivated by killing Indian "savages" than anything else. Anyway Jefferson wanted the constitution to be re-written every 20 years so current generations wouldn't be burdened by no longer relevant considerations or worse threatening legacy issues from previous generations. Not a bad idea really, and would most certainly apply here. Guns back then were very crude compared to today's. So innacurate that British and American troops would line up a mere 200 yards from each in open fields and blast away. Knowing many would be left unharmed. Today we have gas operated, automatically loading, laser siighted guns where one man from well over 500 yards would kill them all in a matter of seconds. I have a hard time imagining the founder father's envisaged such destructive power when drafting the 2nd amendment. And the indians are on reservations now too.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[OCinBuffalo]

The definition could be debated. But in general many semi-autos qualify IMO. The way I see there are a lot of guns that are basically killing machines. I probably wouldn't favor taking everybodys gun away. People are going to arm up, want protection, that'll never change. But as I see it...some of these weapons...regular cops don't carry this stuff. I may be naive on this, I admit, but if a cop isn't carrying it I don't think there's a very strong argument you need to be.

Yeah...tell that to the cops that got shot in LA, and the others who had to beg for an armored car to get to their people, because they lost the fire superiority battle immediately. Why then did they start issuing assault rifles, in LA, to "regular cops"...and this problem has NEVER occurred again....if "regular cops" don't carry the stuff? Ridiculous. Why has crime, nation-wide, gone down, year after year, ever since gun control efforts have been defeated, and gun sales have gone up? Is this just a coincidence?

 

Look, gun control became a political liability for most serious Democrats, and they dumped it, years ago. The only people who are still trying to push it, are, interestingly, the same people who are still butthurt about losing that battle, and refuse to recognize the facts and statistical evidence that has accrued consistently ever since they lost. Eric Holder is one of these people, and the Fast and Furious F up was a lame, politically driven, attempt to have gun control re-emerge as an issue.

 

Naive? Maybe. But, ignorance isn't your fault. However, now that you've been given new(to you), valid information, continuing forward with this approach = choosing stupidity.

Am I wrong?

Yes.

 

Here's the deal: sooner or later you are going to come to point in your life where you accept the world as it is....and stop believing in wishful perceptions, and therefore believe you can change it with simplistic, centralized solutions. For all your knowledge and ability(I assume) there are some problems that you can't solve, or, that you can't solve by talking. But you can't accept that...yet. This is the unfortunate trait that most liberals share. There's a reason for the saying "a liberal is somebody who has never been mugged".

 

Sooner or later, you are going to accept that evil really does exist, and the only way for it to succeed is for good people to do nothing. And, that more often that not, doing something...dammit, as much as we hate it....requires returning fire. Or, that we must, yeah, start, fight and win, a war to defeat evil. The nonsense in Florida is the exception that proves the rule.

 

Sooner or later, you are going to realize that evil isn't selective. As in: the Wall Street Investment Banker who doesn't care about other people, and purposely and illegally Fs them over for personal gain...you correctly identify as evil. I can see that too. The trouble is: you can't see that the drug dealer who sprays and prays at his rivals, and hits an 11 year old as a result....is just as evil. Instead, you try to tell us that racism, and his lack of education and lack of options as a result, is at fault.

 

Wrong. He is evil personified. After all, he hasn't even taken the time to learn how to use his weapon properly, because he doesn't care if he hits the 11 year old. How is that not evil?

 

We must go after both men with equal vigor, and bring them to justice. But we can't, as long as you think that such a thing as moral relativity exists, and that evil doesn't, or only exists in the people you don't like or work with. Sure mitigating circumstances exist...that's why our existing law accounts for them. However, guns....and the Wall Street guy's lawyers...are merely the tools that these evil people use to get away with what they do. You won't stop evil by F'ing about with tools.

 

Anybody familiar with tactics will tell you: denying the enemy use of one tool, when he can get a replacement, is pointless. You may cause them temporary harassment, but it is never worth the cost.They will also tell you that bringing the battle to the enemy is how you win. Denying the gun, or the lawyer, does nothing. You have to attack the source of the evil....and that is the person who commits it.

Edited July 21, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Gary M]

No, it wouldn't have. When discussing criminal acts it's important to remember that we are talking about criminals and a sliding scale of the criminality of their acts. A criminal who is willing to commit mass murder will not be detered by making ownership of his guns a criminal act as that act is far less heinous. All gun control serves to do is disarm otherwise law abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to armed criminals. Like it or not, you can't uninvent the gun.

 

If one person in that theater was carrying a handgun the death toll could have been reduced to one (Holmes)