Shooting at Batman Premiere - 12 dead / Your opinions on gun laws

[binary solo]

Viper1 said:

ArnoldRimmer said:

Comparing people's desire to obtain substances they are addicted to to guns seems quite far fetched to me. And that banning guns would not mean an end to gun-related crimes is so obvious nobody would claim the opposite. It would of course only lead to fewer such crimes, which I consider a step forward. I think that would make more sense than to hope for that legendary "armed law-abiding citizen" who stops the homicidal maniac with the gun he always wears. Somehow that mysterical superhero just never turns up when we need him, does he? But let's be fair, he was probably simply too late, because he obviously had to abide by the speed limit... Or maybe it was James Holmes himself, who from all we know so far was a perfectly "law-abiding citizen" until he turned out to have a rather dark side?

Anyway, I realize that there is no point in discussing banning guns in America. If they really want guns allowed (and they obviously do) - let them have them. But maybe they should still think about slightly changing their laws. If they want a weapon to defend themselves, for example against burglars, fine. But they don't need to have several weapons for that, including automatic machine guns with huge magazines etc. I'm sure even legendary superhero "armed law-abiding citizen" wouldn't carry more than a single small non-automatic gun in his everyday life.

Actually, I don't debate on the side that soneone would step up as an "armed law biding citizen" to shoot the perpetrator.  I debate on the side of deterrence.

If a criminal knows his targets could be armed, he's less likely to go through with the crime to begin with.  That's where I stand.  It's the threat of knowing he could himself get shot that is the true benefit of a gun owning society.   The rarity of an "armed law biding" citizen actually shooting would be attackers is nice and all but again, rare, and not the best debate point.

But if a criminal knows his targets are not armed because it's illegal for them to carry a gun, he's free to attack as he pleases.  See how it would actually increase gun crime?    If guns were banned, only the "armed law biding" citizens would turn in their guns.  The criminals would still keep theirs and then put them to good use, as it were.

No, if a criminal thinks his mark might be armed he'll attack first, rather than simply go for the stick up. The opportunist criminal might be deterred if he thinks there's a high chance of the mark being armed, but the career criminal will simply have different strategies.

Me personally, I don't own a gun and I would never own a gun, well except for when the zombie horde strikes. But no zombies means no gun for me. And I feel quite safe.

The answer to preventing crime is not to arm the citizenry. The answer to preventing crime is to create a society where everyone feels like they have a stake in the wellbeing of the community, they feel valued and part of society as a whole.

If you have a disaffected underclass, you'll have crime. If you have a sociopathic greedy elite, you'll have crime. If you give everyone in the middle guns, you'll still have crime.