It may not stop people from obtaining guns but it makes it a hell of  a lot harder to get one. 

Who are you going to get guns off of if they're illegal? James Holmes purchased the guns legally. Tell me who a 24 year old PhD canidate med student knows that he could have gotten a gun off of? 

The scenario would be different to: Dark theatre, armored  gunmen except this time you have "law biding" citizens all with guns, panicing, trying to shoot this masked gunmen WHILE other "law biding" citizens are trying to do the same. So now you see numerous people shooting guns in a dark loud theatre with people going crazy. How does this play out well without one of the "law biding" citizens shooting each other or other innocent people?

Some people don't understand the massive ammount of black market trade for guns already going around and then to remove a person's ability to own their own firearm. I understand that maybe a massive ban works in other countries, but it's not going to work in America. Our friend doesn't seem to get that.

No... criminals don't use gun stores to get their weapons... the black market is huge for untracible firearms

Yes, I understand that BUT it makes it harder to obtain one. If I wanted a gun right now, I'd have no idea who to start talking to or where to go. 

Well as a law abiding citizen you can obtain one by taking the correct classes and purchesing a gun from a liciensed retailer (why does chrome spellcheck not work on this forums?). If you were a criminal and part of a gang or perhaps part of a drug cartell you would obtain your illegal and untracible weapons from a source usually originating from outside of the country. 

Any sane, sensible, law abiding and responsible person should be allowed to own a gun, should they wish. But laws should be such that it's very difficult for the insane, irresponsible and criminally inclined to get their hands on guns, legally or otherwise.

But I also think there are certain types of gun thatr it's simply unnecessary for anyone to have lying around. If some people want to own certain types of firearm then they should be kept securely at firearm ranges and gun clubs for recreational use. No one can demonstrate any sort of need to have a couple of AK47's kicking around the home, when for all practical purposes of in home use firearms of far less potential lethality are adequate.

And there you have it. You don't think this guy could fool all by playing 'sane' in order to obtain some guns? Anyone with half a brain can play nice in order to get rewarded, so there'll be no telling when the sane has insane motives.

Last shooting over here was done by an 'insane' who had permits from a gun-club. I say ban all rights to guns in modern Western society. Weapons are no toys. Now i get it that it would be extremely hard across the pond due to the amount of weapons held already but you've got to start somewhere.

When some of you really want to be able to carry because you think it is nescessary, i doubt that you're living in a civilized place.

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.

Yes, but the person of discussion is not apart of a gang. He purchased his guns legally.

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.