1. Here are some incidents from around the world (many of teh countries have much strciter gun laws than the US):

2011 Anders Breivik went on a rampage that left 77 dead in Norway (some of the toughest gun laws anywhere)

2009 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer walked into a German elementary school and killed 15 people

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.

And yet, he obtained his guns legally.

He also used weapons that were legally obtained.

And the same is probably true for many other of the cases you mentioned, those are just two cases that I know for sure.

Here in Germany we have rather strict gun laws as well. But of course there are illegal weapons - estimates are that 60-66% of all guns in Germany are illegal. When over here guns are used in crimes, the vast majority of them are illegal.

And yet, for some bizarre reason, whenever we had a huge rampage killing over here (and unfortunately we've had quite a few in the last decade or so), the killers were always using legally obtained guns. Because in practice, even the strictest gun law usually makes exceptions for people in gun clubs. And it's usually these people and their relatives who do rampage killings. (The most common case is actually the son of some guy in a gun club who knows how to open daddy's gun closet).

So all your arguments about people being able to obtain guns illegally sound very plausible in theory, but in my opinion practice shows that gun laws do make a difference. I personally believe that the law-abiding citizen is an illusion, because given the "right" circumstances, everyone can freak out. And when that happens, they better don't have a gun around. And especially if so far you've been normal, law-abiding person, chances are you don't quite really know how to quickly obtain guns illegally, it will be a kind of barrier.

Maybe it's different in the US, maybe it's really ridiculously easy over there for just everyone to buy illegal machine guns. But if, boy, am I glad not to live over there.

Red4ADevil said:

If this shit ever happened in places like Gary, Indiana, he would've hit the floor (getting shot or killed; either way) the moment he would've open fired.

Yea, sure. Keep dreaming. If all those people in the theatre had had guns, the following would have happened:

Armed guy nr 257 in row 17 doesn't see anything because of the smoke grenade and can't move around because of the panic all around him. For some miraculous coincidence, he does start shooting towards the (fully equipped with bullet-proof gear) loonie in the front, probably hitting a few people running around him instead. Now guy nr 87 in row 49 happens to sees the muzzle fire and starts to shoot at that place, thinking he sees the loonie's gun firing. Now other guys join the shooting... you get the point of the end result with a room full of essentially blind and panicked armed people).

Fact is: life is not a movie, although this tragedy happened in a movie theatre. No amount of Stallone/Norris/Schwarzenegger movies consumed would have prevented the tragedy, it could have gotten much worse instead.

wow!!

first of all, its quite easy to point out where gun shot are comming from, with muzzle flash and all.

2nd, although there were many people far away from him in the theatre, there were those that were very close to him who would have had a much better shot. its not like all of them were 30yds away from him.

3rd) for the last time, he wasnt weaing body armor, just because the ignorant media, equates a tactical vest made with nylon to a cevlar/plated vest doesnt mean it is. his atire would have given him no protection from bullets. its was made of nylon for gosh sake. al it was for was to hold magazine and stuff.

furthermore, even if it was body armor, it isnt just some magical ipenatrable force field were bullets just bounc off you. when bullets are hitting that armor, he is going to be in a world of pain, he will get the wind knocked out of him, he will liikely fall over and doube over in pain. it is very likely that  he breaks bones, like cracking his ribs from the impact.

also every good conceal carrier, already practices the failure to stop drill. which is, when putting 2 shots (or more) to the chest, does not result in the stoppage of the threat, so why are taught and train to the go after a target such as the head.

so good luck with your theory pal.

but i 100% disagree with you about 50/100 round magazines should be illegal.

they should be perfectly legal, in fact him using that 100 round drum magazine saved a lot of lives. see,  high capacity drum magazines are prone to "jamming" because packing all those rounds of ammunation puts a lot of stress of the spring in the mag, and it often mis-feeds into the gun, causing lots of jams. the shooter had a jam, and being the untrained, inexperienced shooter that he was, he had no idea how to fix the malfunction. that saved numerous lives.