Even in hypothetical "government over-reach" scenario is a shot gun really going to do a whole lot against say a drone bomb?

Thank you! Being willing to turn your guns against the government is borderline domestic terrorism. This illogical argument that "criminals don't follow laws so we shouldn't have them" is anarchy. In either case you have to forgive me for thinking these people do not deserve complete unopposed access to any and all firearms they could possibly desire.

It is not wise to use the same ID you use on that WN site elsewhere on the web lmao.

On topic, no law could have prevented this one. This was one self-entitled individual who thought he was better than everybody else. He also had to have had some ridiculous expectations not to have landed any girls with all his resources. Probably thought women would flock to him just for the fact that he existed.

You pro-gun folks sometimes make some really ridiculous arguments. A car's purpose is transportation. A gun's purpose is to kill efficiently. Everything cancause death. Now I don't think a gun ban really solves anything but you guys need to stop these useless comparisons. FYI, you won't win a war with the U.S. govt no matter how many guns you stash. Best case scenario is a bloodbath with 10X the casualties on the civillian side.

It is? Why is it then that violent crime is actually on the rise in Australia while it is on the decline here in the US?

Other than armed robbery Australia's rates are nearly double that of the US and have been for quite some time.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/

And yet they happen to kill people at more than twice the rate of the instrument designed to "kill efficiently."   

The comparisons serve to show how laying the blame at the feet of an inanimate object is folly and nonsensical. The point being that if we are really talking about preventing human deaths and the means to do so is to simply ban a thing we should be banning EVERYTHING that causes human deaths starting with the most deadly which at this point is not firearms. But we aren't now are we?

Also, your assertion that you don't win a war with the US govt tell that to the North Koreans and the Vietcong or the Somalians. And the point is so what? Is it just inevitable so we just roll over for a tyrannical government when/if it rears it's ugly head?

condolences to the family of the victims....

My heart goes out to the families of the individuals murdered by this coward. I am not a gun owner, but I am not against people owning guns. I think gun registries are a good thing, in theory, because we should know where guns are and who owns them. But the thing is, guns are still going to be in the wild unregistered and available illegally for those that want them. I've been looking into picking up a .40 cal handgun, just for home protection. I have no problem going through a comprehensive background check and have no problem waiting 10 days, or 30 days if need be.

But, here is the thing. If someone can't get one legally, they can get one illegally. This crackpot could have got his hands on a gun regardless of the law. I won't look for one illegally, ever. But the "bad guys" will. The gov can ban guns outright, and people would still have them, it's just that the wrong people would be the only ones with them, not you and me.

I was talking with a work friend, mentioned my desire to get a pistol, and someone overheard my conversation. He comes up to me later and says to me, I can get you a gun if you need one.... To which I declined, but my point stands: those who wish to improperly use weapons, will get them regardless of the law. It's the law abiding citizens that would be left at the disadvantage here.

I don't have any statistics,but, I'm willing to bet that most gun crimes are committed by people using illegally obtained guns, than crimes committed by those who obtained them legally.

Just my two cents, really don't want to get into the middle of some of the arguments going on here....

There you go again. Most car death's are accidental. Most gun deaths are intentional. There is a difference regardless of what the bodycount is. Even less talked about stuff like prescription drugs probably kill more people but there's a reason we don't talk about them as much and the healthcare professionals involved don't always get prosecuted.

What purpose do guns have other than ending lives? Why were guns invented to begin with? Seriously...I will say it again, I'm also not under some sort of delusion that banning something makes problems go away but your comparisons stay just that: ridiculous.

As for the government, no, you're unlikely to win irregardless of what happened in Vietnam or Somalia contrary to popular belief. U.S. government "lost" those battles because they did not go in to win at all costs. I'm sure you remember what happened to Japan in WWII when they didn't care for the costs. Could've done the same to Vietnam or Somalia.

Best case scenario in a hostile takeover would be to hope the military rebels, if not, hunting rifles won't do diddy squat against heavy machine guns, drones, artillery, planes and possibly even biological, chemical warfare and potential nukes depending on how bad the government want to retaing power. You people with your fantasies forget that the government is armed 10X as much.

Lastly, word of advice, if you ever do decide to use your gun, be 100% sure your life is in danger because you will still have to account for any life you take. Dont pull a "Byron Smith".