After every major shooting, the gun control advocates can be counted on to ask "NOW can't you see the need for gun control?" But does gun control really make sense?
Would gun control have prevented this slaughter? I doubt it. Guns will continue to be available for the person determined to get one, and the kind of person who does something like the Colorado movie theater shooting would be determined.
The problem isn't the weapon, it's the intent, and there are plenty of other ways to kill. There are even plenty of ways to kill en masse. A bomb brought into the theater could have killed more as could an incendiary device. In other contexts, there's poisoning food or water.
Is the cause of gun violence really the availability of guns or is it the nature of the people who use them? Other countries have similar or greater rates of gun possession (I believe both Israel and Switzerland have higher rates), but they don't have nearly the rate of gun violence.
The difference in gun violence between Switzerland and the United States comes down to the difference between the Swiss people and Americans, and I don't see Americans changing in any fundamental way anytime soon.
It appeared to me as if you were correcting him on your meaning because you thought he was arguing against your position. I mistakenly made this assumption because his comments are relevant to this thread tangent.
The way I read it, his post was an add on to yours, so if he did not disagree with your post there wasn't necessarily any reason to repeat points already made in your post. His post may not further any point you were making, but that does not mean that your post does not further any point he was making higher up in the thread tangent.
As Kris noted below, I wasn't disagreeing, just adding to what you said. What I gathered from what you wrote is that if the killer had training there would be a lot more people dead, seeing as he would have cleared the click in a few seconds, he would have chosen regular mags, and he would have changed them quicker. My addition to that would be if someone in the audience had had their own weapon the situation would probably not have been resolved.
Damn, that's what you call an arms race.
Home invasions do happen. Violence happens on the street...muggings, hate attacks.
The police tend to arrive in time to take a report or wipe up the blood. Sometimes they catch the perps after the fact, but that's not much consolation.
Here, this should help you feel better...
An FBI statistic would be nice. Maybe I'll track one down later.
There is no question that stricter gun laws would reduce gun violence, but it would never eliminate it. People like the Aurora shooter will find a way to go through with their plans. That is what extremists do. The change has to be larger in scale and the laws have to be broader in scope. In the end society has to outgrow this kind of mentality and I fear we're a long way from that.
It might reduce it some, but remember that most of the gun violence is is done by the same people who would get guns from the underworld anyway. It would mostly remove guns from the hands of the people who have legitimate uses for them.
The problem (assuming there is one) isn't American guns, it's the Americans themselves. That is, if you think there actually is a problem. Some might say that gun deaths are just the price of the freedom we have to keep and bear arms. All rights come at an expense of some sort. We could eliminate a lot of traffic deaths by banning private ownership of cars and going to a 100% public transit system, but the highway deaths are the cost of having the right to the private ownership of automobiles.
Here's a snippet from the BBC Radio 4 programme "More or Less", from today, talking about this issue.
Simple answer: No.
Gun control would just make it harder for people who actually want a gun for 1. in house defense only 2. hunters 3. gun collectors to obtain a gun. More gun control will just make it harder and more of a hassle for people who do not plan on doing anything more then stated above. If someone, like the shooter from Colorado, who plans on using a gun(s) to harm and or kill a person/people they will obtain those guns, regardless of the laws.
From what I've read, not looking for a debate but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Obama wants to outlaw the ownership of semiautomatic weapons. There are several gun collectors, I know a few personally, who buy them and show case them. We go out and shoot them in a safe environment that is specially setup and all safety measures are gone over and double checked before anyone even gets to hold the gun. Collecting guns is no different then per say collecting cars.
It's in times like this that everyone seems to forget the saying that was etched in my head since I was first introduced to the world of hunting and guns. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." I have yet to see that saying proven wrong.
RE: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
People with guns kill people without guns. One or two people in the theater with sidearms might (and I stress "might") have saved dozens. One shot to the head would have brought the slaughter to an end.
We'll never know, but it's quite possible.