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.
Your arguement is the most valid I've seen regarding this issue, and for the most part agree that there is no way a concealed weapon would've taken the guy out.. I do however believe that a defensive gunman, if responsible (CCW permit, firearm training, ect), would've at least been able to distract the assailant and give victims precious moments to find cover or escape.
Much has been made of the use of body armor - while it will, in most cases (meaning, barring a head shot,) protect the wearer from death or serious injury, don't think for a second that a slug from a .45 won't knock the wearer on his ass.
I don't think that. I do think that a man on pain killers and a war path getting knocked on his ass is not the best guarantee against continued indiscriminate gunfire.
Just the recoil from a .45 can put the shooter on his ass if he isn't shooting from a strong stance. The impact on the person at the other end can hit even harder, especially when the shot's impact is absorbed by the recipient, meaning all of the force stops there, as opposed to a through-and-through.
I've always wondered why crime shows always call it a "through and through" - if it went through, there's no need for a second through, unless it bounced off of something and went through again, ergo, a "through and through," much as in the case of John Connolly, which may well have been a "through and thorough and through," depending on who's telling the story.
Through the clothing and through the body?
I don't know, man. I've shot .45. It's a big, slow bullet. I think .40 kicks harder. I don't think any handgun will put the shooter on his ass unless he's totally off-balance.
On further research, I have to agree with you, but I think hitting him with several shots would definitely disorient him for a few moments.
Well, first, the U.S. isn't Australia and Americans aren't Australians. There are cultural differences to be taken into account. Secondly, gun control, like any law, only gives the government a law to prosecute with AFTER a crime has occurred. But given that a crime has happened, that means that there already is a law against the action.
When guns were mandated in Kennesaw Georgia, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent.
I also think we should trust data, above our guts and wishful thinking.
Clearly, there are examples and counterexamples both ways. If the dispute could be solved by examining data, it would have been solved by now.