[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It sounds like a compromise but it would fail, which is why it was suggested. Then the pro-gun lobby can point at states A,B and C and say "look how it failed there" just like they do with Chicago and DC. If every state passed the control laws bar one, that one would end up with massive gun factories supplying the black markets in the rest of the US.

You still haven't addressed how you'd enforce federal gun control legislation (the South wouldn't), or keep the USSC from just overturning it in a matter of weeks (which they would).

[Waragainstsleep]

They need to be enforced at the sales counter first and foremost. I have no idea how to make your SC see sense.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

They need to be enforced at the sales counter first and foremost. I have no idea how to make your SC see sense.

It isn't about them seeing sense, it's about the rights of free men and women of the USA. They interpret the law, based on wording and precedence, they're not supposed to legislate. The step here, for gun control advocates, is to amend the Constitution, which takes a yes vote from 2/3 of the states.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, I'm going to have to ask for links. Texans are stopping multiple possible mass shootings? We're talking at movies, malls, or schools here?

A couple minutes of me googling I found these links; I can probably find more. Armed citizens have really saved lives.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18...-cafe-robbery/

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...R4NY_S0OA.cspx

http://www.brownwoodnews.com/index.p...news&Itemid=58

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Hom...174633151.html

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...nd-1708222.php


By the way wasn't the columbine massacre done with a few shotguns, a hi point carbine, a TEC-DC9, and home made explosives? No assault rifles needed. Just regular guns that fit the criteria for the assault rifle and capacity clip ban. Regulations didn't help at all; as the criminals improvised as needed like they always will.

edit: on another note the batman guy would have killed more people if he hadn't had a high capacity loader, those things are natorius for jamming... and it did. He would have been better off practicing changing smaller clips fast.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

They need to be enforced at the sales counter first and foremost. I have no idea how to make your SC see sense.

For what it's worth many illegal guns here in the US come from the government. For example fully automatics are sold to foreign governments such as mexico government (or directly to the black-market/drug-gangs as has recently been the case), who in turn funnels them down to the crime syndicates, who sell them back to the american street.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

A couple minutes of me googling I found these links; I can probably find more. Armed citizens have really saved lives.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18...-cafe-robbery/
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...R4NY_S0OA.cspx
http://www.brownwoodnews.com/index.p...&Itemid=58
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Hom...174633151.html
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...nd-1708222.php
By the way wasn't the columbine massacre done with a few shotguns, a hi point carbine, a TEC-DC9, and home made explosives? No assault rifles needed. Just regular guns that fit the criteria for the assault rifle and capacity clip ban. Regulations didn't help at all; as the criminals improvised as needed like they always will.
edit: on another note the batman guy would have killed more people if he hadn't had a high capacity loader, those things are natorius for jamming... and it did. He would have been better off practicing changing smaller clips fast.

Except they weren't criminals prior to this event, so you can't profile them as criminals, it probably makes more sense to profile them as mentally ill individuals.

And you're also missing the point. Nobody is saying that regulations prevent these incidents, especially ones like this that were obviously planned well in advance. However, they might make it more difficult for some mentally ill individual to go on some spontaneous killing spree on a whim.

You can't look for absolute solutions to these sorts of problems, because there aren't any, but you can look for deterrents and do as much as you can to minimize the frequency of these incidents. Gun control is just one of those things, and whether it would have prevented this entirely is not the question to be asking, but "could it have helped"? The answer in some cases may be yes, in others it may not have made a difference, and in others it may not have hurt either.

[besson3c]

This whole argument of "the regulations wouldn't have helped any" is a little silly. Could it have hurt? Enforcing gun control costs some money, although some of that is necessary anyway unless you want to do away with all background checks, but this is about the only real downside I can see.

As far as upside goes, do seatbelt laws prevent car accident deaths? They don't if you choose to not wear seatbelt, and they don't sometimes anyway, but most people wear them because it doesn't hurt to do so, right? Isn't this the same basic thing?

For those of you that want to invoke a constitutional argument, nobody is proposing taking away your right to have some sort of gun, and for those of you that feel like you need a gun for self defense, you will still be able to possess a weapon that will provide plenty deterrent for those that would wish to do harm to you. For those that won't be slowed down by your handgun, all bets would have been off anyway. Fortunately, these gun fights don't happen very often outside of the movies.

[ghporter]

Connecticut enacted an Assault Weapons Ban patterned exactly on the federal ban when the federal ban expired in 2004, including a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and firearms with those "evil" cosmetic features like separate pistol grip and butt stock, etc. (as in an AR-15). And while Lanza's mother seems to have considered him at least potentially dangerous, she did not take sufficient steps to keep him from obtaining her firearms. Most states have laws requiring parents to prevent their children from having unsupervised access to firearms, and it is a basic tenet of gun ownership that one must secure one's firearms to prevent their misuse.

The rules in place didn't help at all, so why would it be logical to think that new rules (like a nation-wide renewed Assault Weapons Ban) would have any effect?

[Spheric Harlot]

It seems to be agreed that an assault weapons ban is probably bunk.

The other kinds of regulations bandied about in these threads (they really ought to be fused together), however, are totally NOT like that and might be worth considering.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

[QUOTE name="el chupacabra" url="/t/496084/connecticut-every-day-is-the-day-to-talk-about-gun-control/400#post_4209322"]
A couple minutes of me googling I found these links; I can probably find more. Armed citizens have really saved lives.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18...-cafe-robbery/
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...R4NY_S0OA.cspx
[URL=http://www.brownwoodnews.com/index.php?option=com_content as the criminals improvised as needed like they always will.

edit: on another note the batman guy would have killed more people if he hadn't had a high capacity loader, those things are natorius for jamming... and it did. He would have been better off practicing changing smaller clips fast.[/QUOTE]


Except they weren't criminals prior to this event, so you can't profile them as criminals, it probably makes more sense to profile them as mentally ill individuals.

And you're also missing the point. Nobody is saying that regulations prevent these incidents, especially ones like this that were obviously planned well in advance. However, they might make it more difficult for some mentally ill individual to go on some spontaneous killing spree on a whim.

You can't look for absolute solutions to these sorts of problems, because there aren't any, but you can look for deterrents and do as much as you can to minimize the frequency of these incidents. Gun control is just one of those things, and whether it would have prevented this entirely is not the question to be asking, but "could it have helped"? The answer in some cases may be yes, in others it may not have made a difference, and in others it may not have hurt either.

And in all those stories linked in the post you quoted, it may have prevented the factor that actually in fact did stop the shooter: law abiding gun owners.

[Spheric Harlot]

There is no reason to believe that the death toll would have been any higher in any of those cases except for the Brownwood News story, had none of the others present had a gun.

Those were robberies, not thwarted killings.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It seems to be agreed that an assault weapons ban is probably bunk.

Don't be so quick to abandon the idea. Part of the problem is misdirection, most of it is a poorly made law, full of loopholes, bad definitions, and problematic enforcement.

It's not really a legal question, either: the Supreme Court has ruled, as recently as 2008, that there is no problem with banning ownership by felons or the mentally ill, barring the carrying of firearms in places like schools or public buildings, or imposing conditions and qualifications on the sale of arms. It also has no problem with prohibiting the the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons," as Justice Scalia (not exactly a raving left-winger) wrote.

Note that "unusual" here is not to be read in the "unique or rarely found" sense, but in the "more powerful or dangerous than others" sense- during the arguments, Scalia mentioned armor-piercing bullets as an example of "unusual" ammunition that could be regulated or banned.

He also wrote that the "militia" clause does not mean that we have a right to M-16s. So yes, it would be very possible to craft a law that banned assault weapons as well as many others mentioned here.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

few months ago my coworker was at a government building when 3 gunmen came in to rob some people. As soon as they made their intention known within 2 seconds my coworker had shot all 3 dead.

Yikes. Got a link for this?

Did we ever get a link for this?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Except they weren't criminals prior to this event, so you can't profile them as criminals, it probably makes more sense to profile them as mentally ill individuals.

And you're also missing the point. Nobody is saying that regulations prevent these incidents, especially ones like this that were obviously planned well in advance. However, they might make it more difficult for some mentally ill individual to go on some spontaneous killing spree on a whim.

You can't look for absolute solutions to these sorts of problems, because there aren't any, but you can look for deterrents and do as much as you can to minimize the frequency of these incidents. Gun control is just one of those things, and whether it would have prevented this entirely is not the question to be asking, but "could it have helped"? The answer in some cases may be yes, in others it may not have made a difference, and in others it may not have hurt either.

In October, 1991, a man described as "angry and withdrawn" drove a pick up truck INTO a restaurant in Central Texas and proceeded to shoot 43 people, killing 23 of them, before killing himself. Because it was at that time completely illegal for Texans to carry concealed weapons, nobody there could defend himself (or others). This incident spurred the legislation that became Texas' concealed handgun carry statute. Since that law went into effect, legal concealed carriers have prevented countless crimes, and ended criminal acts (on the same order as the Internet Cafe incident in Florida) by the thousands.

In short, if someone plans to commit a crime in public in Texas, he has to weigh whether or not the chosen group of victims might be armed. In the Florida Internet Cafe incident, I think the least "obvious" armed person there was the guy with the gun... Making criminal acts more dangerous for the criminals by upping the ante so to speak for their choice of crime and victims, appears to have reduced the level of violent crimes committed against people in every state that allows concealed carry. On the other hand, there has been an apparent trend (minimal data was available to me while writing this, so no specifics here) in places like California where firearms are officially demonized for the opposite: increased violent crimes against people committed by individuals using firearms (very much illegally to start with), probably because they know their intended victims have a very small probability of being able to defend themselves.

Let's also avoid perpetuating the idea that "mentally ill" people are likely to be violent. Instead, those with serious mental illness tend to be passive, withdrawn, or at worst, obnoxiously loud. We as a society tend to fear them because they do not fit the pattern we use for "safe" versus "dangerous," so the weird looking guy with two big shopping bags full of stuff who sits on the street corner and talks to himself while you're sitting at Starbucks (this happened to me on Sunday, by the way) seems "scary" only because we have no pattern to use to know what to expect from him. Violent acts by mentally ill people happen when a number of things go wrong at once. THIS is why the current discussion should be about treating mental illness, not about firearms. It doesn't take a lot of effort to see when someone is no longer handling his life's stresses well, and someone with more difficulty from this sort of problem stands out. It is this sort of warning sign that our whole health care system (everywhere, not just in the States) should be looking for and vigorously intervening in. When someone's coping mechanisms start to fail, they can lead to anything from "a really bad day" for people with fairly good mental health, to a complete breakdown and very much unpredictable behavior. Treating the problem at that point can turn a situation that might lead to a person breaking down completely (with violence being a possible result) and would certainly reduce the cost to society (in any way you want to measure "cost") of having this individual stop being "part of" that society.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In October, 1991, a man described as "angry and withdrawn" drove a pick up truck INTO a restaurant in Central Texas and proceeded to shoot 43 people, killing 23 of them, before killing himself.

In short, if someone plans to commit a crime in public in Texas, he has to weigh whether or not the chosen group of victims might be armed.

Do you recognize the dissonance between these two statements? These crazed gunmen already expect to die in the commission of their crimes. When you're already planning to eat your own bullet, you don't worry that someone might shoot back at you.

Do you think the Fort Hood shooter thought he was walking into a gun-free zone? Do you think he was not hoping to die a "martyr?"

Crazed gunmen will not be deterred by an armed populace, because they are not thinking rationally in the first place. They might be minimized, however, if it becomes harder to access powerful weapons in the middle of a psychotic episode.

[ghporter]

In the first point, it was not a deterrent issue, but a response issue: if even one of the individuals in that restaurant had been armed (which would not have been unreasonable, given the locale), then the shooter would have been much less deadly.

The Ft. Hood shooter KNEW he was walking into a gun-free zone. Army regulations prohibit individuals from possessing firearms on post except in extremely limited circumstances, even personally owned firearms. Nidal fully expected that nobody could shoot back.

The whole "crazed gunman" issue is about response, not deterrence. This is why the Sandy Hook school was physically secured, with buzz-in doors and such. It just wasn't secured well enough to keep a "crazed gunman" from getting in. On the other hand, an armed populace WILL make the "non-crazed" criminal think twice before choosing a target, which is backed up by statistics in several states with both legal concealed carry and some pretty substantial impacts from the Great Recession (with increasingly poor economic conditions, crime rates against individuals in such states did not swell, as they appear to have in other states without concealed carry).

Minimizing access to firearms "in the middle of a psychotic episode" sounds pretty good, except for two important things. First, can you tell someone is in the middle of such an episode, just by looking? Most people can't, unless of course the person is actively being violent at the moment (which is not necessarily an indication of psychosis). And the second point is even more crucial: until such a person "becomes psychotic" and starts behaving violently, there is no way to know what is going on inside his head. That's why it's important to increase mental health services so that there is no stigma from speaking with a counselor or psychologist, so professionals can identify those with real problems versus those with normal issues, and get help to those with the real problems, and so that such individuals can be flagged in the background check system as not being eligible to purchase guns. That will prevent such people, with the "potential" for such antisocial behavior, from legally purchasing guns. Now, what do we do about the black market in weapons?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This whole argument of "the regulations wouldn't have helped any" is a little silly. Could it have hurt? Enforcing gun control costs some money, although some of that is necessary anyway unless you want to do away with all background checks, but this is about the only real downside I can see.

Yeah, lets waste time effort and money on something that doesn't work.

Lets go after the mental health professionals, who's bad judgement probably caused a few mass murders.
The giant, gaping hole in Sandy Hook reporting

[Snow-i]

Georgia mom home alone with kids shoots ex-con intruder | Fox News

Hmm...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Hmm what? How many "good guys" have been killed by guns since the OP? Is this a case of tallying anecdotes on both sides, or do "good" use of guns weigh more heavily than "misuse" and if you believe that, what's the ratio? Are 10 stories of misuse equivalent to 1 story of proper use? Or 100?

[Snow-i]

Considering the new surge for gun control has absolute zilch to do with numbers or data sources of any kind, the winner of this debate is going to be who offers the most convincing narrative.

What I find extremely ironic, almost comical, is the paper that posted the map of gun owners in NY now has armed guards at their facilities. You can't make this stuff up.

After outcry over map of gun permit holders, newspaper hires armed guards - CNN.com

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't argue with the narrative part, but in what way does the Georgia narrative even approach the level established by the Connecticut narrative? Numbers and data might not win, but at least they would give a leg to stand on (that leg being that numbers and data ought to win). Putting up an inferior narrative seems even worse to me. I'm open to being convinced of the ways that the Georgia narrative outweighs, I just don't have any idea what they are.

[Snow-i]

The sanctity of one's home must never be violated.

A mother, otherwise defenseless against the felon, protected herself and her two 9 year olds.

I do not believe you can place a value on human life, and therefore the context of every situation must be evaluated. Lets say Uncle Sam took her guns away, what would she have done?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Lets say Uncle Sam took her guns away, what would she have done?

Do we have legal non-lethal methods for protecting homes? (Serious question. Real mace isn't available to the public, and I don't know how easily purchased tasers and stun-guns are. Other alternatives?)

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Do we have legal non-lethal methods for protecting homes? (Serious question. Real mace isn't available to the public, and I don't know how easily purchased tasers and stun-guns are. Other alternatives?)

Well lets run down the gauntlet.

Security System: Would have done nothing to stop him until police arrive (lets give a generous response time of 15 minutes).
Four Legged Friend (My preferred method of security): Really up in the air depending on the breed, training, strength of the assailant. May or may not have deterred.
Mace: Limited effectiveness (plus this man would still be in your house, and the mom couldn't do anything to overpower him).
Tazer: Would run out of juice long before police arrived, now you've got a decidedly pissed off assailant.
Bean Bag gun: Depending on the determination of the assailant, may or may not stop him. You could also argue that shooting him with a bean bag gun is a great way to increase his rage and come after you once he recovers from the bag.


How would police have responded when they arrived? More than likely with guns drawn. Why should the private citizen, in their own home no less, not be afforded the same right to self-defense?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Panic room?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Panic room?

Strikes me as something only the rich could afford.

Edit: And I was thinking specifically pro-active non-lethal defense. If such a thing is possible.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Granted... but would it work if we had them?

[The Final Dakar]

I'm not sure that's an acceptable option. Aside from people who would object on a macho level, you're giving the person free-reign of the house.

Best thing I could come up with would be sonic weapons... which also could be deadly.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You mean like a siren so loud they have to leave? That can be deadly?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You mean like a siren so loud they have to leave? That can be deadly?

I'm talking stuff that doesn't exist (there's no market for it), but experimentally has been proven effective.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What about a net gun:

Build A Net Gun

[Shaddim]

Well, how about a shotgun loaded with rock salt? Pieces small enough to not be lethal, but a weapon with enough impact to take the fight out of almost anyone.

[Waragainstsleep]

Banning guns altogether might be a good thing because it would accelerate the development of the phaser.

[The Final Dakar]

Some good graphs:

America's Gun Problem In One Chart - Business Insider

[BadKosh]

And if they ban guns the mass murderers will move on to bombs, knives, poisons etc. Targeting guns only is a strawman. Lets look at mass violence, and the connection between the murderers and how many are/were under mental health observation/treatment. Why haven't the doctors been grilled on their part in failing to keep dangerous people out of the public? Banning guns is a strawman argument from the media/lefty stooges. The law enforcement 'professionals' couldn't stop the recent mass killings, but just showed up late to clean up. Gun Bans didn't make a difference. Ask lib stooges why that is even on the table, when so many others dropped the ball in what seems to be a pattern of incompetence by the medical/mental health professions and others.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And if they ban guns the mass murderers will move on to bombs, knives, poisons etc.

Show some examples. This should be happening in Europe at roughly the same pace as our mass shootings, right?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Some good graphs:

America's Gun Problem In One Chart - Business Insider

"Gun deaths" is circular. It should be homicides of all kind. It should also ignore self-defense homicides; I can't tell if it does or not. In snow-i's Georgia story for example, the gun death would be tallied on the "it's working" side, not the "it's part of the problem" side. In fact, I would be interested to know the proportion between "good guys" killed by guns vs "bad guys" (with or without international data, both would be interesting). I don't think I've ever seen either side refer to that metric.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Gun deaths" is circular.

Not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It should be homicides of all kind. It should also ignore self-defense homicides; I can't tell if it does or not. In snow-i's Georgia story for example, the gun death would be tallied on the "it's working" side, not the "it's part of the problem" side. In fact, I would be interested to know the proportion between "good guys" killed by guns vs "bad guys" (with or without international data, both would be interesting). I don't think I've ever seen either side refer to that metric.

I'm all for more info, for more perspective. You have to take what you can get, unfortunately. Also, I'm guessing the dictionary definition of homicide doesn't match the statistical one, because killing someone in self-defense is a legal killing, a homicide is not.

Still, I think the graph does show that the US problem can't be just guns – it depends where someone who knows what the hell they're doing would place the trend line.

(Also, can we liberate Mexico already?)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Show some examples. This should be happening in Europe at roughly the same pace as our mass shootings, right?

I don't know if there's any correlation to gun-control, but you're not going to get far claiming nuts won't use bombs.

Just the first article I found on the subject:

Militant attacks in Europe | Reuters

Oslo, Madrid, Barcelona, London... that keeping pace enough for you?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't know if there's any correlation to gun-control, but you're not going to get far claiming nuts won't use bombs.

Just the first article I found on the subject:

Militant attacks in Europe | Reuters

Oslo, Madrid, Barcelona, London... that keeping pace enough for you?

Isn't that directly related to mid-east terrorism?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not sure what you mean.

The same circularity as if you graphed "Volvo crashes" against Volvo ownership or "Mac crashes" against Mac ownership. Yeah duh it's not going to crash if you don't have one, but that doesn't tell you anything about how it compares to the alternatives. Furthermore, if the nominal purpose of the product is to prevent the crash/death/crime/etc, you can't assess the merit of the product if you ignore how well it's doing that. No product is going to be 100% successful, but even if Macs and Volvos crash far less than their competitors, you would still see crashes correlate positively with ownership, because of the circular logic.

I'm all for more info, for more perspective. You have to take what you can get, unfortunately.

Or don't take it, that's another option. But discussing what's wrong with what we can get and about what we would like to get, correlates positively with eventually finding what we want (I assume; I don't have any graph proving this ).

(Also, can we liberate Mexico already?)

A lot of people would argue that's not the slightest bit off-topic. Take away the war on drugs and both our problems would be a lot smaller.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The same circularity as if you graphed "Volvo crashes" against Volvo ownership or "Mac crashes" against Mac ownership. Yeah duh it's not going to crash if you don't have one, but that doesn't tell you anything about how it compares to the alternatives. Furthermore, if the nominal purpose of the product is to prevent the crash/death/crime/etc, you can't assess the merit of the product if you ignore how well it's doing that. No product is going to be 100% successful, but even if Macs and Volvos crash far less than their competitors, you would still see crashes correlate positively with ownership, because of the circular logic.

First, people on here are making the argument that restricting firearm access means only criminals will have them. This graph shows that is not the case (Or if it is the case, it isn't resulting in more murders).

Second, guns are supposed to make us safer, so the correlation between more guns and more homicides shouldn't be linear, right? (Math is not my strong suit so I could get burned on this one)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Or don't take it, that's another option.

It reeks of dodging the issue. (You're facts suck and I can't prove mine, guess we'll have to roll with the status quo!)

Not a graph but:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US ranks way higher than most countries.

Mexico: 22.7
US: 4.8
Luxembourg: 2.5
Israel: 2.1
Canada: 1.6
Greece: 1.5
UK: 1.2
Australia: 1.0
New Zealand: 0.9
Switzerland: 0.7
Japan: 0.4

(Names picked because I noticed them in the other chart)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Isn't that directly related to mid-east terrorism?

Does it matter really? Whatever the motive, some nutjob wants to kill a bunch of people, they can find a way to do it. Guns, bombs, chemicals, poison, cars, aircraft, whatever all can be used as weapons to kill a bunch of people. There's just no regulating our way out of the possibility.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

US ranks way higher than most countries.

Mexico: 22.7
US: 4.8
Luxembourg: 2.5
Israel: 2.1
Canada: 1.6
Greece: 1.5
UK: 1.2
Australia: 1.0
New Zealand: 0.9
Switzerland: 0.7
Japan: 0.4

(Names picked because I noticed them in the other chart)

Most interesting to me is the fact that Mexico has the strictest gun control laws, yet the highest homicide rate.

Also, many of those countries outrank the US in crimes that are far more common than homicide, which despite all the hype it gets is an exceedingly rare crime. I'd rather not come home to my house robbed or my car being stolen every other week like many in other countries put up with.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Does it matter really?

Yes, I'd say there's a world of difference between politically motivated international terrorism and what happened in Aurora or Newtown.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Whatever the motive, some nutjob wants to kill a bunch of people, they can find a way to do it. Guns, bombs, chemicals, poison, cars, aircraft, whatever all can be used as weapons to kill a bunch of people. There's just no regulating our way out of the possibility.

Ah yes, the old "We can't stop it, so we shouldn't try" argument. You're about 9 pages late on that one.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It's just that what you propose 'trying' doesn't work. You're as late on that one as the invention of firearms.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Most interesting to me is the fact that Mexico has the strictest gun control laws, yet the highest homicide rate.

Any thoughts as to why that is?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Also, many of those countries outrank the US in crimes that are far more common than homicide, which despite all the hype it gets is an exceedingly rare crime. I'd rather not come home to my house robbed or my car being stolen every other week like many in other countries put up with.

You'd trade being several more times more likely to die in order to reduce the likelihood of being robbed? I'd be curious where other people stand on that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's just that what you propose 'trying' doesn't work. You're as late on that one as the invention of firearms.

What am I trying to propose?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Any thoughts as to why that is?

Most people there have no rights to defend themselves and so are the fodder for criminal gangs that pretty much run the country.

You'd trade being several more times more likely to die in order to reduce the likelihood of being robbed? I'd be curious where other people stand on that.

I and everyone else is several orders of magnitude more likely to die in places where people have tried to ban guns. Those places just become more dangerous, not less.

To a nutcase who just wants to go out in a blaze and take a bunch of people with him so that he sets a record as the 'greatest mass-shooter' and gets talked about by everyone else 24/7, a an area like a school or mall or theatre full of people that's announced as a "gun free zone" reads as: "Increase your kill total here".

People kneejerking on this subject that want to turn more and more places into "increase your kill total here" zones aren't doing anything but putting more people in danger.

The theatre shooter in Colorado recently didn't go to a much bigger and more crowded theatre that was much closer to him. He also skipped several other theatres in favor of the one he went to. Why? Because the one he picked was the only one that was a 'gun free zone' IE: increase your kill total here' zone.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, I'd say there's a world of difference between politically motivated international terrorism and what happened in Aurora or Newtown

Riiight. Because one is a human being setting a plan in motion to kill a bunch of people, and the other was space aliens out to battle robots.