Aurora and gun control

[Knightshade Dragon]

First, my heart goes out to the families of all involved in the shooting in Aurora - unless you've been through it, there is no way to even begin to assuage their anguish or explain this tragedy. 

Those of you who know me know that I try to abstain from political or religious conversation as it tends to polarize and alienate people.  Up front I'll state plainly that I don't identify as (R), (D), (I), or any other affiliation - none of them have a clue how the vast majority of people live and operate, and at least half of them have never actually read the very documents they hide behind.  That said...

As somebody who has spent an inordinate amount of time behind the trigger I'd like to comment on some of the pro/anti gun conversation that has been streaming across my FB wall fairly non-stop. 

First off - banning guns, of any kind, wouldn't have stopped this.  I assure you that with a little practice each week you could accomplish the same dread task with a handgun.   Banning all guns?  Tell me how well that's worked out for coke, meth, heroin, alcohol, and everything else we make illegal.  Laws only work for people who follow the law.  Secondly, guns don't kill people.  Bullets don't kill people.  Unstable people kill people.  People who need help kill people.  In this case, I have to wonder what was going on in this man's life where nobody visited bomb-ville that was his apartment, nobody questioned why an A student suddenly dropped out of school, and why no neighbor talked to this guy clearly for quite some time. 

For the second item, I'll bring up a second tragedy - 911.  On United Airline Flight 93, passengers prevented that plane from hitting its objective.  While in that case, the unfortunate souls onboard still perished, it prevented whatever larger disaster the terrorists had planned.  In the case of this tragedy, a well-armed citizenry might have stopped this event rather quickly.  Just like a criminal that skips the car with the alarm and club in favor of the unlocked car with the windows open, crazy people go after large collections of unarmed citizens.  I'm not suggesting people carry guns on planes, not even close, but I am suggesting that our gun laws get an upgrade.  Better safety training, better education on firearms and handling, etc. would lessen the gun accidents and fear of firearms.  Sure, there will still be cross-carrying assholes who think they are Rambo, but the vast majority of people would still be able to protect themselves from those people who would shoot them with weapons, legal or otherwise. 

For this argument, I'll argue with fact: The US Census Bureau in its VIOLENT CRIMES PER 100,000 POPULATION studies:
In 2004, folks in Vermont were not able to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, without a permit.  They were ranked as dead last (including Puerto Rico and DC) - it was the most crime-ridden state in the nation.  After the "Will Carry" law was passed to allow people to carry weapons with or without a permit they rocketed to the second safest state (see the The Crime Rates by State and by Type, 2008" table) in terms of violent crime.  When the crazy person has to check the "I don't know if these people have weapons or not" thought in his brain, they are less likely to unleash stuff like what we saw in Aurora. 

In 2010 the FBI released data on 08 and 09.  When Obama took office and the crazy-mill started screaming "da gubment gon take mah gunnnns!" the Feeb started collecting information on the number of murders in our country and how gun ownership impacts it.  When gun sales picked up due to the change in the Oval Office, we saw an 8.2% decrease in the murder rate across the nation.  That's a 10.5% decrease since the expiration of the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" law in 2009.  In fact, as of 2009, our nation has hit a 45 year LOW for murder...and they attribute this directly to the legal ownership of weapons by our nations citizens. 

So before you allow your friends to say "Let's ban guns!  Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!" you need to slide a book in front of their panic-stricken nose.  Guns helped found this nation, and in the hands of a well-armed citizenry, can help defend it. 

[Teggy]

I really don't see how any number of armed people would have really helped in this situation given that he threw tear gas and was wearing protective gear and those armed would have had to figure out what was even going on before they could attempt to calm down and line up a shot. Unlike VT this was over in a matter of minutes.

[Isgrimnur]

Every second he was dealing with an armed respondent, effective or no, was one less second he could have been firing blindly into a crowd of fleeing patrons. 

[VictorGrunn]

Better safety training, better education on firearms and handling, etc. would lessen the gun accidents and fear of firearms.

I'm surprised that this isn't a universally endorsed option for anyone sincerely concerned about gun-related death, particularly accidental. I now and then get the impression that some people are so against gun ownership by citizens that the mere idea of someone even having this knowledge and training is itself considered somehow threatening.

[Knightshade Dragon]

Every second he was dealing with an armed respondent, effective or no, was one less second he could have been firing blindly into a crowd of fleeing patrons. 

Yep, and those of us with some training can take a shot even with tear gas.  We had a whole shoothouse devoted to it. 

[Knightshade Dragon]

Better safety training, better education on firearms and handling, etc. would lessen the gun accidents and fear of firearms.

I'm surprised that this isn't a universally endorsed option for anyone sincerely concerned about gun-related death, particularly accidental. I now and then get the impression that some people are so against gun ownership by citizens that the mere idea of someone even having this knowledge and training is itself considered somehow threatening.

This is exactly right.  What blows me away is how many of my friends are so against gun ownership and have never held a weapon in their hands.

[JayDee]

It's culture. The idea that if I watch a movie in a theatre in the US and can expect a certain number of patrons to be carrying a gun scares the shit out of me. Being from Canada, where you can't really do that legally makes that situation feel so foreign to me.

I don't know anyone, and I mean anyone, personally that owns a handgun. A couple of hunting rifles, yes, but not a handgun.

It's the culture I grew up in and that's why the US culture of gun ownership is kinda scary to me.

Likewise, it is why any form of gun control will never work in the US. It's too ingrained culturally that you need your guns for protection.

[Ironrod]

I suppose there must be some chatter about gun control on facebook and twitter, although none has crossed my screen. I haven't heard boo about it from congress or the white house, though.

Public support for stricter gun control legislation has fallen from >70% a couple of decades ago (and 60% as recently as 2000) to just 54% today. The pro-gun lobby is so well organized and so vocal that no politician is seriously pushing the issue, although a few who think it will score them political points will make some brief and ineffective noise about it. To the degree that it's being raised at all, the topic will be forgotten in a couple of weeks.

A few recent stats

So I think your thread is a straw man, KD. Maybe you're seeing some opinions from the muttering majority, or maybe pro-gun people are overreacting to a threat that's not materializing.

If a serious and sustained debate about new gun laws does break out, I'll eat this post.

[VictorGrunn]

So I think your thread is a straw man, KD. Maybe you're seeing some opinions from the muttering majority, or maybe pro-gun people are overreacting to a threat that's not materializing.

I don't think that's fair. A straw man is when an argument is misrepresented and passed off as the real deal. I don't see where KD did anything of the sort. He even made it clear what level of 'muttering' he was responding to - FB conversations. Even with your own stats shown, '54%' is a sizable number.

[Creepy_Smell]

i'd like it if the news talked more about mental health care. as its about nuts not guns, since they would use other weapons if needed. just bugs me lately that when gun incidents happen its about gun control and not mental health, especially since most turn out to be known to have issues. the focus should be on the nut and how to prevent, not what weapon was used.

i'm not even into guns (dont have one but lots of friends do). don't think people need them everywhere, but do prefer ccw to open. in this specific event dont think it would have mattered much (dark theatre, smoke, tac gear) but a lot of other events it could have helped.

[Knightshade Dragon]

It's culture. The idea that if I watch a movie in a theatre in the US and can expect a certain number of patrons to be carrying a gun scares the shit out of me. Being from Canada, where you can't really do that legally makes that situation feel so foreign to me.

I don't know anyone, and I mean anyone, personally that owns a handgun. A couple of hunting rifles, yes, but not a handgun.

It's the culture I grew up in and that's why the US culture of gun ownership is kinda scary to me.

Likewise, it is why any form of gun control will never work in the US. It's too ingrained culturally that you need your guns for protection.

Sure you do.  My wife picked this up this weekend:



I don't think my argument is strawman - the chattering is alive and well on the gun control issue.  Some excerpts from various news sources citing their poking of the political folk are below.  You can't disagree that folks aren't batting around the law to see what bees come out of it:

“This wasn’t a Colorado problem. This is a human problem,” said Mr. Hickenlooper, a Democrat. “Even if he didn’t have access to guns, this guy was diabolical, he would have found explosives, he would have found something else, some kind of poisonous gas. He would have done something to create this horror.”

“Weapons of war don’t belong on the streets,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on “Fox News Sunday,” adding that the country needs to have a “sane” debate about banning military-style assault weapons.

A vocal proponent of gun control, Bloomberg has renewed his push for stricter gun laws since suspected shooter James Holmes allegedly opened fire in a packed Aurora movie theater during a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" Friday, killing 12 people and wounding 59 others.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) will advance legislation this week to ban the sale of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition at a time, his office confirms to TPM, as was first reported by the Huffington Post.  “[H]e will be pushing it this week,” Lautenberg’s spokesman Caley Gray said in an email.

Mike Paszel, 61, a neighbor of slain theatergoer Gordon Cowdon, sides with Hickman and says the attack could have been stopped and lives saved if more people had concealed carry permits and were allowed to enter the theater armed.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, speaking on CNN's State of the Union, says additional rules and regulations probably wouldn't have deterred someone like Holmes.

Jaimie Cox, secretary for the Pro-Second Amendment Committee in Grand Junction, believes that there may have been fewer victims if more people in the theater audience had a weapon with them.

On the other hand, pro-gun control groups such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is advocating for stricter gun laws that they believe would prevent such tragedies.  “We’re not safe at all,” says Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “This is just another example that anyone can be denied life liberty and the pursuit of happiness by a homicidal maniac who gains access to firearms with little or no screening.”

Reinstate the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. Proponents say that would have made it illegal for James Holmes to buy the AR-15, pictured above, with which he likely fired most of the lethal shots. "There is no rational basis for allowing ordinary Americans to purchase assault rifles. They're not necessary for hunting, and they're not needed for self-defense," argues a Washington Post editorial.

[Knightshade Dragon]

i'd like it if the news talked more about mental health care. as its about nuts not guns, since they would use other weapons if needed. just bugs me lately that when gun incidents happen its about gun control and not mental health, especially since most turn out to be known to have issues. the focus should be on the nut and how to prevent, not what weapon was used.

i'm not even into guns (dont have one but lots of friends do). don't think people need them everywhere, but do prefer ccw to open. in this specific event dont think it would have mattered much (dark theatre, smoke, tac gear) but a lot of other events it could have helped.

I completely agree.  You'd think that the bleeding hearts would want to reach out to those who are mentally unstable to 'save them', but instead it seems like they want to deprive us of our ability to defend ourselves against individuals like this clown.   

[Blackjack]

A relative bleeding heart liberal might say in response to one particular cloddish assumption:
-By all accounts, the whole auditorium was flooded with the assailant's gas attack. Victims described the effects as choking, eyes watering to the point of not being able to see, and ghastly discharge from the nostrils. The theater was pitch black, with the movie playing providing the only illumination.

Do you seriously think ANYBODY under those conditions, no matter the training, could've shot the broadside of a freaking barn? Think about it. Chances are, any moviegoer with a gun would've just shot other moviegoers and perhaps have gotten mistakenly killed by the police, who by most accounts arrived within minutes.

And personally I find it insensitive and uncompassionate (to put it kindly) to even insinuate that anyone, including many families with kids, should be in any way made to feel guilty they didn't truck to the local multiplex with a concealed weapons arsenal.

Lots of us here were at midnight showings of The Dark Knight Returns. It couldn've happened to any of us. If it had, I'd hope people wouldn't be lecturing how I wouldn't have been dead if only I'd been carrying my own concealed weapon and a freaking gas mask.

So I will proudly, stupidly, naively continue to attend movies, concerts, sporting events, restaurants, subways, trains and other public places without a concealed weapon, naively thinking the USA isn't a country where I need to be paranoid everywhere I go. And if I end up a victim in one of these massacres some day, please resist the urge to arrogantly post about how "you told me so."

[Teggy]

Every second he was dealing with an armed respondent, effective or no, was one less second he could have been firing blindly into a crowd of fleeing patrons. 

Yep, and those of us with some training can take a shot even with tear gas.  We had a whole shoothouse devoted to it.

10 vs. 12 or 8 vs. 12 is not a compelling argument IMHO.

Besides, Colorado has concealed carry, so what's being presented here is forcing private businesses to allow guns into their establishments, which is a surprising argument to come from the conservative side.

I agree, some effort should have been made to identify this guy, but part of that can be checking into anyone who buys an AR15 and a huge magazine. And of course the question still remains why private citizens need assault rifles.

[USMC Kato]

I really don't see how any number of armed people would have really helped in this situation given that he threw tear gas and was wearing protective gear and those armed would have had to figure out what was even going on before they could attempt to calm down and line up a shot. Unlike VT this was over in a matter of minutes.

I own and have a license to carry.  I agree this is a human problem and not a gun law issue. But just because some people have training with weapons doesn't make those people practice good judgement or fire discipline.  I believe owning is not enough and that the standards are laughably low to be able to carry.
I think earning a carry permit should be as tough and rigorous as getting a license to practice medicine.

  qualification tests should include:
Sleep deprivation (48 hours or so)before learning and testing on the nomenclature and safety rules. Fail and try again next year
Simulations on almost every possible conceivable scenario with an emphasis on "grey" real life situations...not black or white scenarios. Fail this and you can retry in 5 years 
Kill house training Kubiyashi Maru style. This excersize will always end with blue on blue fire. After action report can focus on how to minimize casualties.

[Isgrimnur]

Besides, Colorado has concealed carry, so what's being presented here is forcing private businesses to allow guns into their establishments, which is a surprising argument to come from the conservative side.

In Texas, to forbid people from carrying in your business, you follow the 30.06 code.  That's all it takes.  If Colorado doesn't have something similar, then lobby for a law and let the business owners make their choice.  

Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun.

Violation carries up a $4k fine and/or a year in jail as a Class A Misdemeanor.  

[Teggy]

Besides, Colorado has concealed carry, so what's being presented here is forcing private businesses to allow guns into their establishments, which is a surprising argument to come from the conservative side.

In Texas, to forbid people from carrying in your business, you follow the 30.06 code.  That's all it takes.  If Colorado doesn't have something similar, then lobby for a law and let the business owners make their choice. 

Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun.

Violation carries up a $4k fine and/or a year in jail as a Class A Misdemeanor. 

It's my understanding that in that is how it works in Colorado. The theater just puts up a sign that they don't allow guns. But the argument here seems to be that the theater should have been required to allow guns so people would shoot back.

I'm not even quite clear how the theater verified that people didn't have a gun under their shirt or in a bag.

[Knightshade Dragon]

A relative bleeding heart liberal might say in response to one particular cloddish assumption:
-By all accounts, the whole auditorium was flooded with the assailant's gas attack. Victims described the effects as choking, eyes watering to the point of not being able to see, and ghastly discharge from the nostrils. The theater was pitch black, with the movie playing providing the only illumination.

Do you seriously think ANYBODY under those conditions, no matter the training, could've shot the broadside of a freaking barn? Think about it. Chances are, any moviegoer with a gun would've just shot other moviegoers and perhaps have gotten mistakenly killed by the police, who by most accounts arrived within minutes.

And personally I find it insensitive and uncompassionate (to put it kindly) to even insinuate that anyone, including many families with kids, should be in any way made to feel guilty they didn't truck to the local multiplex with a concealed weapons arsenal.

Lots of us here were at midnight showings of The Dark Knight Returns. It couldn've happened to any of us. If it had, I'd hope people wouldn't be lecturing how I wouldn't have been dead if only I'd been carrying my own concealed weapon and a freaking gas mask.

So I will proudly, stupidly, naively continue to attend movies, concerts, sporting events, restaurants, subways, trains and other public places without a concealed weapon, naively thinking the USA isn't a country where I need to be paranoid everywhere I go. And if I end up a victim in one of these massacres some day, please resist the urge to arrogantly post about how "you told me so."

It wasn't my intention to offend, by any stretch.  I'm just reaching a bit here - I want to believe in a world where I can defend against crazy people like this. I want to believe that my life isn't left to random chance and luck as to whether I get to keep it.  I don't think it's paranoia as much as response to the horrific nature of shootings like this. 

As far as why anyone needs an AR-15, realize it's functionally no different than a hunting rifle.  It just looks scary (and jams a fuckton more, am I right Kato?)

[Harkonis]

You can shoot just fine when tear gassed if you've been exposed to it enough times.  Thankfully most people aren't.  It's entirely possible that nobody could have done anything in this particular situation.  That doesn't invalidate the arguments though.

At least two of the victims were military.  They would have been exposed and trained to at least remain functional while under the effects of CS gas.

On top of all of that, just like KSD mentioned, perhaps just the idea that there could be a lot of guns ready in any given crowd could discourage people from doing this type of thing.  Though you have to assume that some people are just so crazy they wouldn't care.

I've had a gun pulled on me a couple times in my life.  I've also had a gun pulled on a friend before.  In any of those cases if I had had my own weapon I could have done something about the situation with a lot less risk.

Of course I'm also of the opinion that US places of high dollar business such as banks and jewelry stores should be more like the ones I've seen in the UK where in a robbery they lock everyone in, robbers and patrons alike until the police arrive.  It's more risk for the patrons, but in the long run the risk to reward for the criminal goes way down when they really have no chance to succeed.  Similar to never negotiating with hostage takers in terrorist situations.

[Ironrod]

I don't think my argument is strawman - the chattering is alive and well on the gun control issue.  Some excerpts from various news sources citing their poking of the political folk are below.  You can't disagree that folks aren't batting around the law to see what bees come out of it:

I sure can't disagree with all those cites -- I hadn't heard any of it. OK, not a strawman. But I'll still bet that it will not become a campaign issue and no serious legislation will follow (although some grandstanding is already underway, as your quotes show).

[Victoria Raverna]

A question to those that think that having more guns help in this situation. If there are multiple people that carry guns and shooting, how do you as a gun carrier know which one to shoot at and how do you avoid getting shoot by other gun carriers? How do you know if the "terrorist" is acting alone or if there are multiple of them?

[Gratch]

Not doubting anyone here, but in reading some threads in more public forums (I.e. the local newspaper website), there seems to be an inordinate number of people claiming to have extensive "tear gas training" which (they claim) would allow them to function as normal under these circumstances.  I'm tempted to call BS on most of them, but maybe this is a blind spot for me as a non-gun owner.  Is that a common thing for gun owners to go through?

[metallicorphan]

well there are 310+ million people in the United States,and yeah you have a handful of people going nuts each year(although still too many for my liking),but i was thinking if you do have Guns legally(which is your choice,i am not going to say anything against that),shouldn't there be some system in place that sets off alarm bells when someone buys an extreme amount of Ammunition?

Maybe they could of even cross referenced him when he bought Bullet Proof Vests and Armour(although admittedly i am not sure when he bought the armour and vest)

Apparently within the 60 days before Holmes did the Midnight Massacre he bought

3000-Assault Rifle Ammo
3000-Glock Handgun Ammo
300- Shotgun Cartridges


do people really need that much ammo for any basic 'Non-Going Postal' stuff?(for lack of better description,i can't really say 'Normal')

[wonderpug]

Ammo goes on sale, and certain types can go out of stock, so it's not all that crazy for normal people to buy a lot all at once.   I don't know enough to know how ordinary or extraordinary his purchase would rank, but most of my gun-toting Normal People friends & relations do buy in bulk.

[jament]

I live in Wyoming, where a concealed carry law was passed last year that allows any non-felon to carry a concealed weapon without a permit or training.  I have to admit I'm concerned about getting shot accidentally at Safeway by some idiot that doesn't have any idea how their shoulder holster works.

I just don't think this is a gun control issue - it's a cultural one. The statistics between handgun ownership and gun deaths show a correlation between those things but not necessarily a causation.  You could conclude that a high percentage of handgun ownership = a high % of handgun deaths but you could also conclude that a culture that glorifies violence to the point that gun ownership is desirable also = more ownership but more directly leads to deaths.

It's too bad we can't have any meaningful discourse about kids being at that theater without people screaming that we're trying to blame the victims.

I obviously don't think the victims share any individual blame for the tragedy but I think our culture bears a lot of blame, myself included. The most anticipated cinema event of the summer is a ultra-violent movie. People in our culture think it's ok to expose young kids to that level of violence. That exposure may have have actual effects in real life. It wouldn't be that shocking, would it?

As an aside, I also disagree with the popular media characterization of people who do carry handguns as people who 'live in fear' or are looking for trouble.  The people I know that carry aren't fearful. Guns make them feel safe or secure (whether that's true or not) and, in particular, empowered. That makes a statement about our society as well.

[Isgrimnur]

Cinemark already goes beyond the RIAA recommendations a bit.

What is Cinemark's R-Rating policy?

No Children Under Age 6 Will Be Admitted To Any R-Rated Feature After 6:00 PM. Valid ID's will be required to attend Rated "R" movies. You must be at least 17 years of age or have your parent accompany you to view the movie. ID's will be checked at the theatre.

Of course, that doesn't hold much to do with the PG-13 movie that this was. 

We glorify sports that are violence in action.  The most popular sports today are football and MMA.  Hockey and football used to put out special videos of hardest hits.

Perhaps we've gone too far past the point where these provide a natural outlet of these urges, but then there's a tighter control of that stuff in Europe, but they have rugby and soccer hooligans. 

Human society is all an attempt to put the baser urges out of reach of making life nasty, brutish, and short.  But that undercurrent will be there at least until the next stage of evolution turns us into Telosians. 

[wonderpug]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

[gellar]

I really don't see how any number of armed people would have really helped in this situation given that he threw tear gas and was wearing protective gear and those armed would have had to figure out what was even going on before they could attempt to calm down and line up a shot. Unlike VT this was over in a matter of minutes.

I own and have a license to carry.  I agree this is a human problem and not a gun law issue. But just because some people have training with weapons doesn't make those people practice good judgement or fire discipline.  I believe owning is not enough and that the standards are laughably low to be able to carry.
I think earning a carry permit should be as tough and rigorous as getting a license to practice medicine.

  qualification tests should include:
Sleep deprivation (48 hours or so)before learning and testing on the nomenclature and safety rules. Fail and try again next year
Simulations on almost every possible conceivable scenario with an emphasis on "grey" real life situations...not black or white scenarios. Fail this and you can retry in 5 years 
Kill house training Kubiyashi Maru style. This excersize will always end with blue on blue fire. After action report can focus on how to minimize casualties.

Agree with all of this, but also am cognizant that it will never happen.  We're more likely to ban weapons altogether than we are to actually impose a rational set of laws that govern them.  EVERYONE screams bloody murder on the last one.  On the first we only have one half screaming .

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

As far as KD's take:  My thinking is I have zero confidence in 99% of the general populace with concealed carry permits to be able to rationally handle this situation without making it worse.  Fear and adrenaline are a motherfucker.

I'll put it this way.  If you put me in that movie theater situation and give me the choice of some guy having a gun and shooting back or not, ten times out of ten I'm going to choose or not.  I just think that random will do more harm than good being all rambo.

[wonderpug]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

[gellar]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

Disagree.  It's not 100% effective, but it's almost certainly more effective than your analogy.

[Victoria Raverna]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

A total ban of gun can stop someone like this Holmes.

[Isgrimnur]

We're not tossing out the 2nd Amendment. 

[wonderpug]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

A total ban of gun can stop someone like this Holmes.

Let's make the grand assumption that a gun ban makes it not at all possible for Holmes to get a single gun or bullet.  You're saying there is now no way he's going to be able to pull off a stunt like this some other way?

[rshetts2]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

A total ban of gun can stop someone like this Holmes.

Sure because theres no way if theres a total ban of guns, that Holmes could have gotten his hands on one.   

[Harkonis]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

A total ban of gun can stop someone like this Holmes.

Sure because theres no way if theres a total ban of guns, that Holmes could have gotten his hands on one.   

yeah, that type of thinking is about as naive as it gets.  He would have just firebombed the place, used some form of nerve gas or poison or something similar.  People like him will find a way.  Only way to stop them is to figure out they have a problem before they do something and get help for them. 

Tying this to gun control is just silly.

[rshetts2]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

A total ban of gun can stop someone like this Holmes.

Sure because theres no way if theres a total ban of guns, that Holmes could have gotten his hands on one.   

yeah, that type of thinking is about as naive as it gets.  He would have just firebombed the place, used some form of nerve gas or poison or something similar.  People like him will find a way.  Only way to stop them is to figure out they have a problem before they do something and get help for them. 

Tying this to gun control is just silly.

Was that directed at me?  If so you clearly missed the  smilie at the end of my statement.   To be clear a gun ban would not be the answer in this case.  If anyone thinks that a guy who boobytrapped his abode with gas and explosives couldnt come up with an alternative to guns, yeah that is naive.  Besides a ban on guns wont stop criminals from having guns, it will just stop law abiding citizens from having them. 

[Victoria Raverna]

Generally, it feels like gun control laws are much like the piracy warnings on DVDs.  Law abiding people get annoyed and hindered by them, while the law breakers bypass them entirely.

I disagree with this mostly.  Stealing a movie or game is difficult to get caught in and the consequences are rather light (short of getting wtfsued by the RIAA or MPAA).  Getting caught with a gun is considerably easier to do than getting caught with an illegal copy of Call Me Maybe on your iPhone.

You seem to be focused on the odds of getting caught, but the intent of my analogy was with regards to the effectiveness of the preventative measures.  Criminals are stymied by strict gun control just as much as a movie downloader is stymied by the copy protection notice he will never see.

A total ban of gun can stop someone like this Holmes.

Sure because theres no way if theres a total ban of guns, that Holmes could have gotten his hands on one.   

It'll make it harder if not near impossible for him to get guns if there is a total ban. People always claim that criminals can always get guns, but it'll still be much harder for them to get them if there is a total ban. For someone like Holmes that have no criminal background and connection, it'll be much harder.

[Victoria Raverna]

We're not tossing out the 2nd Amendment. 

Why not?

Why do you need the 2nd Amendment?

[Isgrimnur]

Our country was formed by the violent overthrow of our colonial masters.  Gun ownership is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, part of our amended Constitution.  It's a central tenet of who we are.

[Victoria Raverna]

Besides a ban on guns wont stop criminals from having guns, it will just stop law abiding citizens from having them. 

It'll stop a large percentage of criminals from having guns. Just look at countries with a total ban on guns, there are still some criminals that have access to guns but majority of the criminals don't.

Why have a law against drunk driving? People still drive while drunk. It'll not stop law breakers from drunk driving, it will just stop law abiding citizens.