Aurora shootings.

[Waffles]

ban guns? for what reason? the tool is not to blame, the person and the society he's from is, as well as his natural state. just because someone could kill with a rubber fish doesn't mean they should be outlawed for that reason.

[Ronald_Reagan]

But rubber fish aren't meant to kill. Nor do they have much range in which they are lethal. Trust me, I'm an expert. I'm a experienced rubber fish quality control expert. I know all of the specifications of all rubber fish models.

It is also illegal (in all 3rd, 2nd, 1st, and most 4th world countries) to manufacture (either partially or fully) lethal rubber fish (at any range!).

[#M|A#Wolf]

ban guns? for what reason? the tool is not to blame, the person and the society he's from is, as well as his natural state. just because someone could kill with a rubber fish doesn't mean they should be outlawed for that reason.

That's like saying we could go right ahead and legalize skag and put it in every local shop in every neighborhood of the country, and when the country's mortality rate starts increasing we start blaming the people for being irresponsible with the drug. There's no problem if drugs or guns are legal, but if you make it so easy just like it is to get guns in the US (why the hell would the gov't let people buy assault rifles?) then shit like this happens. You don't need a goddamn Smith and Wesson assault rifle to defend your property, nothing more than a pistol and (maybe) shotgun is necessary.

It's too idealistic from the gov't to believe that even though it's easy to get guns people will be responsible and if something happens differently it will only be the killer's fault.

Edit: btw, it was not my intention to offend any americans, it's simply my opinion regarding their laws.

[tempest]

ban guns? for what reason? the tool is not to blame, the person and the society he's from is, as well as his natural state.

You're right, but you don't have to make it easier for them.

just because someone could kill with a rubber fish doesn't mean they should be outlawed for that reason.

Right again, and a chainsaw or an axe or even a plain old kitchen knife would have been much better examples. I have two objections, though:
1) With none of those things you can trivially kill a dozen people in 60 seconds. On the other hand, that's no problem with an AR-15 and a 30-round magazine.

2) There are many legitimate reasons for having an axe at home. Tell me one good reason why a civilian would need an assault rifle. They're not really useful (and banned, I think) for hunting, they're a constant danger unless properly secured (kids, burglars, etc) and so on.
And don't even get me started about the idiotic "I need to defend myself" argument. AFAIK more people are erroneously shot by civilians because they're mistaken for criminals, than actual criminals. Does "Trayvon Martin" ring a bell here?

Also, you might want to compare the homicide rates of various (western) european countries with strict gun laws to that of the US, as well as the percentage of homicides involving firearms.

[Roflcopter]

ban guns? for what reason? the tool is not to blame, the person and the society he's from is, as well as his natural state. just because someone could kill with a rubber fish doesn't mean they should be outlawed for that reason.

You're quite correct but your argument is stuck in theory. In practice there's not really a good reason for most classes of guns. And in some sense, simply owning a gun can be seen as damaging to those around one (since it inflicts a risk upon others). I would argue that banning guns is not a huge loss to any legitimate user but a major benefit to society as a whole. And note in many countries such as the UK, hunting weapons are still legal.

[pweaks]

Banning guns is like banning alcohol. Neither of them kills by it's own, it's how you use it.

[ElCrema]

If there is one thing I've learned after almost 10 years living in the US is this: there is no reasoning with north-americans when it comes to their constitutional right to bear arms (and it's almost always related to the defense of private property and/or civil liberties e.g defende yourself from an authoritary goverment). There is a VERY strong cultural factor within this discussion that unless you're well-versed in north-american history and culture you just won't get it. Do I agree with it? Nope! But that's the way it is.

[Mael]

And don't even get me started about the idiotic "I need to defend myself" argument.

I can understand this argument depending on where the person is from. There are parts of this country where people are killed for parking spaces. It's unclear whether these cases are drive-by shootings or if it's a conflict that escalates.

Either way I'm not sure introducing another gun into the situation is going to help. I've never heard of two people arguing, one pulls a gun, the other pulls a gun, and they both say "Well shit, since we've both got guns pointed at each other let's calm down a bit and just walk away." If you're at the point where is gun is being pulled I can't imagine there is much you can do to get out of the situation unless the person with the gun happens to have some measure of control.

[DES|Anderson]

Why is it Americans always defend their right to carry arms with the "defend myself and others" arguement, and yet whenever one of these nutcases turns up suddenly everyone left their guns at home!

[Ronald_Reagan]

Why is it Americans always defend their right to carry arms with the "defend myself and others" arguement, and yet whenever one of these nutcases turns up suddenly everyone left their guns at home!

Remember the ballistic gear and gas. Someone without some good training couldn't really do much to him. Also, concealed carry rates aren't super high I dont think. Who feels the need to defend themselves in a theater?

But yes, I agree, it is ironic.

[Nightmare]

12(more now?) dead and 50+ injured.
If this guy had a knife, he'd stab one person, then get jumped by ten civilians. And the one victim might live.

[Habluka]

but without guns, how would we have stories of complete badasses like this guy?

[Oracle]

Apparently Bale did go visit.

[Waffles]

im not saying every instance of gun use is justifiable and i agree, gun ownership is often unnecessary. In the event that someone would need to defend themselves, and the only means to that end would be using a gun, i don't see any reason that that is absurd.

Everyone has made great points but I left out one. I firmly believe that guns should be more heavily regulated in the united states, but just with anything else, it is hard to qualify what constitutes a sane person. Growing up on a farm, I have seen guns used for multiple purposes (hunting, defense, fishing :P, training) and never once did I see a properly trained citizen using it in what would be considered a foolish or abhorrent way. With proper mandatory training classes (maybe a years worth or more), renewing of gun ownership licenses at least every year, psychological evaluations (both written and at a shrink at least every year with the renewal of the permit), then gun safety could go a long way without violating a right that was intentionally built into the country. I can't think of a situation more dire than attempting to overthrow any evil that is tactically more prepared than you and that is clearly oppressing you.

I should also point out that I am a gun owner, but I hate the thought of it's use without extreme provocation/necessity.

more gun control, less blame on the tool

[Mael]

Psychs only know what you tell them. Anyone with an intent to commit an atrocity can potentially conceal it. A doctor can make inferences about your mental state but unless you outwardly express or display symptoms of psychosis they can not make any kind of recommendation or demand that you take medication, seek counseling, etc.

[Nightmare]

Spoiler

[Roflcopter]

im not saying every instance of gun use is justifiable and i agree, gun ownership is often unnecessary.

And no one is saying you said that.

In the event that someone would need to defend themselves, and the only means to that end would be using a gun, i don't see any reason that that is absurd.

Statistically it's an awful way to defend yourself.

Guns which only use is to kill humans serve no legitimate purpose. They don't protect people (as famous statistics show). In terms of the damage to society, compare the USA to Europe: The USA has about 13 deaths from firearms per 100,000 while Europe has only around 2.

No man is an island unto themselves; if you buy a gun you're statistcally speaking endangering those around you. That's a very different thing to growing a bit of weed and smoking it in your home which could be argued as victimless.

I can't think of a situation more dire than attempting to overthrow any evil that is tactically more prepared than you and that is clearly oppressing you.

Can you suggest a conceivable situation where gun use would help you otherthrow an enemy "tactically more prepared than you"?

[MykeGregory]

"I hear that. A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny." -Ken Webster, Walking life.

[Ronald_Reagan]

I agree that you don't need to ban guns, just ban AR's and handguns. Handguns alone would probably reduce gun crimes. You don't need either to hunt non-humans.

There is a point in which you can feasibly evaluate every gun owner. Testing everyone every year with a safety and psych eval? That just isn't feasible. Too much money, too much paperwork.

[ElCrema]

You can't tackle a gun discussion in the US with logic and estatistics only.
Imo there is much more of cultural and historical factors than practical ones when it comes to gun ownership in the US. North-americans have a slight different notion of freedom, liberty and democracy than then rest of us. These notions are closed link with the War for Independence and their Constitution. The right to bear arms is among a set of values that had been passed from generation to generation and are very dear to them, they are what ultimately define them as nation.
Possession of firearms in the US have to do much more with defending and ideal, a way of life than anything else.

[#M|A#Wolf]

Instead of banning, what I'd do is restrict the kinds of weapons a civilian can have in their home/can acquire legally, and raise the bar for consequences if someone doesn't abide the rules.

[RCJD]

Acquiring a gun in USA legally is not difficult.

Yes, the liberty to own weapons is something many Americans value... however, even if they were for good intentions such as personal defence... having that kind of powerful tool available to the public is dangerous.

[Vermi]

legalize weed

Come on!

[MorganKell]

DO EEEEEETT. ;). If I had any say in it I'd recommend the death penalty.

Oh and don't ban guns just have public executions. Criminals and or psychos will get the idea real quick. Granted you might not be able to stop some psychos but they'll kill no matter what the weapon. Least the idea that there is a very painful death awaiting them may provide some deterrent. ;)

[Sepehr]

My condolences go to the families and friends of whom were killed in action.
Consider a knife, you can cut fruits with it or kill people using it. It's up to you and you're free to choose which way to go!

[#M|A#Wolf]

Consider a knife, you can cut fruits with it or kill people using it.

That's the point. In having guns their only purpose is to to wound/kill, no fruit cutting :(

[DES|Anderson]

I hear what you are all saying but just one technical point, you can cut fruit with a gun although its not recomended.

[Hellspell]

Ban murderers