Oh, and contrary to BlindOrStupid's claims (about liberal/socialist policy and crime rates)

In the US from '90-'99 the homocide rate fell from 9.4 to 5.7 - i still don't know anything about the causation, and compared with the UK ( ~1.1 - 1.45 in the same time ~ again homicides per 100,000) you can see one thing clearly.

The idea in SOME people's heads that crime rates are increasing is false. They are listening to lies. Perhaps there is money to be made from this fear... At least if guns are for sale :)

'I believe that any law regulating/prohibiting gun ownership by type is inherently unconstitutional. I understand that no right is unlimited. Therefore, there must be reasonable laws at the state level that prevent criminals or the insane from owning firearms' - and i believe your constitution is fundamentally flawed... Or at least out of date. But forgetting that for a moment.

Do you think a reasonable law would NOT give the federal government the power to control your firearms, but would instead retain that power locally?

I know some town sheriffs are elected, make gun control a very local issue and ... Well it might not be constitutional, but would it be acceptable and democratic - in your mind??

Oh, and in case you don't trust wikipedia - this link wouldn't work on my phone but i'm sure someone will find it interesting: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&met_y=intentional_homicides

For the average intelligence American citizen guns are good, isn't this the problem. There is not enough intelligence to actually understand how you could live in a society without easy access to almost any sort of gun. This is what you're dealing with here, thick stupid ignorant people, you can change the constitution reasonably quickly but to change the gun culture could take trillions of dollars in education, money that the bankrupt U.S. just doesn't have. I would urge U.S. voters to start voting for intelligent people to run their country, not people who can buy more flags and red white & blue ticker tape for their political rallies.
Keep your celebrities in Hollywood and your academics in govt. Too many idiots in positions of power.
For individuals ask yourself this simple question 'Do I think guns are a good thing?', if the answer is yes you're part of the problem not part of the solution. In this situation best not to breed just in case you pass down your pig ignorance to your kids.

LOL! Realy? You think the Constitution can be chanhed reasonably quickly? You know nothing about what is record to not only pass an amendment but to have it ratified by the states. Takes years, even decades.

Plain and simple, this is a numbers game. And sadly, in the hands of your average civilian, guns breed more criminals than heroes. Those who can't see that are naive. People like krellin might think they could do something with that gun, but when push comes to shove he is getting capped just like the rest of us who don't care to own guns.

God, I love this thread.

@Jacob - Do you have any stats to back up that statement? You know, something that shows legally bought handguns are used by their owners to commit violent crimes more than stolen or blackmarket guns?

That isn't my assertion. Rather, that guns, legally bought or not, are used to commit violent crimes more than they are used to prevent them or save lives.

And how does banning legal guns eliminate the blackmarket?

'Do I think guns are a good thing?'

No, I don't think guns are a good thing. But, unfortunately, that Genie cannot be put back into the bottle. I don't any implements of death and destruction are "good" and I wish people didn't steal from other, didn't assault others, and didn't kill others (or themselves). But, unfortunately, that is not the world that we live in.

In a world fraught with life threatening dangers, people need tools to defend themselves from those dangers. The vast majority of gun owners don't ever want to be put into a position in which they have to use their guns -- despite what you may think. Their gun ownership abides by the Boy Scouts of America's motto, "Be Prepared." Further, most adhere to the notion that "it is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."

Can anyone possibly deny the fact that there are, in fact, situations in which one's own life, or the life of their family is at risk? Are those people simply out of luck? Are they supposed to simply accept their victimhood without a fight? Millions of crimes are thwarted every year by armed citizens -- most don't even require actually firing the gun, simply brandishing it is sufficient. Again, are you advocating to deny these people the right of self-defense?

Criminals looking for victims are very unlikely to target those people that they know, or even suspect, are armed. Thieves, rapists, and murderers are opportunists who, for the most part, have a strong sense of self-preservation -- despite how Hollywood portrays criminals, they're not looking for a fight, they're looking for easy victims.

The statistics are quite clear that in states a well armed population, like my home Texas, there are FAR few home invasions, than in places where there are strict gun control laws like the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands. Criminals are emboldened by a disarmed. They know the time it takes the police to arrive will afford them an easy window of time to complete their crime, and they know that they're not going to meet any armed resistance.

I agree with the fact that shootings like the one that just occurred in CO are tragic. But, there is FAR more at play in this, and other cases like it, than simply access to guns. There is a thriving black market for guns where convicted felons, who aren't allowed to purchase guns lawfully, and those that don't want a gun to be registered or traced to them, can buy anything they want. My point is that someone that is willing to do what this guy allegedly did, wouldn't necessarily be deterred by the laws. Even if he, a formerly law abiding citizen would be, already hardened criminal won't be.

I know you guys think the solution is simple, and I know you guys like to disparage Americans. But I think you're wrong. I think most Americans, even the pro-gun sectors, are HORRIFIED by these incidents. The difference is, the anti-gun people say ban then all and this will never happen again. I see their point, but I disagree. Personally, I think that if there were armed citizen in that theater that night that whack job a) wouldn't have gotten off more than a few shots; and b) would be among the dead himself -- which is where he belongs.

Until such time as deadly force is NEVER used against another human being, NOBODY has the right to take away another human being's right to defend himself against such force.

@jacob, you cannot lump "legally" purchased firearms, and "illegally" purchased firearms into the same group. The stats are very clear, the vast majority of "violent crimes" that are committed with guns are committed with illegally purchased of stolen guns. By contrast, MILLIONS of legally purchased firearms are used every year to prevent crime. Furthermore, the number of crimes that aren't even attempted because the would be perp is afraid that the victim is, or could, armed cannot be estimated. Even the anti-fun Clinton Justice Department admitted that guns are used approximately 1.5 millions times in the U.S. every year in lawful self defense. There is no way that legal guns are used to commit 1.5 million violent crimes every year by their lawful owner.

1. Millions of crimes are thwarted every year? Millions? Yeah? Show me those statistics.

2. This black market issue is purely inane. Of course it would exist; it exists now. But if you're proposing that home-invaders and the like are going to go to the black market simply to rob you...come on. You posit opportunism, then suggest forethought and intent. Doesn't coalesce.

3. How have you refuted my previous post with this massive pro-guns diatribe? Basically, my only argument, is that for every gun placed in a civilian's hand, there is an unequal rise in criminals to heroes. Who's to say there wasn't a gun in that Colorado theater? Is it to be assumed that if someone had a gun, they would have stopped him? Again, naive.

@MichiganMan, can you back up any of your claims with actual statistics?

I've already shown that there is a lot of misinformation out there. BlindOrStupid seems to think liberal policies have caused an increase in crimes, when the stats actually show a reduction in the homicide rate and the gun crime rate in the US.

I can't show this has anything to do with liberal policies (or an other policies) but you hvae claimed that at least one coorelation exists between home invasion and gun ownership.

Do you have any data to back this claim up, or should i assume it is propoganda?

This is the only thing i've found which may actually help : http://t.co/pyheZnzB

Time to mute krellin. There is a saying in Cantonese, "idiots cannot be cured", I think his case is terminal.

Many of the guns you can purchase legally are, excuse the pun, overkill for self defense. I never hear anyone crying the guns for self defense line agreeing to make everything illegal except for a few low cal guns with small rounds. If they really are for self defense, then make them less capable of mowing down dozens of people.

This is a debate America needs to have, but without the "hysterical" nonsense from both sides---
The right to bear arms as part of your Constitution is the result of the situation that prevailed in the 1770's when the Colonies fought for Freedom from British rule, and the view that a well armed population prevents the rise of a totalitarian state & in the 1770's "mind set" that was a corrupt Monarch with absolute power.

The modern reality is that no "well armed group of American citizen's" could resist the force available to US Government today.

The "technology" of modern guns has moved well beyond what was even imaginable in the 1770's

This chap responsible for the latest mass shooting had apparently purchased approx 6,000 rounds of amunition online

Good luck to anyone who wants to argue that "self defense" , or "sports shooting" requires an ability to purchase that sort of quantity of ammunition without any checks
or restrictions.

I have a personal view that if you need an "assault rifle" eg M16 to "bring down" big game, eg reindeer, etc as opposed to a simple .303 bolt action rifle then you cannot bloody shoot & for close action a 410 shotgun --- an old favourite with English poachers is all you need.

Gun Collectors are a whole separate group, I use the example of a "Military History
enthusiast" yes he can have a WW1 machine gun in his collection, but does it significantly effect the "Historical value" of that as a "display piece" if he is required to have "disabled" the weapon ?

It's a very complex issue-- so simple populist and innacurate claims from parties or individuals do not help

Separate the "gun owning groups" by purpose eg
1 hangun owners owning handguns for self and home defense

2 sports shooters -- allow them to have guns appropriate to the intended use

3 Gun collectors -- who have an interest in Historical weapons -- have appropriate controls--- single shot, black powder muskets ( no rifling in barrel ) are not the same as a WW1 or WW2 vintage machine gun, so an intelligent and sophisticated approach would treat them differently

jacobcfries makes a valid point, if other persons in that theatre audience had handguns and engaged the idiot, who is to say that they would not have shot, in the confusion, other innocent bystanders---vigilantes have an appalling record for hitting the wrong target and doing more harm than good.

dare I suggest that if online purchases of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition would be automatically reported to say, the FBI, then maybe the authorities would have acted earlier and in a proactive way prevented the latest tragedy

However the various interest groups want to use this, they cannot argue that the "current system" is working just "fine & dandy"

Another discussion Americans should also consider is "How do we enable and manage Constitutional change ? "
The idea that an unchanging Constitution can always remain relevant defies logic

As an example, we had to have a referendum that required majority support in a majority of States to recognise Aboriginals as Australian citizens entitled to vote.

The good thing is you are able to have this public debate, so I encourage it,
the citizens of many other nations cannot speak out publicly
America may have many faults, but it also has some great Virtues & Strengths
& if we waited for a "perfect operating environment" before acting, Nothing would ever get done.

+1

If you pay attention to the news you would also know that the man was wearing full swat gear including a throat guard and nothing short of armor piercing rounds could have taken him down. Who might I ask in the theatre audience would have been carrying a high caliber weapon with those rounds? Any and all vigilante attacks on him would have done nothing but added more chaos to what was happening. I'm not saying rushing him wouldnt have worked but shooting would have been a terrible mistake.

One instance of one guy with body armor. Anecdotal evidence. So this case wouldn't have had the outcome change unless somebody went for a kill shot to the head. But most cases due change when the criminal discovers he isn't the only one with a gun.

I think you'll find when they wrote the Constitution 'it was the right to BARE arms', it was a fashion statement, not a right to purchase dangerous weapons.......

@Jacob- Home invasions are oppprtunistic *and* planned. The criminals buy their guns on through blackmarket then use them to commit multiple home imvasions of places theu have cased and know the owners to be soft and weak.

Argh, what a stupid first post...
When the Utoya accident happened, I thought 'Well, maybe an American will take the chance to say "See? Even in Norway they shoot..!"'. I am not happy I was right.

In the rest of the world (not in war-like zones), the ban has meant a decrease in this kind of incident. We cannot stopping criminals to be criminals (thus, even in Norway accidents or shootings happen), but they have been confined: if you try to obtain something DESIGNED to be harmful, well you are a criminal. And this marks a dividing line between who is a criminal and who is not, giving guns only to who wants to harm people (no more cases like "Oops, I wanted to defend myself and I exaggerated, but sure this thing is powerful, wow!")

Want to know the results? If I go mad in Europe, I can slaughter someone with a knife, (three? five? it's not that easy to use a knife effectively, and people are supposed to run away after the first death). If I am American, it's easy: I grab my gun and shoot. Easy.

The real question - why a lot of Americans think having a gun is a right (1789? LOL... There's no more need of an armed militia against England...) - is obviously related to other things, there is who understands it and who doesn't. No need to specify it, I hope.

(yes, I am European and I'm writing of USA! If you want, you can start a thread about what doesn't work in Europe... I have nothing against it! :D)

@ MajorMitchell

"The "technology" of modern guns has moved well beyond what was even imaginable in the 1770's"

So has the ferocity of criminals. In the 1770s, the average British redcoat wasn't high on PCP and God knows what else. Today's muggers, rapists, and home invaders are. The Second Amendment has actually come full circle and become completely relevant. If the Founding Fathers saw today's society, they would totally argue that all law-abiding citizens should be armed.

"Good luck to anyone who wants to argue that "self defense" , or "sports shooting" requires an ability to purchase that sort of quantity of ammunition without any checks
or restrictions."

What about someone who just likes to shoot? I could say "Guns don't kill people" all day, but the fact is that ammunition REALLY doesn't kill people. Ammunition is not dangerous at all unless you own a gun, which I would not oppose background checks for.

"I have a personal view that if you need an "assault rifle" eg M16 to "bring down" big game, eg reindeer, etc as opposed to a simple .303 bolt action rifle then you cannot bloody shoot & for close action a 410 shotgun --- an old favourite with English poachers is all you need."

I agree with you on that. Taking larger game with a semi-automatic rifle is completely unfair. And it would be fairly cruel to take any large game with a lighter round like 5.56x45mm. However, it is fair to take a home invader with 5.56.

@ Yonni

"Many of the guns you can purchase legally are, excuse the pun, overkill for self defense. I never hear anyone crying the guns for self defense line agreeing to make everything illegal except for a few low cal guns with small rounds. If they really are for self defense, then make them less capable of mowing down dozens of people."

That's because lighter caliber guns don't kill people that well. You're not going to stop a home invader or rapist with a .22LR. You WILL stop a home invader with .45 ACP or 7.62x51mm.

I own a selective-fire USGI M14 with a Sage stock. The magazine holds 20 rounds (It can also accept Beta magazines, which would give it a much larger capacity). But I'm not going to mow down large groups of people because I have proven to the proper officials that I am sane, competent, and qualified to own an automatic weapon.

GERMANY - Strict gun laws...and YET....

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16120519,00.html

Suck on that...

Germany - Strict gun laws - 1.57 firearm-related death rate per 100K
England - Strict gun laws - 0.46 firearm-related deaths per 100K
USA - No strict gun laws - 10.27 firearm related deaths per 100K

School shootings in Germany.....with strict gun laws. Let's keep this to the public massacre realm. The 10.27 shootings in US....most of these are gang related, criminal-on-criminal...and frankly I don't give a shit about those. The topic of the day is mass murder.

You can't really compare Germany, England and the USA. The culture and the people are completely different. Inner city USA is like a war zone. We would have the Tottenham riots every day if our police were like in Britain and were reluctant to restore order.

Not saying nutjobs should get guns... just that a straight statistical analysis is comparing apples to oranges.