I'm just looking at both sides of the issue. It's easy to get emotional about this, I did. Personally, I'd rather have someone sitting in the theater, school, etc. that is armed. Tough issue.
Example from the Aurora shooting:
"So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.
Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance."
Strongly suggest you read the article on Salon dotcom "The answer is not more guns..."
- Fred Rivara, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington, added in an email: “There is no data supporting his argument that the further arming of citizens will lessen the death toll in massacres like the one this week in Connecticut. There are in fact rigorous scientific data showing that having a gun in the home INCREASES the risk of violent death in the home.”
- Researchers at Harvard have conducted numerous studies comparing data across states and countries with different gun laws and concluded, quite simply, “Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.”
- Colin Goddard, who became an advocate with the Brady Campaign after getting shot multiple times at the Virginia Tech shooting, put it another way: “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?” ... etc...
I can see both sides here Musk. I think a lot of this gets down to data mining. I think the facts do show that violent crime and murder rates have dropped in the US since 1990 while gun ownership has gone up.
The Glock book(Glock: The Rise of Americas Gun by: Paul M. Barrett) by has a lot of stats in it regarding these issues.
I have no position on overall gun control. Talking to some of my relatives down in Texas, they and others in their area will say "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will carry guns". There's actually some sense to that, I think. I looked at a website called justfacts....maybe you can google Gun Control - Just Facts and they have some pretty impressive graphs showing how gun violence has gone down in some places when gun bans are lifted. This would suggest that guns can be a defensive deterrent. I know nothing much of the website or whether they've disguised the facts, so I'm not taking what they say at face value, though on the face of it, the website information looks real. Could be cherry picked.
Having said that, here are the caveats. No matter what the justification for defensive weapons, it's hard to see justification for offensive or war type weapons in the general public.
They didn't have any guns in that situation. I'll have to read up, but I think that he was the only one with a gun. I seem to remember it as being ironic that none of these military people were carrying guns. I could be wrong. I will have to fact check this one.