. Yes, I'm not in favour of a total ban, so there we do disagree. I think hunting, sport shooting or military training are understandable hobbies or reasons (with the last one). — ssu

I'm using the term loosely: there are many ways to restrict guns that don't involve preventing hunters and sports shooters from practicing their hobbies.

For instance, I believe several Australian states require guns for such uses be locked up after use at a club or some other third-party facility set up for that purpose. Obviously this prevents mentally deranged people from stockpiling weapons for mass murder. So this is not an insuperable problem.

There is call once again for firearms to be allowed in class rooms and how to handle that. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What could possibly go wrong?

I don't see (R) or (D) when it comes to an infringement on the rights of an American citizen. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's a mistake. That's why so many Republicans get elected and infringe on our rights.

I need a (sequitur) non-sequitur song about now: — Mayor of Simpleton

God help me, but I love that song.

Residing in Maricopa County, AZ we are protected by the Maricopa County Sheriff Officers, who is led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Here is what he wants us, as private citizens, to do with our firearms.

“My goal of utilizing 250,000 citizens armed with concealed weapons is to stop the carnage, stop the killing before cops arrive,” said Sheriff Arpaio in a video posted to social media.

The sheriff’s goal of getting 250,000 armed citizens would be just under 10 percent of the Valley's population.

Many gun owners agree that more armed citizens might be the answer.

From the top down... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What could possibly go wrong with a brilliant plan like this?

I agree for the most part. I don't think they're always fetish objects. Guns are a great equalizer for those of diminutive stature. However, they become a great un-equalizer when someone grabs an AK-47 and starts shooting up a public space.
It becomes a trade off. Do we think that the protection of people in private or public settings is more necessary/more important?I think it should probably be the latter. — ProbablyTrue

As I've said, there's no doubt most gun owners in the US just have them in their closet somewhere and don't give them a second thought. It's that small percentage who are fixated on firearms (and small is a relative term), that is a constant threat to our public space. Nor is it a coincidence that gun activism is associated with ugly political themes like white supremacy, xenophobia, violence against women, and so forth. So there is a bigger issue here in which guns are the focal point.

Keeping a sword or machete at one's bedside would probably be an effective and possibly safer alternative if one felt the need for home protection. Banning guns outright is likely an impossibility at the moment. That's why I support incremental changes to the law to make it more and more inconvenient to obtain them. This would at the very least deter spur of the moment homicidal maniacs.

A baseball bat next to your bed is probably the most effective melee weapon for home protection in the world. And they only cost about 50 bucks.

I don't doubt that a ban is politically impossible in the current environment. But that is always true of any progress at any time when there is no leadership. Transformational political leaders, like FDR make the impossible possible. The first step for getting a ban is calling for it.

People will of course say that if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. That would be true for a time. However, I think the long-term benefits would outweigh the risks

Ironically perhaps, the fact that only criminals would have guns is exactly the point, unbeknownst to the activists who use that slogan. Because it would be illegal to own a gun, we would know that the people who are caught with them are in fact criminals intending harm, and we could sentence them to prison without waiting for them to kill or injure somebody. When the bad guys own something that law-biding citizens don't, it's easier to identify the bad guys, especially since bad guys tend to get in other trouble with law enforcement for other reasons, allowing for searches, and hence arrest for gun possession.

That's why the ban on bombs is so effective - the only people who would possible possess a bomb are criminals planning to use it. So the slogan can be changed to if you criminalize explosives only criminals will have explosives. Yep. We did that and it works.

John, you might be right if the populations compared were very similar. I just saw a report that tried to compare Honduras to Switzerland in terms of gun ownership versus fatalities. See rebuttal here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp — Cavacava

The meme analyzed by Snopes is typical of the misuse of statistics and outright lies propagated by the NRA and similar organizations.

The fact that deceptive graphs, statistics, memes is the stock and trade of gun activism is telling as to how totally ideological it is, even as it constantly pretends to be factual and unemotional (mostly via projection as we've seen on this very thread)

I don't disagree with you entirely. I think at the very least the US needs to start making it more difficult for people to own them; e.g., permit courses, long hold periods, psychological tests, etc.. Unfortunately the NRA fights every little battle as if it's the whole war, which effectively stalls most reasonable gun legislation. In a way I suppose it is the whole war since it's incremental changes that are going to eventually change the culture.

I do sympathize with people who use a gun(s) for home protection. Especially those who live in less urbanized areas where wait times for police would be unreasonably high. I personally have a handgun in my home that I would be glad to have if my front door was kicked by the Manson family or would-be burglars at 4 in the morning.
Is that likely to happen? Burglars, maybe; Manson family, extremely unlikely. It doesn't take much perceived risk for people to want to hedge their bets though. — ProbablyTrue

Like I say, I don't think guns are very interesting or useful tools (except for committing mass murder and occasional hunting). Young adult males get all thrilled about them, and then most of them grow up and move on. Guns are noisy and expensive.

So it isn't guns per se, but gun culture that is problematic.

But I'm afraid we can never extirpate gun culture without banning guns. Guns are fetish objects for the weak-minded, who see them as the only way to grasp male power that they can't get by any other means. So I'm for banning them. Gun bans really do put an end to gun massacres.

As to home protection, unless someone trains constantly and is always at the ready, an armed intruder is going to shoot you dead before you even have time to load. And if it's in the middle of night, the likelihood that a person will have the presence of mind to get out of bed, get his gun, load it, and take down an intruder - in the dark - is somewhat fanciful. It happens but more often the guy shoots uncle Fred getting a midnight snack.

In any case, let me suggest that if people truly feel so insecure that they think their homes will be invaded by marauding criminals, they should be doing more to build a viable, just, safe democracy than arming themselves. Something is profoundly wrong with that society, and guns won't solve it. Though like you I'm sympathetic with people who just feel scared and want to protect themselves. But what does that say about the failure of our system?

Nonsense a population of a few million people is plenty big enough to assess average trends. — John

No, it's not. But I won't get in your way of using bad statistical analysis. It's something of a gun nut tradition.

It's like comparing the Greek economy to the US economy, another rightwing trope

On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel. — photographer

Too late, photographer. They already started one.
http://www.guntalk.tv/site88.php

Interestingly the US and Belgium, being the only countries with permissive gun laws are bang in the middle when it comes to both Rampage Shooting Incidents and Fatalities per capita.

I can't imagine what you think it is that the US is winning, but this data seems to do nothing to support your contentions. — John

This is poor analysis. You have to compare big countries with big countries. Big samples are very different from small samples when it comes to regularities and prediction. Small numbers are subject to being easily skewed by irrelevant or unpredictable events. This is Statistics 101.

Compare the US with China, Russia, Germany, Britain, France - we're winning the gun massacre competition hands down. Thanks NRA and thank the NRA's mathematically illiterate defenders.

↪Baden Paul Ryan is trying to strike a balance between not reacting emotionally to what the gun control advocates use as their platform, the crisis of the moment, BEFORE it is even over. As soon as a gun is known to be involved, they latch on to tightening gun rights.
In voting down the bill, that would paint with a VERY broad brush, that if someone is on a No Fly List that they should also be banned from purchasing or possessing a firearm would violate American citizens Constitutional right to do so.
Simply based upon the unconstitutional foundation in which the No Fly list was compiled. Tens of thousands of people are on the No Fly List but for the American citizen, they are promised due process and suspicion does not satisfy the governments right to infringe on your individual rights. There are many, MANY people that should never have been put on the No Fly List and that is a nightmare to try to challenge but to sweepingly take away a individuals Constitutional right would be illegal. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh, yeah, Ryan has a cool head and uses soothing conservative rhetoric in facing crises.

Jeez, once you believe in gun culture, you can believe ANYTHING!

By the way, conservative Republicans called for and got the No Fly list, but don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

For what it's worth:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
— Mayor of Simpleton

Might I add that no guns where harmed in these shooting.

Looks like America is winning again! Thanks NRA for keeping the US exceptional!

There is a particular community that exudes the characteristics that you are mocking, Landru. However, the majority of gun owners(in my experience) don't fall into that category. The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. It is not so perfectly black and white as you portray it. — ProbablyTrue

Of course you are correct about many people owning guns and not being nuts. Most people who own guns just have them sitting in their closet, where they will never use them and where if they tried to use they would likely shoot their foot or their uncle Fred getting a midnight snack (that happens with frightful regularity but it isn't some looming threat). Some people own guns to hunt (though very few). I owned guns in my salad days, not knowing any better. I don't really have strong feelings about guns. They're not very interesting or useful. I have strong feelings about the danger of gun culture, which is undeniable.

So, the issue is should the rights of people to casually own guns trump the danger guns pose for society by empowering the weirdo cadre of gun fetishist who seem to have a propensity of going out engaging in mass killings.

If your position is yes, we profoundly disagree.

Now before we start controlling bow and arrows, let's remember that primitive bow and arrows can be found and forged from elements of the earth, the world over. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, let's ban guns and keep bows and arrows. You just argued that they're as deadly as guns so you shouldn't mind. Stock up on bows and arrows.

Ah the absurdity of a mind on gun culture.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Landru. Landru, an omniscient computer on the planet Beta III, had a near-tyrannical hold on Beta III's people until Captain Kirk put a stop to it. This is the way Landru wished to represent himself. Apparently Kirk wasn't quite as successful as he thought. Landru escaped from Kirk through an unguarded TV screen back in the 1960s. Just walked out of the screen into a state college dorm TV room and took over. A generation of leftist students was the result. There was infiltration and subversion. There were sexual outrages on campus. Lesbian separatists performing unspeakable acts on the Quad (It was quickly paved over -- literally - to contain the sacrilege. Sodomy in the stacks. Buggery back stage. Je suis l'homme -- well never mind. — Bitter Crank

I'm trying to guide them, but like Kirk, they won't listen

Feel free to discuss this with the local troll, who actually has already earlier on the thread stated that Australia has a ban on guns and that this ban has successfully ended mass shootings. Your opinion will put you in the gun-nut, right-wing meme & drinking Kool-Aid section. — ssu

Once you call out a gun fetishist, all he can do is sputter and blubber.

As I pointed out the NFA is effectively a ban. John is being disingenuous. But you and he can work it out. I bet if someone in Finland proposed an NFA you'd go all gun nut and say your rights are being infringed. It's what gun nuts do.

It's kind of funny that you're agreeing with John and don't have any idea what the NFA does. But than factual awareness is not a strong point of gun culture.

Those who want to inflict harm and kill will always find ways to do so. Mass shootings constitute a tiny percentage of total gun deaths. — John

The sense here is either counterfactual or irrelevant, depending on what you mean.

In fact those who want to inflict harm don't always find a way. They find guns. Guns are a really effective way to kill large numbers of people. Knives and baseball bats aren't (Now watch ssu stupidly cite Rwanda, which involves a huge gang not a lone killer -- wait he already did).

In any case, I already said that gun violence is unique. It destroys public space. Banning guns ends gun violence. The UK and Australia ban show that. End of story.

Will it stop a greedy nephew from murdering Auntie Jane for her money? No. But that's not what were talking about so if this is your meaning you're distracting.

I am not against tighter gun laws for the US. Here in Australia weapons are required to be registered, but citizens may still own them, even semi-automatic weapons. Tasmanian has the highest gun ownership, with, according to Wiki, 1 gun per 4 people. The Northern Territory is second with 1 gun per five. The problem is there is not a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.

You're being disingenuous. The Australia National Firearms Agreement banned what we would call assault rifles, except special cases, and those cases are very restricted. It banned the importation of such weapons, and parts, suchs a banana magazines. It bought back 20% of the guns in Australia, the equivalent of 40M in the US. If required gun owners to have standardized security for the guns, and required licensing with an ID. In short, it was close to a ban.

So why are you being disingenuous?

The UK has an absolute ban. Since it did so, it has had no gun massacres. Neither has Australia since the Port Arthur massacre resulted in the NFA. Neither has Ireland. Neither has Japan.

Conclusions gun bans work to stop gun massacres. Anybody who says otherwise is just a gun nut.

Does a gun ban stop all crime. Of course not. Nothing does. Crime is a complex social phenomenon. Gun massacres aren't. They're easy to stop: ban guns.

Given the US has always been a 'society of the gun', I think a nuanced approach will be needed there, not an hysterically extreme 'black and white' approach; which you seem to be advocating.

I love it when gun nuts project and talk about bans as hysterical.

I tell you what, go to a gun forum and propose the NFA, and see who acts hysterically. Gun nuts are weird people

There are more possibilities than two, however. Most gun owners are not "militarized" -- and even those who are are no more militarized than our present day police force ;). Owning one's violence does not mean that you are militarized, either. It means that your choices to use violence are closer to home and harder to forget. I certainly don't call the police to my house.

What you present here is a false dichotomy, and not merely in some hypothetical sense. Gun ownership and usage is not an attack on public space or democracy. Many people own weapons without the fetishism you're targeting.

In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.

I've agreed to your first sentence, though I don't agree with the latter. — Moliere

I'm simply following the logic of gun advocates, and it leads to forcing citizens to militarize.

If the proposed way to fight crime is to carry a gun and to be primed to use it at all times in a public space, you have essentially forced every citizen to militarize. And you have essentially destroyed the commons.

So my point is the proposition that an armed society is a polite society is exactly the reverse of the truth (which is the general strategy of conservative rhetoric). An armed society is a hostile, militarized, alienated society where might makes right and community is destroyed. This of course is the conservative agenda.

Just for the record: I live in Arizona and the law allows individuals, to legally carry a concealed weapon, without a permit.
However there are in fact individuals who have lost their right to own a firearm. I am one of those people because as long as I am a Legal Medical Cannabis patient and Cannabis is still against the Federal Law, the gun dealer would have to decline the sale of a firearm to me, because in the Federal Governments eyes, Cannabis consumption is against the law and they cannot sell to someone they know is breaking the law. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Begging the question: Why? Why limit gun ownership and possession one case and not another?

If gun advocates really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow us to limit guns in all sorts of reasonable ways, then they have to admit that it doesnt allow us to limit guns in all sorts of unreasonable ways.

A true gun advocate should argue that passengers on planes and courtroom observers, not to mention imprisoned criminals should be allowed to own and possess guns.

Fact is the 2nd Amendment is just like any other Constitutional right - subject to balancing. But you wouldn't know that from the virulence of the gun fetish advocates.

Yep. Your just an internet troll.

No reason to respond to you. — ssu

You just did.

Meanwhile, not a single post by the gun advocates here is anything other than debunked NRA memes. NEXT DEBUNKED RIGHTWING MEME!

Try sometimes a new thing, Landru, read what the others actually write. — ssu

I prefer to deal with your gun fetish cliches as cliches

I haven't mentioned explosives at all, but hand saws and Caustic Soda; both of which are freely available for purchase. — John

Then your point is even more attenuated. If you think that a guy with a saw and lye can cause as much death as a man with a gun, then you shouldn't mind banning guns. Arm yourself with lye and saws -- I hear they're just as deadly as guns. NOT!

But the proof's in the pudding: gun nuts use guns. It probably has something to do with how deadly they are even for unskilled dolts who worship guns. I suspect most people can run away from a man with a saw carrying ten kilos of caustic substances.

Landru, how much damage do you think a skillful maniac could do with a carpenter's hand saw, or a ten litre tub of premixed Caustic Soda in a crowded mall, before being apprehended? — John

Fortunately gun nuts aren't skillful maniacs -- that's why they use guns. And that's why we need to ban them.

But thanks for pointing out that explosive are dangerous, which is why we regulate them and the purchase of their constituent parts.

Here's a concept: you can buy an assault weapon at a gun store; you can't buy a explosive device at an explosive store. So if you're suggesting we should make it just as hard to buy a gun as to buy explosives, I'm with you. But you're not of course. You're just excusing gun violence by making an invidious comparison to dangerous devices gun nuts don't use because they're hard to use and because nothing excites a gun nut more than killing people with a firearm. Pretty lame.

That's a bit too far of an exaggeration, Landru. I'd just highlight here the point I made awhile back that you can't somehow escape violence in our society -- even if you prefer to delegate violence out. I'll note that in spite of the difficulties surrounding weapon ownership I still prefer to own weapons, and keep it that way. — Moliere

There's a difference between a society with a police force and a militarized society where everybody is primed to engage in gun violence. One difference is that the latter consistently suffers from gun massacres and their public space is eroded. Which of course is the goal of the gun fetishists. Their attack is really on the notion of democracy and a public realm.

In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.

Well, you simply don't get the point that people are trying tell you, so whatever, Landru.

Besides, The most likely people that end up having accidents with guns or shooting people have other difficulties in their own life. People that have mental problems, excessive moods swings and are extremely impulsive really don't make good gunowners. Now can this be done away with feasability exams, having to go to the doctor to get an OK pass for to get a gun licence? It's problematic, but sure, to make it really an effort to buy a gun will put off many people. Yet any system won't work optimally: some will really be treated unfairly and some who shouldn't get guns will obtain them. Then of course there is the question of a black market. How easy is that when the country is already filled up with guns? — ssu

Your argument reduces to a claim that gun restrictions can't be perfect; therefore why have them? Do I really need to rebut sophistry like that?

Let me help: Guns are dangerous instruments designed to kill people. People who think they need guns to go about in society are thinking about killing people. They are not to be trusted and normal citizen (like myself) have a right to be protected against these goofballs. Therefore, guns should be banned and then we can arrest the people who violate the ban knowing they are intent on killing people, before they actually kill people.

It's that simple. Works in the UK and Australia.

The indisputable fact is, if you scratch a gun advocate, you'll find a person who really wants to kill somebody.

Answer: C. A brain with a gun fetish and a gun

Insecure people tend to be violent, not prudent. That why they're so whacked out they need guns to buy coffee at Starbuck's

You might want to hold your fire, so to speak. The "armed polite society" was most certainly at play in this shooting, you are just choosing to focus on those with an agenda, to harm innocent people using firearms AND explosives in this case.
Where is your call for laws against fireworks where enough explosives can be extracted from to cause mass casualties?
Where is your call for every remote controlled toy car to be destroyed because it was going to be used as tripping device on the explosives?
The firearm is easy for you to rail against because it cannot rail back. How about looking at the people behind the firearms first? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh, dear, this gun fetish meme.

Fireworks are probably more regulated than guns in the US. In any case, if you think fireworks are such great weapons you shouldn't mind a gun ban - buy fireworks. I've notice most mass killers don't use fireworks; they use guns - I wonder why?

Of course, fireworks have utility beyond killing people. Guns are designed to kill people.

Now, lets all wait for the next gun meme, maybe something about how cars kill people.

I assume that when people talk here about armed society they think of a society where people carry arms for their personal protection basically against other members of the society. The politeness is then more like prudence or simply or caution. It's common sense not to start picking a fight with somebody who is armed. — ssu

More gun porn fantasies. As if people so insecure that they need to carry guns to a Starbucks are likely to act "prudently".

Looks like the armed polite people have struck again, killing 14 in California in another gun massacre.

I'm glad they didn't have knives!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?_r=0

Legislation made on an emotional basis without any consultation of those who actually the law effects is simply bad legislation in my view. Yes, lobby groups of gun owners or shooting sport association might find restrictions bad, but at least there should be some rationality. And when the objections to gun restrictions are made by both the interior minister and the defence minister, their argumentation isn't about gun owners rights, really. — ssu

If you look under "Projection" in the encyclopedia of Psychology, you'll find excerpts of gun nuts claiming gun control advocates are too emotional

So it is with cold weapons, Landru the Chairfighter.

From exactly the same site that you took the parking dispute gone bad news: Police: Man stabbed to death for taking last piece of chicken. That's what happens when cold weapons are in everybody's reach. — ssu

If that were true then you shouldn't mind guns being banned, since you can cling to "cold weapons" just as desperately.

But of course you're talking nonsense. It's really hard to bludgeon or stab a man to death, not to mention several men, and they can always run away (as this guy probably could have if only a knife were involved). And of course most people survive stab wounds. In contrast it's relatively easy to pull a trigger and kill a man . . . or two . . . or three.

So this is another counterfactual and bad faith argument from the gun nut chorus.

By the way, love the chair fighter reference. I can easily beat a guy with a knife if I have a chair. If the guy has a gun, not so much. But continue with your gun porn. It's a disease.

An armed society is a polite society, as long as there are no parking disputes

For a country that isn't in NATO, has mandatory conscription and the defence forces' deterrence comes basically from the large reserve force, it's a totally reasonable argument. Totally reasonable when basically every tenth Finnish male is a reservist (and more are in the secondary reserve, at the largest you are talking about 900 000 people out of 5+ million people).

Actually so reasonable that Finland officially had it, the training of reservists, as the main reason why they have problems with the EU's proposal.

I'm wondering just who has the new lows for nut arguments here, because I'm not sure that you are even replying to what I'm writing about. — ssu

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't care what Finland does. But if you think you're going to hold off Russia with hand guns, I think you would feel at home in some whacky rightwing militia in the US.

There isn't an "ugly incident" here about once a week, and there definately isn't a terrorist attack every week, so you remark is off base. But tightening of gun control does happen systematically when there is a media frenzy about something. Those events happen more rarely than once a year or two. — ssu

Yes, there is in fact a mass gun killing about once a week in the US. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But we have mass killings every week. It doesn't have to be a Columbine to be a mass killing.

As to terrorism, it's almost always carried out with guns.

So my offer stands, let's ban guns and you can feel save clinging to your knife. It doesn't bother me, so I'm perplexed why you're trying to argue that I should be more worried about knives than guns. If you're sure knives are so effective, you shouldn't care if we ban guns.

Furthermore, what is the logic that if there is a terrorist attack in France (with actually the terrorists using full automatic weapons that are illegal), then army reservists shouldn't here have the ability to train shooting as they have been able before? If either there is a terrorist strike or someone with severe mental problems makes a bomb attack or goes on a shooting spree, why is it then logical to make training possibilities for reservists more difficult?

Yeah, that's the critical issue: training reservists. Jeez, that's a new low for the gun nut argument.

And in this country you don't get a permit for any gun for "self defence". The right of self defence is totally different from the American law. If you use a gun for "self defence" it's very likely that you will go to jail. If somebody kills a burglar that has entered your home, that somebody will extremely likely go to jail for "use of excessive force" and simply for "manslaughter". Using a firearm for personal defence here will be seen as use of excessive force. In fact there are a multitude of things that you are not allowed to use for self defence.

Great, let's ban guns in the US.

An event defined as a genocide that happened in our time only a few years ago, actually, was basically carried out with knives. So mass murder with knives has happened. Besides, with knives far more Americans are killed than with rifles, shotguns and other guns than handguns (see FBI statistics). Only with handguns more people are killed than with knives in the US. So why the carefree attitude against the second most lethal weapons in the US?

Hey look kids, a non sequitur that has nothing to do with lone killers wrecking havoc on our society!.

Back to the issue. If you think knives are so great, you can keep yours. Let's ban guns and you can cling to your knife for security. Frankly, if somebody attacks a group of people in a theater with a knife, they'd look funny when it wound up sticking out of their ear. But like I say, if you're so convinced knives are so dangerous, you shouldn't mind if we ban guns.

So I say again, banning guns stops gun massacres - the UK and Australian experience proves that. And that's reason enough to ban guns. Those so insecure that they can't go to Starbucks without a weapon, you can cling to a knife.

Truth be told -- in most combat situations training doesn't do much in terms of missing, it just makes you less worse as opposed to actually good. Being shot at sucks, period -- even if you're a crack shot. Additionally there are tactics which aren't necessarily meant to connect to a target, so you have to take that into consideration -- but on the whole most discharges do not hit their target. — Moliere

"It's really hard to shoot a man, especially if he's shooting back" - Little Bill, Unforgiven.

Yep. The notion that "armed citizens" untrained and unready for a gun fight are going to calmly draw their guns and shoot down bad guys is preposterous. Most will do the natural things - freeze and pee their pants. Some will shoot their foot. Some will confusedly shoot anybody near by.

Studies show that normal people in a gun fight simply are not cognitively capable of calmly doing anything. Only highly trained people (soldiers) and abnormally homicidal people do well. Needless to say, the last thing we need is more psychopaths with guns.

What I most despise about the whole gun ownership/ gun legislation issue is the way it is handled, actually universally in the West (both here and there). And that is that gun rules are never, ever discussed or handled at normal circumstances in a normal way as some other legislation might be formed. No, the gun controls are allways rushed in after an ugly incident which has caught the media's attention. The reason is logical, after some attrocity (with guns involved) the majority of the people that are not gun owners and hence the matter doesn't actually matter to them (it's not their property or hobby etc. that is talked about) are quite emotional about the event and prone to accept tighter gun laws. When there isn't an ugly incident in their minds, the majority might not be so open to tighter government control. — ssu

In the US there's an "ugly incident" about once a week, so this is off base.

Here's a concept: if knives are so effective, let's ban guns and everybody who wants to carry knives can do so (they can do so now). You can feel safe and sound carrying your knife. Frankly, I'm not afraid of a man with a knife for a variety of reasons, mostly because I can run away from him, or hit him over the head with a chair. Not so with guns, which is why guns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers.

But let's be clear, banning guns will not end violent crimes against individuals. People will also find a way to kill cheating husbands, rich aunts and unpleasant neighbors. What it will end (as the UK and Australian bans show) is gun massacres. And gun massacres are crimes against the entirety of society, not against particular individuals. That's reason enough to ban guns.

How many innocent lives do you think one armed attacker could take, in a public place such as a supermarket, if 40 out of 100 private citizens are armed? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Wrong question. The question is (a) how much more likely is it that the 40 armed citizens will include a mass murderer intent on a gun massacre? And (b) what is the likelihood that a bunch of armed untrained people will wind up shooting innocent people rather than the shooter?

We know the answer. By having "armed citizens" we have gun massacre after gun massacre. And to think that other armed citizens will prevent it is not absurd.

First, because gun maniacs don't care if they get killed, so they'll have shot dozens of people before anybody turns a gun on them (unless you expect ordinary "armed citizens" to carry loaded cocked guns in their hands at all time). A man intent on killing others can walk up to a person with a holstered gun and blow his brains out before he even knows what's happening. And the idea that armed citizens are going to be constantly ready for an attack is scarier than having them unready. They'll be shooting people by mistake left and right.

And second, more to the point, when real gun violence occurs, untrained ordinary "armed citizens" usually freeze up and do nothing or they shoot an innocent person because gun violence is so disorienting. No untrained person -- and I mean anybody who doesn't have constant military training, day in day out -- can react rationally to a man suddenly pulling out a gun and shooting people down, with blood spurting everywhere.

To claim otherwise is simply magical thinking. We have the studies. Wonderfully, it's called "Killology". It is almost impossible for an untrained person to react in any useful way to a gun massacre. Only a trained soldier can. Anybody who claims otherwise has seen too many Rambo films.

Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot.

I disagree with your trust in armed citizens and refuse to let my safety and the safety of my children depend on the judgement of gun nuts -- and that's what armed citizens are: gun nuts. They are insecure and untrustworthy. Almost all of them should be in jail before they harm themselves or others.

All people are reckless under stress. Stress happens. Therefore people carrying guns are dangerous to me. Guns need to be banned and then those who keep them will be criminals we can put in jail before they kill somebody.