2012-07-30, 06:47 PM
I would just like to point out that a few of the people who died in the incident were certified U.S. army personnel, so they COULD have made the shot if they were armed. But no one brings their firearm into a movie theater because they're law abiding citizens who were going to the movie to have a good time.
As for gun control laws, I don't think it's actually feasible in the United States solely because they have had the "right to bear arms" for their entire history; hell it was practically built on it. That would be the equivalent of the government outlawing the internet. Its so ingrained in society that any politician who supports a complete gun ban would not be able to hear the end of it and probably wouldn't even be able to get it passed. And even if it did, there would be a protest from some states that have embraced Guns and ammo into their lifestyles and have taken it up as sport (like many Southern States). Not only that, but there are a great many other variables to take into consideration as well- like how to find out which citizens have already, honestly, turned in their guns to the federal collector or how do you confirm that people have given up their weapons. And then what happens when the gun ban doesn't decrease gun related crimes? Or increases it? Guns for sure will never be off the streets- that's practically a guarantee. What the states really need to focus on is a way to limit the merchanting of high power weaponry and ammo. While California isn't perfect, it has made a step in the right direction as its laws severely limit the capabilities of automatic/high powered weapons and outright ban certain types of high powered guns and assault weapons, while also allowing people to have guns legally. The closest thing to gun control that the States will ever see is a compromise between gun ban advocates and gun supporters. The States will never be able to completely outlaw guns, but they sure as hell can limit the most dangerous ones.
I'd like to add that the above (and many other posts) are highly speculative and neither side can know how the entire country will react to any sort of gun legislation that is passed. We can all hope that it works, but we don't have a guarantee that it will. That's why personally, should I ever be able to and need to, I would much rather have the ability to carry a weapon in the case that I need to defend myself than being left a sitting duck with no chance against a person with a gun. History has shown us that both sides of the debate can be a likely outcome (Japan's complete ban on guns has severely lowered their gun-related crimes by a large amount (but not stopped it altogether); a gun ban in the states a long time ago actually made the country's crime rate increase). Considering that neither presidential candidate has so much as thought about legislation in their platforms, I don't think we're going to see anything any time soon (that is, until the debates).
As for gun control laws, I don't think it's actually feasible in the United States solely because they have had the "right to bear arms" for their entire history; hell it was practically built on it. That would be the equivalent of the government outlawing the internet. Its so ingrained in society that any politician who supports a complete gun ban would not be able to hear the end of it and probably wouldn't even be able to get it passed. And even if it did, there would be a protest from some states that have embraced Guns and ammo into their lifestyles and have taken it up as sport (like many Southern States). Not only that, but there are a great many other variables to take into consideration as well- like how to find out which citizens have already, honestly, turned in their guns to the federal collector or how do you confirm that people have given up their weapons. And then what happens when the gun ban doesn't decrease gun related crimes? Or increases it? Guns for sure will never be off the streets- that's practically a guarantee. What the states really need to focus on is a way to limit the merchanting of high power weaponry and ammo. While California isn't perfect, it has made a step in the right direction as its laws severely limit the capabilities of automatic/high powered weapons and outright ban certain types of high powered guns and assault weapons, while also allowing people to have guns legally. The closest thing to gun control that the States will ever see is a compromise between gun ban advocates and gun supporters. The States will never be able to completely outlaw guns, but they sure as hell can limit the most dangerous ones.
I'd like to add that the above (and many other posts) are highly speculative and neither side can know how the entire country will react to any sort of gun legislation that is passed. We can all hope that it works, but we don't have a guarantee that it will. That's why personally, should I ever be able to and need to, I would much rather have the ability to carry a weapon in the case that I need to defend myself than being left a sitting duck with no chance against a person with a gun. History has shown us that both sides of the debate can be a likely outcome (Japan's complete ban on guns has severely lowered their gun-related crimes by a large amount (but not stopped it altogether); a gun ban in the states a long time ago actually made the country's crime rate increase). Considering that neither presidential candidate has so much as thought about legislation in their platforms, I don't think we're going to see anything any time soon (that is, until the debates).