guns or no guns?

stats can:

So people still kill people without guns?

However the question should read:

but, in one word, post whether you are "anti-constitution" or "pro-constitution" or "neither"

I disagree with that attitude. I support your right to own a gun. As a matter of fact, as a veteran, I defended your right to own a gun. That said, I am anti-gun.

Someone please tell me why guns are being compared to baseball bats, knives, large capacity trucks?

You DO realise that the sole purpose of guns is to kill or seriously wound, right?

But whatever, I'm just happy I live in a country where my kids can go to school without some kid stealing his Father's legal gun and shooting everyone. Or go to the cinema without some guy getting his legally obtained guns and shooting into the crowd.

American gun culture is madness to me. Never understood it, and never will.

R.I.P to those who died.

they don't, i said it a few times because it is that stupid and simplistic of an idea

If there were no guns how would my family bond? And one person in that theater with a gun could have stopped that sicko before that many people died.

Not necessarily... unless the person was an incredibly good shot... because the psycho was wearing a bullet proof vest and a riot helmet....

Do you think said madman focusing on one person, instead of randomly shooting into a crowd of 150 is better or worse of a situation?

Also, regardless of body armor...taking a pistol round will hurt/break ribs/knock wind out ect. Body armor does not make you invincible.

I get that... and I agree... but I don't think the other shooter (if one was around because seriously, who thinks, "Man, I better take my gun to the movies... there might be some psycho shooting up the place tonight!") would have been able to take him out as many seem to suggest... even if he was a good shot, there would be high risk for collateral damage, with people trying to escape.

Had this discussion with people at work. They know I train- extensively- in tactical shooting and they all said "Too bad you were not there- you could have stopped it" I told them nope- I would not have taken a shot- they all went :noway: and asked why not. The reasons was:

First off I am not a cop. I have no duty to protect and defend anyone but myself and my family. During an active shooter situation I am headed in the opposite direction and will engage ONLY if I have no choice (i.e. hes between me and the exit, I am a target, etc). Police are trained to respond with overwhelming force and shoot down an active shooter- I sure as hell dont want to be engaging the threat when the cop or another CCWer sees me, decides I am the threat and guns me down.

As for the Aurora shooter- no one can be condition Red all the time. I would never have expected that attack. Trying to engage this threat in a smoke filled, darkened theater with a strobe effect occuring from the movie still playing, a hundred plus people screaming and running everywhere, others on the ground bleeding out, other people in costume, gunshots muffled by the movie, plus the threat was wearing all black? How do you pick him out of all that in the time you have?

My training for an active shooter is to go for the head or four across the pelvis as many active shooters now wear body armor. This guy owuld have been a bear to bring down- he was wearing armor across the pelvis and a head shot in these conditions would be extremely difficult to make (plus his head was armored on most sides and a gas mask makes going for the head shot even more problematic). Add in the fact that I am a good guy- every bullet that leaves my muzzle has a lawyer attached to it. If I could have stopped the shooter but killed two innocents in the exchange I am looking at prison time and lawsuits. Plus a pistol versus rifle? no contest- I carry a pistol because I am not expecting a gun fight, if I am expecting one I am going for my rifle!

To the people saying the Batman tradgedy would have turned out differently if someone had a gun on them, I think you're living in a movie. Seriously. This is real life, NOT a movie.

Like someone would have saved the day and shot him down, and all would have been okay. Oh, really?

How about, if his LEGALLY OBTAINED guns didn't exist or weren't sold to him, those people wouldn't have been killed, least not by bullets.

You can't be serious. So you think that if James Holmes had been unable to buy his weapons at Bass Pro that he just would have said "well, maybe I won't commit this heinous crime after all. Probably going to be too much effort to find guns". Please. He just would have paid more and gotten even wilder ones from the underground dealers. He planned this for several years. You are being really naive.

i actually think you are more naive. had he not had easy access he would have gotten less quality and less quantity. and had it taken him longer, may have been caught. when things are more difficult they don't always go as planned, they have to revise their plans. that is why gangsters here have their illegal guns, but they are few and far between and NO ONE is prepared to shoot someone that is being shot in the cross fire. he would have still planned something, probably, but would it be to the extent, the amount of deaths, as quickly as it was? i highly doubt it.

stats can:

Counting the seconds before someone says "Yeah but America has more people"...

Well having more people does increase the statistical likelihood of having a crazy person go on a shooting rampage.

it is factored in, it is per 100,000 people. we aren't laughing to be mean. we are laughing because the stats are correct and takes these things into account.