There is outrage about that. I read about it all the time. Unfortunately, many small crimes are not as "exciting" as one large one--the media acts accordingly. Most of those guns used in Chicago shootings are bought legally by scum who are never checked out properly due to our CRAZY gun laws which benefit only gun-nuts and gun manufacturers. We need to find a balanced ground here....this ain't it....

They don't report bad things about Chicago, Obama country, in the liberal media

By your theory the Wild West would be the safest place in human history and modern England would be the most deadly. Instead, the exact opposite is the case: Wild West murder rate = 80 per 100k; Modern England = 1 per 100k. Don't worry. You have a right to have guns. The question is what kind of guns and how easy are they to get. And, the more you say silly things like "more guns = more safety" the more gun laws will get passed because people are getting sick of this gun-nut attitude. It reeks of arrogance and people don't like that.

More citizens should be armed with education, including spelling and grammar!

Your kidding me right? A bunch of people shooting in a dark movie theater? That is the dumbest thing ive heard in my life. Oh you have a hunch, so its a good idea? give me a break. stick to your day job.

Please read the following books:

Dial 911 and Die by Richard W. Stevens

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) by John R. Lott

Guns and Violence: The English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm

You're aware that most of the people hit in the NYC shooting, were hit by shots fired by the police. I don't see how it necessarily helps to have more armed people. It didn't help here.

And John Lott's a fraud, at least in my opinion: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Lott

For Dave Chase:

http://www.johnlott.org/files/w_post_3-21-03.html

Did you even look up the information before posting, my friend. I'm an NRA member and have been studying crime since I was 14--the facts are not on your side, if that matters to you (it doesn't matter to most people). Look at Pheonix compared to LA and San Diego. The only cities in California that are bad off are black cities, and that's the same no matter what state you're in. Poverty, easy access to guns, lack of policing, etc contribute to gun crime rates. Letting people have more guns could be OK in theory, but only in a paradise where poverty is practically extinct and the police are fair and plentiful. BTW, you can always find outliers. Those make for a weak argument if you care about the facts. You've got to look at the big picture.

Dom,

Please, tell me: what gun "control" laws would work? I think that you are the one living in paradise if you think that ANY law would prevent people from a) gaining possession of firearms or b) hurting people (either with firearms or with other objects). Eons of history have shown us that mankind will ALWAYS find ways to hurt others...and in today's society it is FAR easier than ever before...anything from a basic pipebomb all the way to driving a car into a crowd of people.

But, in the end, the crime/self-defense discussion is wholly irrelevant. The Founders wrote the Second Amendment to protect the People from a tyrannical government. That *obviously* won't work if the government gets to pick and choose what firearms the People can carry and when/where they can carry them.

There is NO justification for citizens to have automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons, such as those used my the Batman shooter.

Alice, HaHa. Now you check your spelling and grammer

Gone4Now

It's generally considered bad form to misspell 'grammar' when correcting someone else's spelling and 'grammer' (sic).

Arron, I guess you missed the point

>> There is NO justification for citizens to have automatic or
>> semi-automatic assault weapons ....

Actually there is. The people who wrote Second Amendment had DIRECT
EXPERIENCE with dictatorship and direct experience with same trying to
take their weapons away to render them powerless. That would be king of
England whose soldiers shot people dead in the streets back before 1776.
The Founders of these United States made sure that this nation would
never become a dictatorship by giving us the power to resist. We CAN
say NO to the government and MAKE IT STICK if we must.

But it's not just ordinary people owning guns. The types of guns matter
too. You should see some of the weapons in the hands of law enforcement
officials today. If in some black future the government should turn
against the people -- as it DID in Germany in the 1930s after initially
gaining power VIA ELECTION -- then the people would be hard pressed to
fight goons armed with "automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons"
(and much, much deadlier weapons) using revolvers and hunting rifles.

Sad tho it is, large numbers of guns in the hands of large numbers of
peaceful citizens is what keeps the United States a free country. Mao
himself who made the famous quote, "Power comes from the barrel of a
gun." No truer statement was ever made. If you don't believe that then
please move to China and try to protest some party decision....

Where the hell have you been? it has been like this for a long, long time.

Would you want to walk up to someone with a loaded weapon and ask for them to surrender or would you want to stop a threat in densely populated area. Come on people use common sense! NYPD did there job.

There could be a thousand of these episodes and that wouldn't change my mind? There isn't an incident that would make me see the light and burn guns into slag any more than I would burn all cars because of some pile up/explosion on the 2 that kills a hundred and fifty people.

I'm not a gun nut. I personally don't own any firearms.

Honestly, your question is akin to asking, "How many more terrorist incidents will it take before we all agree to implant cameras and bugs in all of our homes that listen for buzz words and Arabic?" Maybe not in severity, but in the logic behind it. It assumes that these episodes are self-evidently supporting gun control without any real reasoning why gun control would stop this from happening. How many shootings already happen between gang bangers who are largely felons and aren't supposed to get guns anyway? Outlawing guns might make it somewhat harder to obtain them illegally, but all your going to do is create a bigger blackmarket for them. Obtaining other outlawed goods is easy enough. Now you have a lot of people who just want a gun for self defense either arrested if caught or giving money to mafias without really wanting to.

Take Australia, where ever since their gun ban not only did violent crime rise dramatically crime 'with guns' went up by almost half not to mention a dramatic increase in rape and a slight increase in robbery. The numbers aren't on your side.

Ultimately, freedom is as or more important that safety.

And with the Australia thing, that wasn't even MOST guns. Just ones deemed combat type guns including shotguns and such. It didn't make society safer. Australia might finally be seeing dropping crime rates, which could be an argument that society will settle into it's new lack of guns, but we'll have to see and it is hard to know what factors are affecting it.

>> I have a question for the pro-gun people. (This is a serious question,
>> not sarcasm). What will it take to change your position? How many more
>> episodes like NY will it take for you to change your mind?

Actually the more madmen there are running about trying to kill us all
then, in general, the LESS likely it is that gun owners would be willing
to turn in their guns. You have to remember that the vast majority of
gun owners are peaceful citizens who want nothing more than some
protection from harm by criminals and lunatics. More bad guys == more
desire for protection from bad guys.

Let me ask you a serious question. Many crimes are committed using cars
as an essential part of the crime, mostly as get-away vehicles but
sometimes directly using a car as the weapon. Would you advocate taking
cars away from ordinary drivers because a tiny fraction of drivers use
cars to commit crimes?

Please read the following books:

Dial 911 and Die by Richard W. Stevens

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) by John R. Lott

Guns and Violence: The English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm

You're right. I worked retail for many years and worked on Sundays. Mass was a split deal. Family values are controlled these days by the almighty dollar. Gun sales should be limited to hand guns only. NO one needs a semi-automatic or assault rifle for hunting. I say Blue Laws should be reinstated and families should spend more time together. I personally keep a paint ball gun by my bed along with a baseball bat, just in case.

>> You can't fight fire with fire.

Actually firefighters sometimes DO use fire to fight fire under appropriate circumstances. It's called "backburning". But regarding firearms, if you "can't fight fire with fire" then why do the police bother carrying guns?

Kind of like nuclear weapons.

I don't believe your claim. First, people have this idea that they will use a gun competently and correctly at a moment's notice, and as we've just seen in the NYC shooting, this is not necessarily true; many bystanders were hit. Second, using a gun to deter a rape, beating, or robbery does not save a life; it prevents a likely rape, beating, or robbery -- good things all, but not saving a life. Third, if you're relying on the Lott numbers for deterrence, those are crap; he "lost the data" and nobody else can reproduce his results -- deterrence requires shooting, which is risky.

I've looked at graphs showing a correlation between gun ownership and reduced violent crime; there is a correlation, but it is very weak (R-squared = .04). For comparison, if you graph top marginal tax rate against inflation-adjusted economic growth, higher taxes are correlated with more growth (R-squared = .06, "crappy", in the words of the guy who assembled the graph). If you're just being a rational-follow-the-numbers sort of guy, you should be that much more enthusiastic about the need for higher taxes. (Just thought I'd point out where this sort of blind I-follow-the-data can lead you.)

>> First, people have this idea that they will use a gun competently and
>> correctly at a moment's notice,

SOME people will have that notion. Most will learn competence.

>> using a gun to deter a rape, beating, or robbery does not save a life;

Depends on circumstance. In many cases the gun deters without being fired. Deterrence, BTW, means no violence happens. I know from personal experience that bad guys will come after you ONLY if they believe they will not be hurt in return. But if they believe you CAN and WILL hurt them then they will NOT attack. Then a life may well be saved, the life of a would-be victim.

>> it prevents a likely rape, beating, or robbery -- good things all, but
>> not saving a life.

If the bad guy is a lunatic rather than a mere criminal and so presses his attack even when facing a gun then, yes, he may get shot and might even die. In such a case I put rather more value on saving the lives of would-be victims than on the perpetrator's life.

>> if you're relying on the Lott numbers for deterrence, those are crap;

Gun ownership by peaceful citizens is one of those emotional issues where statistics are bent by almost everyone, so I ignore the numbers and rely instead upon what personal experience has taught me: If you take away the ability of all average citizen to defend themselves then criminals will KNOW their victims will not be able to fight back in any meaningful way. And I *know* where that goes.

Dave and Jeff
Homeowner dodges hatchet, shoots intruder, The News Tribune, Tacoma, Wash. 06/27/12

A homeowner was upstairs in his Tacoma, Wash. house when he heard a suspicious noise and shouted to see if someone was downstairs. A man replied, identifying himself as a police officer, which lured the homeowner downstairs. Once downstairs, the homeowner was confronted by two home invaders, one of whom immediately threw a hatchet at him. The home invader missed, allowing the homeowner time to retrieve a shotgun and shoot one of the criminals. The burglars fled the scene, but the wounded intruder was captured when he sought medical attention at a local hospital. Criminals of the Pacific Northwest beware; the incident marked the second armed citizen shooting in Tacoma in just over a week.