[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by samchoi604

The argument that "guns are not the problem, it's the people" is 100% correct. So why would you help them further by supplying them with the tools to kill? Epic failure argument.

I believe that every psychotic killer needs a "trigger" to push them over the edge, and activate that psychotic tendency to actually go out and commit massacres. Having a gun helps act as that trigger.

Might as well ban everything then. Eating utensils, pneumatic nailers, rocks, electricity... Idiotic thinking like this is like a pandemic.

[ScotchAndCigar]

What a stupid and useless chart. The currency of the data is all over the map, the list of countries is arbitrary and excludes most of the ones of interest. The only thing that's certain is we have way too many fucking guns in this country, twice as many per person than the next highest listed. That indicates we have a serious problem.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Might as well ban everything then. Eating utensils, pneumatic nailers, rocks, electricity... Idiotic thinking like this is like a pandemic.

It's idiotic statements like this that wastes everyone's time. Why don't we just talk about guns?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

It's idiotic statements like this that wastes everyone's time. Why don't we just talk about guns?

We do that here.

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

It's idiotic statements like this that wastes everyone's time. Why don't we just talk about guns?

Because all of these items have been used to kill people and the only thing they all have in common is the crazy son of a bitch that misused them.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

It's idiotic statements like this that wastes everyone's time. Why don't we just talk about guns?

Let's talk about box cutters first, they took down buildings full of people.

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

Let's talk about box cutters first, they took down buildings full of people.

Damn. I forgot those AND airplanes. Which really emphasizes my point. Pot a box cutter on a table and it isn't going to kill anyone. In the hands of a crazy a-hole on a plane, and you have trouble. Once again, it's people, not inanimate objects.

[samchoi604]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Damn. I forgot those AND airplanes. Which really emphasizes my point. Pot a box cutter on a table and it isn't going to kill anyone. In the hands of a crazy a-hole on a plane, and you have trouble. Once again, it's people, not inanimate objects.

Should United Nations legalize nuclear weapons for every country in this world? According to you, WMDs are not the problem. It's the crazy regimes and dictators. But that's okay, because WMDs are inanimate objects, they don't harm anyone. As long as we tell the crazy dictators not to use them, we should be okay, right?

Stay ignorant my friend.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by samchoi604

Should United Nations legalize nuclear weapons for every country in this world? According to you, WMDs are not the problem. It's the crazy regimes and dictators. But that's okay, because WMDs are inanimate objects, they don't harm anyone. As long as we tell the crazy dictators not to use them, we should be okay, right?

Stay ignorant my friend.

Legal or not, they have them, or know how to get them. The only reason they don't use them is that they know they will be vaporized.

There were tense moments, but the cold war had surprisingly few fatalities.

[JunkStory]

Myth: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Fact: True, but people with guns can kill even more people, and rather easily.

Myth: If people don't have guns, they will use other means to kill masses of people, such as fertilizer-made bombs.
Fact: True, but at least that's better than using both a bomb AND a gun to kill people, which is exactly what happened in Norway 2011. The guy used a bomb to kill 8 people, then used a gun to kill 69. Without a gun, the number of death and injuries would be much lower.

[smyles]

Originally Posted by JunkStory

Myth: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Fact: True, but people with guns can kill even more people, and rather easily.

Myth: If people don't have guns, they will use other means to kill masses of people, such as fertilizer-made bombs.
Fact: True, but at least that's better than using both a bomb AND a gun to kill people, which is exactly what happened in Norway 2011. The guy used a bomb to kill 8 people, then used a gun to kill 69. Without a gun, the number of death and injuries would be much lower.

Myth: Cars are for taking people from A to B, not killing them.
Fact: True, but people in cars go faster than on foot, and sometimes can and do intentionally steer cars - heavy metal objects - into other people, and rather easily.

Wanna continue playing this game?

[Augenbrauezug]

Omg this thread is going in circles.

[smyles]

Originally Posted by .b0link

Mental illness. ... I fully believe that there should be some sort of flagging, but how you do that without infringing on patient privacy, I have no clue.

Not only that, but do you rule out all people that had any kind of mental problems? Is it like saying not a single one mental problem can be cured? What about insomnia? depression? Do you deny right to own a gun - and defend himself - to everyone, whether they are now 100% healthy or not?

I have no answers to the above myself, but just want to highlight the complexity and likelihood of any decision in this area.

Originally Posted by .b0link

I still believe the real problem today, is our culture and society. Kids are not being raised right, have no morals, are left to grow up watching TV and playing video games. BTW Im not saying video games caused this, simply that too many people let the TV become the babysitter and don't do their job as a parent. The same people that send their kid to school, expecting the public school system to babysit and raise their children. Whatever it is, there is something wrong with the upcoming generations (mine included). Just seems like there is less and less nice, honest, good people.

You know, I actually think it's the opposite, and people in general are better than before, primarily due to the progress and better quality of living. I mean, we don't burn witches or kill in the name of religion (for the most part). But as always, progress brings new problems, like technology advancements that allow more to be done with less resources, such as travel faster while consuming less energy... or kill more people with less effort.

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by samchoi604

Should United Nations legalize nuclear weapons for every country in this world? According to you, WMDs are not the problem. It's the crazy regimes and dictators. But that's okay, because WMDs are inanimate objects, they don't harm anyone. As long as we tell the crazy dictators not to use them, we should be okay, right?

Stay ignorant my friend.

This thread has degenerated into diametric sides. You refuse to acknowledge that a gun is a tool while I have already agreed that it is a tool for killing. I am required to dumb down my points so that people like yourself can at least participate in this discussion.

Then you try and make the logical leap that I support the use of WMDs by civilians. I fail to see the second amendment connection there. First of all, the United nations is not bound by our constitution. Second, I am only talking about the MISUSE of a weapon, not the legal use of one. Clearly, the misuse of a gun is going to be problematic. Trying to have in intelligent conversation with a person of your intelligence if pointless. Try to stay on topic. This thread is not about regimes, dictators or nuclear weapons. Its about whether we should continue to be able to exercise one of our constitutional rights.

I'm sorry for you that you live in such constant fear.

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

Omg this thread is going in circles.

Yes, down the proverbial toilet

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by smyles

Not only that, but do you rule out all people that had any kind of mental problems? Is it like saying not a single one mental problem can be cured? What about insomnia? depression? Do you deny right to own a gun - and defend himself - to everyone, whether they are now 100% healthy or not?

I have no answers to the above myself, but just want to highlight the complexity and likelihood of any decision in this area.

You know, I actually think it's the opposite, and people in general are better than before, primarily due to the progress and better quality of living. I mean, we don't burn witches or kill in the name of religion (for the most part). But as always, progress brings new problems, like technology advancements that allow more to be done with less resources, such as travel faster while consuming less energy... or kill more people with less effort.

Speaking of complex issues, the concept of people being better due to our living conditions is a thin veneer that society desperately clings to be able to sleep at night. Look at any of the riots around the world and you can see what I mean. Its frightening.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

This thread has degenerated into diametric sides. You refuse to acknowledge that a gun is a tool while I have already agreed that it is a tool for killing. I am required to dumb down my points so that people like yourself can at least participate in this discussion.

Then you try and make the logical leap that I support the use of WMDs by civilians. I fail to see the second amendment connection there. First of all, the United nations is not bound by our constitution. Second, I am only talking about the MISUSE of a weapon, not the legal use of one. Clearly, the misuse of a gun is going to be problematic. Trying to have in intelligent conversation with a person of your intelligence if pointless. Try to stay on topic. This thread is not about regimes, dictators or nuclear weapons. Its about whether we should continue to be able to exercise one of our constitutional rights.

I'm sorry for you that you live in such constant fear.



Yes, down the proverbial toilet

Like I said earlier. Axes, clubs(bats), and swords were all created to kill people. Now we use them for sports, yard work, and looking cool at a nerd convention. They could just as easily do damage to people, but because majority of the non-gun owning people possess those things--they shouldn't be regulated.

Ignorance is bliss my friend.

[smyles]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Speaking of complex issues, the concept of people being better due to our living conditions is a thin veneer that society desperately clings to be able to sleep at night. Look at any of the riots around the world and you can see what I mean. Its frightening.

Well, most of those riots happen in either complete shitholes, or shitty parts of better places. And even though within 100 years we had at least two world wars that happen in the most developed places regions and killed millions, the riots in it's true meaning aren't often there as before. Bur again, progress brings various consequences: before you had to be polite just because you'd get your ass kicked otherwise; now you can yell profanities and flip at everyone from the comfort and security of your car, being protected by the law and whatnot.

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

I'm really tired of people comparing extreme cases like Timothy McVeigh, to the average firearm homicide that takes place day to day in this country. Of course there is no gun control law to stop these types of planned and extreme events. Hasn't that angle been beat to death?

The average everyday homicide often occurs in conjunction with a dispute about the drug trade.

I would suggest that the decriminalization of the drug trade would eliminate many homicides.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Don't you all see the stupidity in talking about things other than guns? Let the fucker charge the theater with a box cutter, or a nail gun, or a cake knife. Let him dump fertilizer outside the theater while people go in and out. Truth is, he wouldn't have hit 70 people without getting taken down without the AR-15.

And tell me, what's the "proper use" of an AR-15? Why, it's exactly the same as the improper use! Show some common sense, and don't mixup things made for other uses with things made exclusively to kill masses of people quickly.

No shit that a box cutter is risky on a plane full of people doing 600mph at 30,000 ft. That's why they have different rules for flying. But it has nothing to do with gun violence.

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by Augenbrauezug

Omg this thread is going in circles.

Do threads such as these ever end any other way? Most people are set in their mindset and some are more resistant than others when it comes listening to and absorbing an opposing argument/viewpoint than others. Sadly, there are a lot of conjectures and straw man arguments junking up this thread and have detracted from an otherwise good start to the discussion. This is precisely why I stay out of the politics sub-forum. I rarely read through it anymore since it is a lot of the same banter that gets repeated.

Let's see if we can't get this thread back to an adult level discussion amongst our fellow Zpost-ers...

First, I'll start by saying that I do own a couple of firearms (legally, of course) for home defense and sport/range/target use but I am no means a 'gun nut' nor am I on Ted Nugent's speed dial. I will never have more than what I have now because I do not see a need for it, my purposes are met, and I am not a collector.

No one here has denied that guns, handguns in particular, have been used for despicable and malicious acts in not just the US but many other countries around the world. At the same time, both handguns and rifles have also been used, far more prevalently, for sport, hunting, and self defense. As far as firearm related murders, as has already been stated elsewhere in this thread, there are a number of 'things' not firearm related that can be used to cause harm or take a life. Walk into any home improvement store and you have what you need to cause calamity on many scales. Look around your house and you likely have what you need to create lethal gases. Get behind the wheel of your car/truck/SUV...or SAV/etc and you are in control of a mechanism for causing injury and harm to people around you. Allow knitting needles and small screwdrivers on planes but a 0.5" keychain blade is not. As someone else in this thread noted, you can kill someone with a pen. So why start or stop the conversation with firearms? If I were to surmise, it would be because firearms get the most press, are associated with war, and would be simpler to use for anyone that was enough of a mental degenerate looking to enact death and/or injury to their fellow being(s).

Drawing upon previously made comparisons in this thread, the number of homicides, in 2010, from knives and other cutting instruments outnumbered the number of both rifle and shotgun related homicides by almost 2.4:1. Likewise, the number of homicides caused by someone using their fists/feet/etc... to perform the act(s) was also higher than those caused by both rifles and shotguns (albeit only slightly higher). In case you're wondering, this is coming from the FBI and USDOJ records. Handguns take the cake, though. The stats for handgun related homicide far outweighs any other homicide by 'type'. If I had to draw a conclusion as to why, I surmise that it is due to convenience since they are smaller more portable. Likewise, I would fathom that they are more easy to obtain, but I have nothing to back that up. It would seem to be common sense handguns would be the most used tool since it balances standoff distance with portability, maneuverability, lethality, and useability (e.g. # of cartridges before needing to reload). Those are, however, the same reasons people will use them for home defense.

On a related, but slightly different note, from what I've found (again...FBI and USDOJ), single victim homicide, be it from single or multiple offenders, exceeds multiple victim homicides by an almost 9:1 ratio.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find credible statistics for violent crimes in which legally vs illegally owned/obtained firearms were used. Every report, article, interview, and transcript I have seen however, places the use of illegally owned/obtained firearms at 80+% of the number of firearm related crimes in the US. 3rd party sales (e.g. someone legally purchasing a firearm under their name but giving it to someone who couldn't, private party sales, 'under the table' sales by FFL, etc...) were the primary source of illegal obtainment. Stolen firearms took 2nd in the list.

All that said, violent homicide (kind of an oxymoron, eh? ) has generally trended downward in the US for the last several years yet the number of legal firearm sales trended upwards. Justifiable homicides, by civilians, of an offender during a felonious act slightly increased as well.

Going back to the OP's questions for which this thread was meant to be based:

1. Don't you find that being able to buy guns and ammo freely, i mean this guy bought a lot of ammo and guns all legal, is damaging to the society?

2. Wouldn't gun control assist in reducing crime? Someone might argue that "the bad guys" would still find guns, which is true. But it will also prevent events like someones gets angry at their teacher and then takes a gun killing people in schools and such.

3. Should gun possession be illegal? Why? Why not?

------------

Since I've typed way too much as it is, I'll keep this brief.

I do not think they are damaging to society. A lot of firearm related violence tends to be localized. Events such as Aurora and Columbine are anomalies. It goes back to the people. A determined mind will always find a way. Unfortunately, you cannot cure stupid.

As someone else mentioned, normal people buy ammunition in bulk to save money. I am excluding fringe cases such as sociopaths about to rampage and, I guess, some preppers. That 750sq ft of foil I just bought at CostCo? It'll take me the better part of a year to go through it.....but it'll save me a decent amount of money on something I'll use anyways so I bought it. Example aside, it seems odd because it is ammunition that is being bought in bulk but the same principle applies. Some people go the the range a lot, be it for job requirements, practice (e.g. home/personal defense), or sport (e.g. competition shooters). Someone new to firearms will be going through a lot of ammunition simply because they need to develop an understanding of the mechanics of their firearm (and using it) as well as developing their marksmanship.

Regarding gun control, realize that nothing is free and additional regulation will need to be paid out of someone's budget. I am all for adding education as a form of gun control, though. Simple things like trigger discipline and knowing what is behind your target evade an alarming number of people. These are basic concepts that should be amongst the first things someone learns before purchasing a firearm.

Background checks should be mandatory for any and all firearm purchases. That should include private party transfers which currently do not require them. This is a big problem in my eyes. Safety and handling education should be required and, to some degree, marksmanship should be as well. I wouldn't mind having periodic retests either (for all firearms). On the topic of concealed carry, I do think that more casualties would've occurred during the CO incident had concealed carry were permitted. Some persons would've been diligent enough to train on their own. Others, and unfortunately...likely the majority, would do the bare minimum just to obtain their permit to carry and do nothing thereafter. This latter group is the one that scares me. People are too lazy these days. I do not trust people with their cars so why should I trust them with concealed carry? Requirements for concealed carry should be stringent and require testing under duress as well as frequent retest. It is a large responsibility to own a firearm much less carry it daily. Too many people seem to take this lightly. As with anything, you have people that are serious about things and take initiative and then you have people that do the bare minimum and try no more. People with dSLR cameras that shoot in Auto mode and and advertise themselves as professionals fall into the latter category. That always bugs me. Btw...that's not a jab at you, OP. Keep up the good work w/ your photography!

[panicos81]

Originally Posted by bosstones

Do threads such as these ever end any other way? Most people are set in their mindset and some are more resistant than others when it comes listening to and absorbing an opposing argument/viewpoint than others. Sadly, there are a lot of conjectures and straw man arguments junking up this thread and have detracted from an otherwise good start to the discussion. This is precisely why I stay out of the politics sub-forum. I rarely read through it anymore since it is a lot of the same banter that gets repeated.

Let's see if we can't get this thread back to an adult level discussion amongst our fellow Zpost-ers...

First, I'll start by saying that I do own a couple of firearms (legally, of course) for home defense and sport/range/target use but I am no means a 'gun nut' nor am I on Ted Nugent's speed dial. I will never have more than what I have now because I do not see a need for it, my purposes are met, and I am not a collector.

No one here has denied that guns, handguns in particular, have been used for despicable and malicious acts in not just the US but many other countries around the world. At the same time, both handguns and rifles have also been used, far more prevalently, for sport, hunting, and self defense. As far as firearm related murders, as has already been stated elsewhere in this thread, there are a number of 'things' not firearm related that can be used to cause harm or take a life. Walk into any home improvement store and you have what you need to cause calamity on many scales. Look around your house and you likely have what you need to create lethal gases. Get behind the wheel of your car/truck/SUV...or SAV/etc and you are in control of a mechanism for causing injury and harm to people around you. Allow knitting needles and small screwdrivers on planes but a 0.5" keychain blade is not. As someone else in this thread noted, you can kill someone with a pen. So why start or stop the conversation with firearms? If I were to surmise, it would be because firearms get the most press, are associated with war, and would be simpler to use for anyone that was enough of a mental degenerate looking to enact death and/or injury to their fellow being(s).

Drawing upon previously made comparisons in this thread, the number of homicides, in 2010, from knives and other cutting instruments outnumbered the number of both rifle and shotgun related homicides by almost 2.4:1. Likewise, the number of homicides caused by someone using their fists/feet/etc... to perform the act(s) was also higher than those caused by both rifles and shotguns (albeit only slightly higher). In case you're wondering, this is coming from the FBI and USDOJ records. Handguns take the cake, though. The stats for handgun related homicide far outweighs any other homicide by 'type'. If I had to draw a conclusion as to why, I surmise that it is due to convenience since they are smaller more portable. Likewise, I would fathom that they are more easy to obtain, but I have nothing to back that up. It would seem to be common sense handguns would be the most used tool since it balances standoff distance with portability, maneuverability, lethality, and useability (e.g. # of cartridges before needing to reload). Those are, however, the same reasons people will use them for home defense.

On a related, but slightly different note, from what I've found (again...FBI and USDOJ), single victim homicide, be it from single or multiple offenders, exceeds multiple victim homicides by an almost 9:1 ratio.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find credible statistics for violent crimes in which legally vs illegally owned/obtained firearms were used. Every report, article, interview, and transcript I have seen however, places the use of illegally owned/obtained firearms at 80+% of the number of firearm related crimes in the US. 3rd party sales (e.g. someone legally purchasing a firearm under their name but giving it to someone who couldn't, private party sales, 'under the table' sales by FFL, etc...) were the primary source of illegal obtainment. Stolen firearms took 2nd in the list.

All that said, violent homicide (kind of an oxymoron, eh? ) has generally trended downward in the US for the last several years yet the number of legal firearm sales trended upwards. Justifiable homicides, by civilians, of an offender during a felonious act slightly increased as well.

Going back to the OP's questions for which this thread was meant to be based:

1. Don't you find that being able to buy guns and ammo freely, i mean this guy bought a lot of ammo and guns all legal, is damaging to the society?

2. Wouldn't gun control assist in reducing crime? Someone might argue that "the bad guys" would still find guns, which is true. But it will also prevent events like someones gets angry at their teacher and then takes a gun killing people in schools and such.

3. Should gun possession be illegal? Why? Why not?

------------

Since I've typed way too much as it is, I'll keep this brief.

I do not think they are damaging to society. A lot of firearm related violence tends to be localized. Events such as Aurora and Columbine are anomalies. It goes back to the people. A determined mind will always find a way. Unfortunately, you cannot cure stupid.

As someone else mentioned, normal people buy ammunition in bulk to save money. I am excluding fringe cases such as sociopaths about to rampage and, I guess, some preppers. That 750sq ft of foil I just bought at CostCo? It'll take me the better part of a year to go through it.....but it'll save me a decent amount of money on something I'll use anyways so I bought it. Example aside, it seems odd because it is ammunition that is being bought in bulk but the same principle applies. Some people go the the range a lot, be it for job requirements, practice (e.g. home/personal defense), or sport (e.g. competition shooters). Someone new to firearms will be going through a lot of ammunition simply because they need to develop an understanding of the mechanics of their firearm (and using it) as well as developing their marksmanship.

Regarding gun control, realize that nothing is free and additional regulation will need to be paid out of someone's budget. I am all for adding education as a form of gun control, though. Simple things like trigger discipline and knowing what is behind your target evade an alarming number of people. These are basic concepts that should be amongst the first things someone learns before purchasing a firearm.

Background checks should be mandatory for any and all firearm purchases. That should include private party transfers which currently do not require them. This is a big problem in my eyes. Safety and handling education should be required and, to some degree, marksmanship should be as well. I wouldn't mind having periodic retests either (for all firearms). On the topic of concealed carry, I do think that more casualties would've occurred during the CO incident had concealed carry were permitted. Some persons would've been diligent enough to train on their own. Others, and unfortunately...likely the majority, would do the bare minimum just to obtain their permit to carry and do nothing thereafter. This latter group is the one that scares me. People are too lazy these days. I do not trust people with their cars so why should I trust them with concealed carry? Requirements for concealed carry should be stringent and require testing under duress as well as frequent retest. It is a large responsibility to own a firearm much less carry it daily. Too many people seem to take this lightly. As with anything, you have people that are serious about things and take initiative and then you have people that do the bare minimum and try no more. People with dSLR cameras that shoot in Auto mode and and advertise themselves as professionals fall into the latter category. That always bugs me. Btw...that's not a jab at you, OP. Keep up the good work w/ your photography!

thank you the excellent reply. i agree because the amount of guns in the market is already way too big, so the only thing that can be done is proper education and training to those who own or plan to buy..

as for the photography, thank you, you too.. nice jellyfish .
no dslr here, fuji x-pro1 and loving it.. shooting manual

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by bosstones

Do threads such as these ever end any other way? Most people are set in their mindset and some are more resistant than others when it comes listening to and absorbing an opposing argument/viewpoint than others. Sadly, there are a lot of conjectures and straw man arguments junking up this thread and have detracted from an otherwise good start to the discussion. This is precisely why I stay out of the politics sub-forum. I rarely read through it anymore since it is a lot of the same banter that gets repeated.

Let's see if we can't get this thread back to an adult level discussion amongst our fellow Zpost-ers...

First, I'll start by saying that I do own a couple of firearms (legally, of course) for home defense and sport/range/target use but I am no means a 'gun nut' nor am I on Ted Nugent's speed dial. I will never have more than what I have now because I do not see a need for it, my purposes are met, and I am not a collector.

No one here has denied that guns, handguns in particular, have been used for despicable and malicious acts in not just the US but many other countries around the world. At the same time, both handguns and rifles have also been used, far more prevalently, for sport, hunting, and self defense. As far as firearm related murders, as has already been stated elsewhere in this thread, there are a number of 'things' not firearm related that can be used to cause harm or take a life. Walk into any home improvement store and you have what you need to cause calamity on many scales. Look around your house and you likely have what you need to create lethal gases. Get behind the wheel of your car/truck/SUV...or SAV/etc and you are in control of a mechanism for causing injury and harm to people around you. Allow knitting needles and small screwdrivers on planes but a 0.5" keychain blade is not. As someone else in this thread noted, you can kill someone with a pen. So why start or stop the conversation with firearms? If I were to surmise, it would be because firearms get the most press, are associated with war, and would be simpler to use for anyone that was enough of a mental degenerate looking to enact death and/or injury to their fellow being(s).

Drawing upon previously made comparisons in this thread, the number of homicides, in 2010, from knives and other cutting instruments outnumbered the number of both rifle and shotgun related homicides by almost 2.4:1. Likewise, the number of homicides caused by someone using their fists/feet/etc... to perform the act(s) was also higher than those caused by both rifles and shotguns (albeit only slightly higher). In case you're wondering, this is coming from the FBI and USDOJ records. Handguns take the cake, though. The stats for handgun related homicide far outweighs any other homicide by 'type'. If I had to draw a conclusion as to why, I surmise that it is due to convenience since they are smaller more portable. Likewise, I would fathom that they are more easy to obtain, but I have nothing to back that up. It would seem to be common sense handguns would be the most used tool since it balances standoff distance with portability, maneuverability, lethality, and useability (e.g. # of cartridges before needing to reload). Those are, however, the same reasons people will use them for home defense.

On a related, but slightly different note, from what I've found (again...FBI and USDOJ), single victim homicide, be it from single or multiple offenders, exceeds multiple victim homicides by an almost 9:1 ratio.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find credible statistics for violent crimes in which legally vs illegally owned/obtained firearms were used. Every report, article, interview, and transcript I have seen however, places the use of illegally owned/obtained firearms at 80+% of the number of firearm related crimes in the US. 3rd party sales (e.g. someone legally purchasing a firearm under their name but giving it to someone who couldn't, private party sales, 'under the table' sales by FFL, etc...) were the primary source of illegal obtainment. Stolen firearms took 2nd in the list.

All that said, violent homicide (kind of an oxymoron, eh? ) has generally trended downward in the US for the last several years yet the number of legal firearm sales trended upwards. Justifiable homicides, by civilians, of an offender during a felonious act slightly increased as well.

Going back to the OP's questions for which this thread was meant to be based:

1. Don't you find that being able to buy guns and ammo freely, i mean this guy bought a lot of ammo and guns all legal, is damaging to the society?

2. Wouldn't gun control assist in reducing crime? Someone might argue that "the bad guys" would still find guns, which is true. But it will also prevent events like someones gets angry at their teacher and then takes a gun killing people in schools and such.

3. Should gun possession be illegal? Why? Why not?

------------

Since I've typed way too much as it is, I'll keep this brief.

I do not think they are damaging to society. A lot of firearm related violence tends to be localized. Events such as Aurora and Columbine are anomalies. It goes back to the people. A determined mind will always find a way. Unfortunately, you cannot cure stupid.

As someone else mentioned, normal people buy ammunition in bulk to save money. I am excluding fringe cases such as sociopaths about to rampage and, I guess, some preppers. That 750sq ft of foil I just bought at CostCo? It'll take me the better part of a year to go through it.....but it'll save me a decent amount of money on something I'll use anyways so I bought it. Example aside, it seems odd because it is ammunition that is being bought in bulk but the same principle applies. Some people go the the range a lot, be it for job requirements, practice (e.g. home/personal defense), or sport (e.g. competition shooters). Someone new to firearms will be going through a lot of ammunition simply because they need to develop an understanding of the mechanics of their firearm (and using it) as well as developing their marksmanship.

Regarding gun control, realize that nothing is free and additional regulation will need to be paid out of someone's budget. I am all for adding education as a form of gun control, though. Simple things like trigger discipline and knowing what is behind your target evade an alarming number of people. These are basic concepts that should be amongst the first things someone learns before purchasing a firearm.

Background checks should be mandatory for any and all firearm purchases. That should include private party transfers which currently do not require them. This is a big problem in my eyes. Safety and handling education should be required and, to some degree, marksmanship should be as well. I wouldn't mind having periodic retests either (for all firearms). On the topic of concealed carry, I do think that more casualties would've occurred during the CO incident had concealed carry were permitted. Some persons would've been diligent enough to train on their own. Others, and unfortunately...likely the majority, would do the bare minimum just to obtain their permit to carry and do nothing thereafter. This latter group is the one that scares me. People are too lazy these days. I do not trust people with their cars so why should I trust them with concealed carry? Requirements for concealed carry should be stringent and require testing under duress as well as frequent retest. It is a large responsibility to own a firearm much less carry it daily. Too many people seem to take this lightly. As with anything, you have people that are serious about things and take initiative and then you have people that do the bare minimum and try no more. People with dSLR cameras that shoot in Auto mode and and advertise themselves as professionals fall into the latter category. That always bugs me. Btw...that's not a jab at you, OP. Keep up the good work w/ your photography!

I was just referring to the fact that people were coming in without reading what's already been stated and trying to make points that had been made unsuccessfully several times in this thread.