We already have very tight gun control as is, most if not all of the folks we see in the media in mass shootings have been denied their gun permit such as with the Aurora shooting and the recent school shooting. We can't assume everyone who gets behind a gun to turn around and shoot everyone, instead of hoping your kids won't find your gun, you show them, teach them the dangers and responsibilities of guns and raise them to know better. If they know the damage it can do and all the harm, if they're the kind of kid you're raising right, they will not go breaking into the box and taking it to shoot someone. It all comes down to the individual, we can't assume a person behind a gun will immediately use it for crime. Outlaw guns and it won't do any good, only the law abiding citizens will give in, criminals won't care and won't follow that, they already import illegal guns and drugs and it's a constant battle that the FBI will show on their website about that.
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2013/01/violent_crime_rose_after_gun_b.html
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent, robbery 6.2 percent, sexual assault/rape 29.2 percent and overall crime rose 42.2 percent. Those numbers are quite a startling difference from ''virtually eliminating gun deaths and no substantial increase in violent crime.'' And since the ban, Australian women are raped three times more often than American women. Using Australia as an model to lead people into a false sense of security that an anti-gun policy could create a safer society is an injustice.
Believe it or not, there ARE good people who will protect others without thinking about themselves, there ARE situations out there where a guy will have a weapon pointing at someone and someone with a gun will defend the innocent, but they won't see much media, unless it's an all out there story.
He didn't do it for the fame or glory, he did it to protect the innocent, as outlandish of a story this is, we DO have people like that around the world, we DO have maniacs doing whatever the hell they want and think they can get away with it. If we assume our neighbors who own guns will turn around and shoot us, it's paranoia and it will rule one's psyche, fear is one of the most powerful emotions and when that gets a hold of you, you don't know what you are capable of and what you may or may not do in order to save your own skin, this can even lead YOU to be a killer. It's incredible to know what one will do to survive, we already know people will kill others to survive if they must, there's stories of cannibalism out there and it's well accepted but with gun laws, the arguments I've seen online can get really tiresome and whacked out. To defend the greater good is to keep gun control laws and to allow guns so that people can defend their families, can defend their homes, can defend their own cars, it already takes a long time for cops to show up, quite a lot of folks even argue that cops only show up until AFTER it's all over. And yet folks want to rely solely on cops for their own defense? Never good, especially when you're putting your own life in the hands of folks that may not even care about you. It's YOUR life, not theirs, some folks won't even bother their time to lend a helping hand.
Heck, let's step aside and look at another remarkable thing with human psyche:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969142,00.html
The results told a revealing tale. Aboard the Titanic, children under 16 years old were nearly 31% likelier than the reference group to have survived, but those on the Lusitania were 0.7% less likely. Males ages 16 to 35 on the Titanic had a 6.5% poorer survival rate than the reference group but did 7.9% better on the Lusitania. For females in the 16-to-35 group, the gap was more dramatic: those on the Titanic enjoyed a whopping 48.3% edge; on the Lusitania it was a smaller but still significant 10.4%. The most striking survival disparity — no surprise, given the era — was determined by class. The Titanic's first-class passengers had a 43.9% greater chance of making it off the ship and into a lifeboat than the reference group; the Lusitania's, remarkably, were 11.5% less likely.
Other variables beyond the question of time played important roles too. The Lusitania's passengers may have been more prone to stampede than those aboard the Titanic because they were traveling in wartime and were aware that they could come under attack at any moment. The very nature of the attack that sank the Lusitania — the sudden concussion of a torpedo, compared to the slow grinding of an iceberg — would also be likelier to spark panic. Finally, there was the simple fact that everyone aboard the Lusitania was aware of what had happened to the Titanic just three years earlier and thus disabused of the idea that there was any such thing as a ship that was too grand to sink — their own included.
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969142,00.html#ixzz2NriDgcz4
Just that alone, keep the mentality in mind, it's ALWAYS on the individual, then there's the collection of minds as well, it'll normally be situational and when it comes down life and death, if this guy can take your life, you're going to want to at least fight back, the fight or flight can only help for so much. The folks are going to fight to keep their weapons, who wants that right stripped down to bare nothing and taken away? They're reducing hand gun ammo capacity to 7? That's just about revolvers only, 9mm has a 15-30 round magazine so that'd be outlawed, who needs that many rounds during a break in? I certainly would rather have a surplus of ammo than a shortage especially if my life depends on it, this goes with everything else. Food, water, shelter, etc. Rather be able to walk away than not at all.
