Six dead in mall shooting

Not if that "something" hinders the law-abiding public's ability to defend itself while doing nothing to reduce crime. Less guns does not always mean less crime. Again, the problem isn't the existence of guns, which do serve some purpose that doesn't involve murder and mayhem. It's what people DO with the guns that's the problem, and that's what needs to be taken care of first (I realize I'm edging dangerously close to that old chestnut "guns don't kill people, people kill people," so I'll stop now).

 

Serious question (no sarcasm): Do the number of people who successfully defend themselves with their own gun outweight the number of accidental shootings, stolen guns, etc.

I don't know the numbers, but is there really enough cases of successful, justified self defense? I know it happens occasionally, but enough to outweigh all the bad?

 

It's hard to say, because I don't think there's an official crime statistic for "successful defenses of a home using a gun". It can be as nebulous as a would-be robber knowing the family in the house he's casing is packing, and deciding to steal all the pot from those liberal hippies who never lock the door on their tie-dyed VW van down the street instead.

And even if the accidental shootings and heat-of-the-moment shootings outnumber the self-defense shootings, both are dwarfed by bona-fide-crime-shootings. Which circles me back to my original point: the real problem doesn't get solved by a total ban on guns, because the real problem is what criminals do with guns, and they're people who aren't going to cower in fear at the prospect of breaking another law. Make inroads on that problem first.

 

And Marion Berry and the DC city council are considering suspending that law for 90 days, so law-abiding citizens can register their pistols.

 

I really don't think it does.

Criminals know there is a possibility a homeowner owns a gun now, but it doesn't deter.

Why?

Because, with the element of surprise in the criminal's favor (think the advantage a receiver has over a DB on an icy AstroTurf field), those people rarely get to use that gun to defend themselves.

The percentages are microscopic.

Now, heat of the moment/accidental gun deaths.... so NOT microscopic.

 

Perhaps I missed it in the story...but what war trauma are we referring to?

 

War of the Roses. Real trauma, man.

(wait, this isn't about JR and casty?)

 

Right. I was just pointing out that DC's elected officials seem to be realizing a ban on guns doesn't stop criminals from using them.

 

Which, of course, means a ban on hand guns is a bad thing?

 

I don't think it's practical. I'd rather see very strict enforcement of existing gun laws and a crackdown on criminals who use firearms during crimes. And I'm not even totally opposed to requiring owners to register pistols.

 

You were doing fine until thast last sentence, Inky.
If you're going to allow people (who really don't need them) to own hand guns, they absolutely should be required to register them and submit to a background check.
I don't believe there is a reason for anyone to own a hand gun but I realize they never will be totally banned. But you at least must make people register them and you must make it difficult to get approved for a gun permit.