Yeah, this is always the big argument. Better to have one guy with guns instead of a few people with guns. I've thought about this before, and I'm selling, not buying.
In this particular case, it's actually the opposite of what you say - MUCH more difficult to make matters worse. The reason is because of the stadium seating. Dude comes in and has a captive audience that cannot get out; he had both exits covered and you had to go towards the shooter to get away (but it turned out there's a door at the top I thought I read about... but I've watched movies in that exact auditorium and didn't know this)... so really, not a whole lot of crossfire to be had IMO.
And yeah, body armor up the ying yang - probably better to just sit there and take the ass whooping like a man. Far superior choice. Better to let the guy shoot off a few hundred rounds unencumbered than to actually attempt anything.
Come to think of it, better to just let the hijacker have what they want than to stage a rebellion leading the whole plane to go down.
You are misunderstanding me, but I'll come back to that. 10 people in that theater, randomly distributed, will have fields of fire greater than the one assailant's. And they will likely miss at least on one shot. I don't see how that is really debatable. Furthermore, body armor means that it is likely for return fire to be effective. It is not a fact that leads to the conclusion that it is better to do anything in particular. To suggest that saying a gun might not be effective means I think it's better to let terrorists kill people is just snarky.
The point I was making is that an idiot with a gun in the same room as a psycho with a gun is not an improvement. And I think we can all agree America has no shortage of idiots. Furthermore, that there can be more than one solution, potentially being a more effective solution than the one original.
That is why IMO, gun control should partially come in the form of stringent requirements on training. Hell, I abhor our absurdly terribly lax driver's license rules. I would have no problem running through an extensive several week course before I was allowed to take a gun home. If George Zimmerman had had one, maybe Trayvon would still be alive.
I've thought about the tackling idea. One of the killed was in the military and these are the only types I'd expect to have some sort of conditioned response to try something like that. In a few of the high school shootings, there have been students that have done this. I believe Kip Kinkle was tackled by a football player. Huge difference though in size and scope of the treat. Easy to take down a 120 pound schmuck with a ruger than a guy decked out in tactical gear, shotgun, two pistols, and an assault rifle that's firing off rounds at you as you make the attempt. Far more difficult in this particular case for those reasons plus the layout; not so easy to come up from behind when he has that covered.
Had he used his homemade grenades, non of this would have been an issue; the causalities would have been so severe it wouldn't have been worth talking about.
People don't think of it. People run away. It's in their nature. Only the rare few act. The guy who shot his AK at the White House wasn't tiny. Just one guy was nearby and happened to be one of the few. And he was quickly joined by another guy. That really isn't indicative of anything other than, most people run away. Zebras run away from lions too, even though they outnumber them. But, it is a possible, and probably more effective response than to have 7 or 8 people return fire on this guy. He can only point his gun at one person at a time. 5 people jump him and he's going to the ground unless he's a professional wrestler or football player. That is not to say I judge those who didn't jump him, or that the scenario of his using his home made grenades would not have been even more tragic. But there are other responses than shooting back.
After saying all that, I would definitely rather have a gun if I were in that situation. I might not use it, I might opt for the tackling. Or might only think I'm one of the few and not one of the runners. I don't think I'd leave a member of my family behind, that leaves me to find a solution.
As for the constitution, I'm of the belief that we should either follow it or not. IMO, we'd be better off following it... BUT, we don't, so no need to cherry pick, just scrap it and decide how you want society to be. An unarmed people that poses no threat, fine. That worked out well for Jews in 1930s Germany. Also seems to work fairly well for modern day Chicago.
To the bold; that's what the amendment process is. The 2nd amendment is a change to the Constitution. The 18th was also, as was the 21st (the Prohibition ones). I hardly think I need to respond to the Germany comment but I will anyway. It wasn't gun control that got 6 million jews killed.
I do agree with you in that we can't defend ourselves against the government if needed (obviously an extreme scenario). Since the advent of the tank, I think the people have been completely out equipped. The real insurance is that the military is made up of everyday people and commanding those people to fire upon their kin would pose a moral dilemma. Of course, this is all just theoretical hypothetical stuff... but stuff I do think about from time to time... and I do not own any firearms but have considered buying one for years (doubtful that I'll ever do it though, since owning is far more dangerous than leaving oneself defenseless)
People have been outequipped, something that was not true when the 2nd Amendment was written. And I wasn't denigrating the idea of fighting for the sake of fighting either. Fighting for what one believes can be a noble pursuit regardless of chances for success.
I too have considered buying a gun for a few years now. I fear my ignorance, that's why I haven't bought one. It took me a long time and several performance driving events to consider myself a decent driver. At least those are available. In depth courses on situational skills and appropriate usage of guns don't exist.
AGTJ, you seem to think that a black market for guns would look exactly the same as the current legal market does, which is simply not true. And please stop comparing it to the drug trade, unless you have discovered a way to grow guns.
Right now, the black market in guns is largely derived from the legal market. Guns get bought in states where it's easy, then get shipped illegally to the black markets in states where guns are hard to get. Guns are stolen from registered users. Guns are sold in legitimate ways, then illegitimate transfers of ownership follow. People aren't knocking off thousands of Smith and Wesson shipments daily.
In the hypothetical banning of all guns that no one is talking about, it is true that there will still be a black market. But, it will be smaller. Guns will be harder to get, suppliers fewer, driving up costs. Where will they come from? The aforementioned S&W trucks? No, they'll most likely come from other countries (see: Mexican drug gangs getting guns from the US), making the actual trade more difficult.
You have to be a successful drug dealer to buy some guns. As a successful drug dealer, you are going to be more careful in parceling out your supply. And yes, fewer guns will be in the hands of the law abiding. That makes law enforcement's job easier, not harder. With less supply, the illegal weapons trade can be more effectively targeted. Criminals are easier to identify. Just look at poker again. Back to the underground clubs for many, which are more dangerous places, much harder to find for the player but much easier for the cop to find than who's playing on Stars.
Your argument that a black market would exist is not an effective one. The most effective argument for the ownership of guns is this one: if there are four guys who attack me and my wife walking down the street, and I don't have a gun, she's getting raped to death. I dare anyone to tell me that's it's better that happens than me putting a stop to it with a weapon. Or that I don't have the right to put a stop to it.