How many lives might have been saved if just 1 Law Abiding citizen shot the Aurora criminal?

[chika]

MAYBE ALL OF THEM

For one he had protection up the wazu, and two how many may have been shot by the law abiding citizens who may not been able see who they were shooting at.

ARMS ARE MEANT FOR HUGGING!

[emmanuil54]

We'll never know. The theater was a Free Fire Zone, um, excuse me, a Gun Free Zone.

Jim Holmes must not have seen the sign at the ticket window saying that.

[darce]

You don't solve the issue of gun violence that is perpetrated against Innocent people by letting citizens have more acces to fire arms.

The more fire arms you have on the street the more potential there is for an incident involving forearms.This is with out a single doubt a fact.

Just because all citizens have guns does not mean that some people will be too scared to use them against others if there is a greater risk of them being shot.

Look at the murder rates of the UK and the US.

In the US there is the possibility that you will be executed for committing murder in the US.In the UK there is no death penalty.The murder rate per head of population is lower in the UK than it is in the US.

Therefore the people that are committing murder in the US are doing it despite the risk it could cost them their own life.It is therefore clear that the death penalty is not acting as a deterrent.

That being the case why would arming all citizens with guns be a deterrent to someone that is pissed at society for what ever reason and wants to go out and commit mass murder?

Then there is the issue of the so called law abiding citizen you have highlighted.

There is no way any of us can know if that so called law abiding citizen would be capable of killing or wounding the perpetrator.The law abiding citizen might not be able to handle the pressure of such a situation so he might miss when attempting to shoot the perpetrator.This could then see that the perpetrator has another gun with more ammunition so more people might die as a result.

It might also mean that the law abiding citizen is killed when he may have survived had he not attempted to kill the person committing the criminal act.

There are far too many variables for any of us to really state what the possible out come may or may not have been in situations like this.

The only real way to crack down on this sort of thing is to control guns more effectively.Guns are available in the UK they are just controlled a lot more than they are in the US.As a result the average person in the UK does not own a fire arm and our society feels far safer as a result of it.

Very very rarely does an incident happen in the UK where some type of fire arm is used.

In the UK in 2010 there were 600 murders.In the US for the same year there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.

Sourced from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

When looking at these figures it would seem that gun control is indeed a sensible thing.Do not forget that the UK does not have the death penalty while the US does.

Indeed these figures make me wonder to myself why did you not ask

Would gun control save lives?

[lazaro94]

and how many citizens would be saved if guns were banned????

[aswynn81]

First off, if someone with a concealed weapon started shooting at the criminal, he would've been an easy target to get shot as the criminal would've fired back at him. And since the criminal had body armor and would have easily outgunned any potential concealed weapon carrier, he would have came out on top. In fact, more bullets flying around from multiple people could've lead to more deaths and injuries. Sure, in certain circumstances, someone carrying a concealed weapon, retaliating against a criminal, can come out on top. But statistics prove those circumstances are not the norm.