>>>Because the things that were done were already crimes.
>>>There is/was legislation already covering it.
>>I said NEW legislation -so that means a NEW law.
>>For example CREATE LAWS for guns shows, etc.
>
>"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
>
>>>More legislation won't work ... at least in this case where
>>>there are already multiple crimes on the books for what was done.
>>
>>I disagree. If there was a law preventing someone from getting their
>>hands on a gun in the first place then all they laws they broke once they
>>had the gun don't really matter anymore right?
>
>"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

>Most people would not feel comfortable requiring another agency to defend them, such as the police. A bad guy shows up with a gun, most people would desire to be able to defend themselves there on the spot. And most bad guys would think twice before attacking someone knowing that any of the people around them could be carrying a firearm. This statistic has been proven in countless locations which have unrestricted concealed carry policies.
>
>In Australia, where they outlawed not only handguns but also most rifles, there are several statistics which demonstrate that gun-related injuries and deaths have decreased. But at the same time, new crimes began appearing on the scene because the would-be assailants knew that they would not encounter firearm-based resistance when breaking-and-entering into a residence even when the occupants are home.
>
>Most people would prefer to be able to defend themselves Johnny on the spot, rather than being at the mercy of the hoped-for good behavior of other people in the world, or in waiting for a police officer to arrive because unless he/she happened to be there already ... it would be too late.
>
>In terms of raw human being safety ... gun bans in any form do not make sense. If everybody had the opportunity to freely have a concealed weapon, nobody would know who actually did have a gun unless it was visible, and before things escalated to violence, the dozen or so bystanders who pulled out their weapons and trained them on the would-be-bad-guy have just foiled the crime. When no guns are present, the would-be-bad-guy (who likely has a gun) is a threat to everybody, and in danger from almost nobody.

No - what will happen is the first time someone gets afraid of something they'll pull out there gun. When that happens sooner or later someone ends up shot. NOT a very brilliant idea. This logic of "Hey if EVERYONE has a gun then NO ONE will get shot" has got to be the most ridiculous argument yet.

>Gun laws don't work the way people hope they will. They just make regular citizens who desire to defend themselves less able to do so.

Ok simply repeating yourself doesn't validate your argument. Perhaps we should say we're done here? hahaha. Like you said before we're closer to agreement that what was expected. I think we've both have some pretty good points and I vote we let it go :)