Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Ibrahim]

first off Ironsides, I was discussing the monopoly of violence concept. I was disputing that it should be the case with regards to the State: the gun control part was an aspect of it (my attitude of which is incidental to the first part). secondly, I don't see how your reply answered the question you are supposedly reading (which I suggest you read carefully). but since you did reply, and I found it interesting:

So wouldn't that be practical to limit the possibillity for screw ups to a minimum?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

yes, but the circumstances in the US, preclude the outright (or cross the board) restriction or banning of firearms as a solution (the second Amendment being a big one). And even if they didn't, it's a non-solution (see below). Also, I had expressly stated (relevant to your question) that I'm not averse to people taking measures to use firearms responsibly when in cases of defense, and that I'm OK with background checks in principle. So yeah, I'm a firm believer in minimizing the chances of tragedy. but I accept that no matter what, we can't make evil never happen or even minimized purely by force of restrictive or regulatory law, as let's face it, loopholes with sinister consequences are inevitable, as are accidents. besides, look at the source below: people are already doing what they can, and it shows in the accidental deaths section.

That's not counting violence escalation, the need to avoid attacks by creating a reputation, that going from self defense to offense is a fairly small step, etc, etc.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

first off, I'm not aware of many (or at the very least statistically relevant) examples of stable innocent civilians suddenly killing to create a "reputation", so as to intimidate people. that is the action taken more typically by criminal gangs and the criminally minded (like Lanza or the Aurora guy), unless you imply that Americans are generally that way--which goes back to the heart of my question). As to escalation of violence: as I said, training people on the responsible use of firearms is a must. if they go overboard, they can always be charged and punished for their actions. So a man who shoots another in the belly in self defense is acceptable, but then he going and shooting him in the head after he's gone down and no longer a clear threat is criminal, as he would be initiating (or rather, re initiating) force. bear in mind, I don't find it morally right for people shooting people in self defense: I only find it "acceptable": a point I made very clear earlier. you also assume that every self defense situation will end with people shooting their weapons: just having one cocked in your face is enough to scare most people (and in fact, that's how it usually ends). even crying out that you have one is surprisingly effective. Criminals, being people, typically have fear of dying. hard to grasp that not all criminals are like this guy, but they aren't.

Basically, it's a question of different focus. If there's man-eating tigers running around on the street, of course you should need equipment to deal with it. But the issue is the tigers, not the equipment.
If things are working well, then you shouldn't be needing to be worried about the tigers enough to require the equipment. And most of the West has things working well enough for tigers to not be a serious issue and considers this to be a sign of that things are working.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No, it is not a question of focus/perspective. It shouldn't have to matter if there is a need for a firearm or not. I may not like it (neither do most Palestinians--look up our statistics)--I know you don't--but I respect the right people have to have weapons.

this is especially as you are ignoring why people often actually acquire firearms (which I specified earlier)--which I must add is typical (though not universal) for AR-15 users. people don't always buy them for self defense--be it from large predators or from violent criminals: they often buy it for sports, for collecting, and even for rural activities (here in Texas, rifles are commonly used for shooting feral pigs: they cause a lot of trouble, and are good sport in many cases). why deprive them of their weapons if they never intend, and likely never will, ever shoot at any person with them? should certain persons, who keep their weapons in a safe well away from a bedroom be held for it, even though they cannot practicably use it in defense from most criminals? Also, the firearms everyone is wetting their pants over, as Lemur pointed out, are rarely involved in gun violence in the US anyhow. there's a source at the bottom if you want to see. Also, if we're going to use your very logic, you'd still have to see my point, as some of the uses I mentioned are utilitarian (hunting (for food), culling feral pigs, etc). Self defense where applicable is technically speaking, a utilitarian task use too, isn't it?

besides, as I said earlier, such rules in the US are doomed to fail, due to the nature of the distribution of weapons here.

The US attitude is more of that all individuals should have heavy defenses vs tigers, no matter the cost. With the above focus, this attitude is already a failure.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

what other people think is irrelevant to my thoughts here. And so what? they're free to do what they want as long as no one is initiating force with it. they can live with the consequences on their wallets.

And since violent crimes are different from tigers, you could ask what common sense tells you about the consequences from saturating a society with guns and telling them that it's ok to shoot people (but only during specific circumstances)?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

depends. the US is already a violent place (where applicable), with the strictures placed as they are (e.g. the ban on automatics): banning or restricting guns ignores the actual causes of violence, and punishes civilians for what criminals do. It also fails to remove guns from criminals--at least in America. speaking of violence: you do realize most of the violence (including gun violence), is a largely a product of the war on drugs? (a government initiative) have you seen the crime rate along the border as a result (Juarez is one example)? or those of the inner cities? many of these places have some of the strictest regulations on gun ownership (Chicago being an oft-sited example)--and it hasn't made a dent (same applies in Mexico. as a whole I might add, where gun laws are stricter). the mass murders at sandy hook, Virginia tech and Aurora? those are exceptions to the rule--horrible as they are. most murders are in the inner cities, and connected to the criminal life over there, which often revolves around illegal drugs and similar illicit activities. Similarly, the talk of banning "assault weapons" (a stupid and misleading term) doesn't address why the mass shootings (or more accurately, mass murders) happen: it isn't because there are guns, it's because something is wrong with the person doing it (terrorists, madmen, or what have you). And before you say it makes it possible or deadlier, let me remind you that the deadliest incident of this type didn't involve a single firearm. It instead involved a chemical fertilizer. you can also "ask" Timothy McVeigh if you want: 168 people dead with no more than fertilizer and gas, plus the truck to carry the resulting weapons (bombs). Guns just happen to be the most convenient means, here and throughout the Americas as a whole, regardless of how restrictive or permissive gun policy is in individual countries (the source is below, help yourself). Similarly in Europe, bombs are: just ask the people in London, or in Madrid. And if a person wants to do mass murder with a firearm, then no matter the restrictions, they'll do it anyways. it's terrible, it sucks, but what can be done? it's clear restricting weapons doesn't do as much as people think.

also, let me tell you about common sense: "common sense", Among other things told people that the sun goes round the earth, or that mold and mice spontaneously appear in rotting materials (look it up), and so on. "common sense" only goes so far--namely no further than the realm of the seen--the obvious, and superficial. It doesn't help that "common sense" is too relative.... what is common sense to an Arab, is not to a European. what is to me, is not to you. what is to me (an Arab), is not to my Dad (another Arab). etc.

I can tell that it's 19 times more likely for a cop to die in the line of duty in the US compared to the UK. There's been more cops killed in the US in 2013 (it's a calm start this year btw) than in the UK 2000-2013. Cause or counter cause?
It's certainly related to why the cops are more violent in the US.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

again, that is likely tied to the nature of crime in the US, as much as it is potentially due to restrictions or lack thereof. let's face it, the UK doesn't have a war on drugs approach, or the demand that the US has for illicit drugs, or the proximity to the major drug production centers in Latin America (which themselves are only there because of drug prohibition creating the need for a black market), and the resulting criminal activity.

this is relevant, seeing as how most of those same police, are dead from dealing with some of the effects of our criminal situation, not merely because of citizens having guns (who aren't even causing trouble for the most part)[put another way: it's the criminals who are doing most of the shootings, not Average Joe, and there are so many of them because of our stupid justice system]. further, the UK's cops have no firearms themselves, so there is even less need for criminals to use firearms to escape said cops. if there were a need for it, and a similar set of circumstances as in America, I'd guarantee you than no amount of restrictions will stop the resulting black market, and the homicides from guns, from shooting up like mad. it certainly didn't in Egypt before the Arab spring (which had a homicide rate comparable to Britain's, but with almost half being by firearms, compared to almost none in the UK), and it isn't doing so in Mexico, or Columbia, or the Philippines, India, Pakistan, or most other countries I can name from their sort (all of which, you can look up in the links given).

and this becomes even more starkly apparent, when you go to Latin America: homicide rates in Mexico are consistently higher for instance (including cop deaths), yet gun laws are stricter than those in the US--much stricter in some cases. Mexico BTW is similar in its approach to what gun control advocates are demanding these days: long arms of a military design are banned there. doesn't seem to have helped one bit. Hell, in some cases, it makes the situation harder for some people.

point is, correlation, is not the same as causation. UK's low gun deaths can be argued as being because of the restrictions, true. But also potentially because people there, simply have different circumstances than those in the US (or Egypt....).

US' figures on homicide, gun homicide, etc: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states