Derrick Rose to pay for funeral of slain 6-month-old Chicago girl

 DaveMatthew Was Adam Lanza a criminal?  No, he had no criminal record at all before going on his shooting spree.

 badger2012  DaveMatthew that's his point... the lanza's guns were registered to someone else. it wasn't a comment on criminal record. he's saying gun control doesn't work, which you just anecdotally confirmed

 AM1  badger2012  DaveMatthew The Lanzas are criminals only with hindsight.  Prior to Sandy Hook, the Lanza family would be exactly the kind of people who would be held up as "good guys" (as the NRA would say) with guns -- Nancy Lanza was a gun lover who went to shooting ranges with her children, all while living in a nice residential area.  Adam Lanza himself had no criminal record, and the guns were legally registered.

But everyone knows what happened -- the good guys turned into the bad guys here, with Adam Lanza going nuts and murdering his mother and a bunch of school children and other adults.  So to say that the only ones with guns are criminals is an oversimplification that misses the point, as Adam Lanza was not a criminal, yet he had easy access to guns thanks to his mother loving them.

As far as gun control itself, there is evidence that it doesn't work on a national scale -- that is, levels of violence remain unchanged as they are caused by socioeconomic and cultural factors whether or not guns are around.  But these massacres are outside of the "normal" realm of violence.  The Lanzas were well off, as was the Aurora shooter.  Banning high powered assault rifles -- which still leaves plenty of options for hunters and people who have firearms for self defense -- might help us avoid, or reduce the chance, of having another one of these massacres.  I think that's the worth it, to put it mildly, and there is evidence that it has worked in Australia.

 badger2012 

Yes, and for every Adamn Lanza (who wasn't a registered gun owner, nuillifying your point, but let me make another), there are dozens of people (including kids) murdered every single day. You would've been better off making your case with Sandy Hook, though it's still wrong.

Gun nuts aren't the ones leaving 2-5 kids a day dead in Chicago alone, more on weekends.  You think these murderers (not even deemed insane) spent time in line to register, then went to Walmart to pick out their 'piece'?  If I went by your logic, I'd expect them to have a crack and meth kiosk in the liquor department of Walmart.

 *Adam

Why on earth is there no edit function? 

Point was, these daily crimes rack up and do circles around the handful of psychopaths who snap and steal uncle bob's properly registered weapons.  These thugs are not stealing legally registered guns from acquaintances or victims, they are smuggled and bought on the street market.

 brrilo I alluded to this in my reply to AM1, but I think you have to separate overall levels of violence and these unique massacres.  I agree that banning guns altogether will not lower levels of violence which are the result of a complex mix of socioeconomic and cultural factors -- there is good, readily available evidence that this doesn't work.  And with that in mind, I support the 2nd Amendment and the rights of people to own guns for self defense and hunting.

However, allowing people own high powered assault weapons is not necessary for the 2nd Amendment to be upheld, nor do hunters or people interested in self defense need them.  Banning these weapons won't reduce violence as a whole, but it could help prevent these horrific massacres that exist outside of the normal reasons for violence (i.e., the Lanzas were well off, as was the Aurora shooter.)

 DaveMatthew what gun control?