What if everyone in the Colorado theater had been carrying a gun. How many rounds would the "shooter" have gotten off then? He would have shot once, then everybody else would have shot him. Period. Witnesses said they were just lying on the ground waiting for him to reload, which did not happen since he had large capacity magazines and multiple guns.
Have you noticed how these "shooters" always manage to pick a place where guns are not "allowed"? Shopping malls. Schools. Movie theaters. Liberal politics is driven by the implicit "need" to be cared for by the state. (That's how we got Obama and all the other statist "goodies.") A bunch of single women with children, created by the government's own welfare policies, asking the government to "take care of them" is how we reached this point politically.
That mentality has carried over into the idea that the police will take care of us. That's baloney. The corollary idea is that the population cannot be trusted with guns. That is also bull. Most people can be trusted to carry guns and carry them with safety and security if trained. If one would take time to read a book, one will learn that this idea is empirically true and has bee proven over and over again. A good place to start is John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime", and go from there.
Look at Wyoming or Montana. The populace there is allowed to carry pistols on their hips, in the open, without a special permit - yes, just like the old west. Ever heard of a "shooting" out there. Frankly, I don't need a policeman or state trooper to "protect" me. I have as much sense as any 19 year old with six months academy training. The whole idea they want us to buy into is that we must not defend ourselves, we must let someone else do it for us. Don't resist! Be passive! Learn helplessness. But, buying into that concept and staying safe is not possible in a country as large as ours.
Now, concerns always arise about the safety of the police officers if everyone has a gun. Believe me, I am as concerned about their safety as anyone else. Law enforcement personnel have a very difficult and dangerous job under the best of circumstances. In the long run, I believe their work will be safer if everyone carries a gun.
First of all, gun threats will be dealt with by other citizens long before the police arrive. Just as occurs when a group of citizens witness an innocent party being attaked by a thug. In most cases, they subdue the aggressor until police arrive. Second, police will not have to run around trying to guess who has a gun. The answer will be -- EVERYBODY has one. Thus, they will be more alert and more sure of themselves. All these stupid shooting review boards can retire. Third, the job of police officer is inherently dangerous. Short of an out and out police state, it will always be dangerous. (Indeed, in a police state, it would be far more dangerous.) Fourth, is the purpose of our civilization to allow maximum protection for the police or to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
It reminds me of the teachers' demand that unruly students be medicated. Sure, their job will be a lot easier if all the behavior problems in the classroom are full of Ritalin. However, is the purpose of the schools to make the teachers day as easy as possible or to teach the most number of children? You might say this is where the analogy breaks down, since it's a small number of disruptive children who are creating chaos in the schools, and besides, it's not (usually) a life or death situation in a classroom.
I agree to an extent, but what would be the solution? We could do away with allowing school children "due process" rights and kick them out of school if they become intransigently disruptive. Likewise, we can get rid of the joke that Miranda rights have become, along with all the other meaningless laws which encumber police action on the street level. We can bring back truth in sentencing laws. And we can bring back the death penalty with a vengence. The analogy actually carries quite well, as statistics show it's the same small group of people committing all, or most of the crime, and they are usually from the same one or two neighborhoods in the city, time after time.
Besides, open-carry laws in other states have resulted in fewer shootings and far less injury and fatalities to police officers than in states where the government tries to control who has a gun. Now, how about a mental exercise? Let's suppose the government finally manages to outlaw guns in the U.S. First of all, good luck confiscating the millions of guns already possessed lawfully. Second of all, how is the government going to keep them out of the country? Will their efforts be as successful as those to prohibit the influx of illegal immigrants? marijuana? cocaine? guns already being smuggled in? (yes, it does happen) exotic plants? exotic animals? The list could go on and on, ad infinitum.
We, as a society, do not have to put up with high crime rates. Ignore recent fluctuations in crime - it skyrocketed in the sixties and has never gone back anywhere near the lows we enjoyed previous to that time, even accounting for population growth. The point is, if the government does not trust the population to carry guns, the population should not trust the government to take them away.