crashmeister,

Violent content broadcasts have pretty much saturated US programming. You really have to search to find something appropriate for children to watch these days. Does the benefit of having a violent culture outweigh the toll it takes it on individual lives?

For more information on the author of my sig quote consult these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)

http://www.killology.com/publications.htm

Personally, I believe that blaming violent films and/or games is overly simplistic. Look at the TV up to the early 90's (which should set apart the current round of spree killers from everyone else). Most films massively glorified war, gangsters and law breaking. We also had something I was fond of as a kid - the video nasty. Videos that were allegedly so bad that they had to be banned. We all loved them.

As kids we played at war, we played at shooting each other, if you had a spud gun or air rifle you probably did shoot someone and the spree killings were almost non-existent.

Yes, the current run of films, TV shows and games are far more realistic than what was available then, but at the time what was available appeared to be realistic. Anyone seen "Driller Killer" or "The Warriors"? Laughable effects (and the rest) now, but then they seemed real.

There are many more causes than the media for problems with guns and violence.

I didn't say that I like it.I tried to convene the point of me being tired that video games get blamed for any school shooting that happens while there is enough violence in any media to blame anything on it.

It's just another instance of laying blame somewhere else.How is some guy going to kill 20 people if he can't get a gun?
Tell them to wait in line while he knives them?

I know whats coming now:
'Criminals will get a gun if they want to'
'If one guy in there would have had a gun he would have stopped it'
'If anything we need more guns on the streets'
'Should be mandatory to carry a gun'

Yep, every single discussion on shootings I have ever read end up with those comments. I reiterate: no matter how many guns you carry, in the hands of an amateur (and even in a supposed expert's hands), unless you regularly see combat or situations in which you have to use a gun you will be a useless armed person.

If someone runs into a place where you are supposed to feel relatively safe - like a school, university or shopping precinct - you will not be able to react in the correct manner. You will freeze or, at best, shoot indiscriminately and probably add to the damage.

Unfortunately for us all, the genie is out of the bottle. There is no magic solution for ending gun or violent crime.

<sarcasm>Your absolutely right guns are the only way to kill 20 people. Those 20 people killed by the suicide bomber were shot first. That bus load of people that died when the bus went over the cliff, yep it was because of a gun. The car running into a crowd of people? Yep a gun caused that. That airplane crash? yep definitely a gun. Maniac running around with a hockey mask and a chainsaw? He must have had a gun. </sarcasm>

and to your I know whats coming now comment you might want to read about the Salt Lake Trolley square incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
http://media.www.slccglobelink.com/m...-2723227.shtml

Facts summary:
Sulejman Talović, 18 (cannot own a pistol until 21) Goes into Trolley Square (shopping center) and decides to shoot up the place. Off duty police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden Police Department (town about 30 miles away) is there with his family (he would be what you call that one guy with a gun) and corners Talović until police arrive. (5 killed, 4 injured)

You knew the response was coming, you said so yourself. Please tell me how disarming Hammond would have saved lives.

Observe the 'off duty police officer' as in 'trained professional' part.

So you don't have issues with "trained professionals"?

So tell me where your line is.
On-duty police officer
off duty police officer
off duty officer out of area
Retired/former police officer
Active duty Military
Former military
Postal inspector
Division of Wildlife resources officer
Trained concealed weapon permit holder
Senator
Avid Gun collector
hunter
Gun Hobbyist/target shooter

What kind of training would be needed in Utopia to own a gun?

Of your list, who is more likely to have a legitimate need to be carrying a weapon as part of their daily life? By which I mean, off duty, going to the shops, going for a walk in the park, etc?
On-duty police officer
off duty police officer
off duty officer out of area
Are all likely to need the weapon - the off duty officer can be seen to be never off duty, if they see a crime they are expected to do something about it.

All the rest would only need to be armed regularly under certain circumstances.

As I said though, banning guns entirely will not solve the problem.

So we are going to base this off need? I would argue the guy that got beat up by the thugs with the baseball bat had a need.

I'm not saying everyone should be required to have a gun, I'm just saying if you are a law abiding citizen, properly trained, and have a desire to carry a weapon, I don't have an issue with them carrying a weapon. I don't see any benefit disarming law abiding citizens.

I'm not advocating disarming legal gun owners, not sure where you got that from. My point was that the vast majority of gun owners with a CCW permit would probably do more harm than good if put in a situation, a situation that they say the concealed weapon is for.

In the same way, I wouldn't expect the majority of drivers to be of any use in a car chase.

I used to work with an ex squaddie who told me the first couple of times he got shot at in northern Ireland he panicked and froze. He told me its very common. Even with all the training exercises they do etc, the first time it happens for real less than half are able to shoot back.

I suspect that most civilians however well armed are not going to fare any better the first time the bullets fly for real.

Yea kind of funny how that is, you would think that the military was made up of a bunch of people that used to be civilians...

kind of interesting quote...

People have been murdering people for as long as people have walked the planet. Rocks, sticks, sharp blades, guns, it doesn't matter. There are always predators around in every country, every piece of ground inhabited by human beings. A percentage of the human population is warped and broken and they prey on the rest.

"There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control terrorism with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their freedom and privacy in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism -- government." --updated by me