volveré y seré millones
This doesn't address what I said, because Breivik or criminals doing their shit is also related to other laws being inadequate as well as weapons spreading in nearby countries or pockets the law isn't getting to. None of that shows gun control isn't reducing the amount of damage that can be done even by people like Breivik. One only needs to wonder how much more weaponry or even armed buddies he could have gathered if gun laws had been more lax.
The general consensus seems to be that gun control laws may prevent the occasional office drone/nerd pushed over the edge/suffering a nervour breakdown from easily killing others, but won't prevent a determined militant a-la Breivik or organized criminals from doing their thing.
Your statement is implying citizens with guns means thugs with less guns, which is nothing certain. If I'm not mistaken, what he (was it Belial?) said was that he understood it was inevitable some criminals would have guns and thought that the guns are mainly used among themselves and against each other.
Some people here on DW even suggested that they felt safer with guns in the hands of criminals rather than in those of ordinary citizens,
So true, and we all know what those are good for!
Blah, it feels like talking to tin cans.
It really depends on the circumstances and you can't just reduce a personality to something unrelated to the social environment. Most shooters may be in debt with society, but that doesn't define how much nor if others share part of the blame. If not, you create societies that push people to shooting sprees but never resolve the causes. And there, the violence doesn't stop, it just gets progressively more insane. Fundamentally, the idea behind what you said is of denial, and it makes things worse, in increasing circles of violence, fear and incomprehension.
Why does this conversation ALWAYS pop up when some stupid asshole psychopath goes on a shooting spree? Ultimately, it's the shooter's fault for doing this shit.
Quite, but both were strife stricken and under authoritarian regimes. Regulations don't play off the same way in societies with different rules and moods, nor are those regulations applied in the same ways. Relatively strict gun laws in a more democratic environment aren't used like in Nazi Germany or Stalinist territories, where gun control was deliberately applied on political or racial types. Gun proponents always used the "people kill, not guns", and on the same grounds, inhuman policy oppresses, not gun control. It really depends on whether the restrictions are being generally beneficial to everyone, furthering equality or are being used to crush a part of society. That is, policy, like guns, is a tool, not a determinant. The determinant is in the way people relate and respect each other. General paranoia and hate leads to violence, and there both gun control and gun liberty can incite and further atrocities, just in different ways.
Soviet and Nazi regimes outlawed guns, just sayin'.