One of the mantras of the right wing gun-nut is that "more guns equals more peace". Because the Bad Guys will be so frightened of being shot, they'll not commit their crime. As with all right wing mantras, this one has no actual basis, nothing to support it. The NRA's magazine has a small column of people who killed gun-wielding idiots, but it doesn't have a column of the children who are killed by idiots who don't check their weapons before playing with them. Nor does it carry a list of the cops who are killed by right wing fanatics because "Obama will take their guns", or left wing ones who think their anarchy requires them to be Total Idiots.
After the Aurora shooting (the Batman one <- it should say something that I feel a need to differentiate the various mass shootings of late!), some politicians and NRA nuts argued that if people had their guns, they could have gunned down the heavily armed, protection-wearing murderer. As if lots of weapons being fired by untrained, frightened and confused civilians in a crowded, muddled situation would have helped.
Let me put it this way: Special Forces troops the world over endlessly practice close-in combat. They do it so they're not distracted by the explosions and gunfire that happens in their line of work. They do it because they know that handling such "dangerous situations" without racing hearts and with clear heads is a "perishable skill". Something an NYPD firearms instructor noted in a recent interview with a NY Times reporter. I'll also note that a heavily armed populace won't reduce crime; criminals are not renowned for their intelligence; they are known for their eternally misplaced optimism, and their lack of self-control. If they think that some person might shoot back, they are the type of person who will shoot the innocent first - just to be sure.
Let's say you get a few people with guns and a lack of common sense in a movie theater like Aurora. Do you think they'd be coordinated enough to actually figure out where the threat was, sort out a command structure so everyone knew who was where and do their best to prevent "friendly fire" when they not only do not know anything about who their enemy is, but they are in a dark, smoke filled room with lots of panicked and injured people? Would these "do gooders" be wise enough to know when not to shoot, and be cool headed enough to figure out what the tactical situation is? How about: be cool headed enough to realize they needed to understand the tactical situation? In short, you really do not want untrained, poorly armed John Wayne types taking out the bad guys. Not just because they won't have any idea who the bad guys are, but because they're going to end up in jail for shooting some cop, or innocent person who didn't know they were trying to "help". (And no, passing a few hours of the "gun handling" class you need to get your license doesn't put you at the same level as a Police SWAT member or a Special Forces sniper.)
It all puts that idiotic phrase "guns don't kill" in a different light. No, the unused gun doesn't kill. The problem is that there are far too many idiots who forget the basics of gun control, reloading or how to keep them from the kids. There are far too many people for whom a gun makes them superman.
People have been devising ways of killing each other since before people existed. They'll go on doing so. Guns don't kill people - but they prove to be effective at that gruesome task in the hands of idiots and buffoons. More guns doesn't equal less crime - more guns equals more people using them in situations that words could solve.