<< Let's play that one out. You're in a darkened cinema. Suddenly, someone starts shooting. You pull your gun. So do thirty other people. Which of those people do you shoot >>

Interesting thought, Oto.

If other people in the cinema had had guns and they’d felt the need to draw and fire them, they’d be doing it directly because there was someone down the front shooting at them, in this particular instance.

The target would be very clear. There’d be no confusion. No one in the audience would have any doubt that any other shots from within the audience were directed at the gunman at the front, presumably.

If people in the audience had had guns, the outcome could have been very different.

However, I can envisage a very different situation where someone in the audience takes a shot at someone else. The audience is watching the movie, so no one sees who fired the shot. Then some well-meaning person draws his gun, is seen by someone else and promptly shot. The person who shoots is then thought by others to be the gunman and is shot by five other people!

So, the right to bear arms, especially in dark places like cinemas, is fraught with danger.

It may have saved the day in the Century 16 movie theatre in Aurora. But I can’t imagine that it would have a net positive effect in the bigger picture.

Ludwig, thanks for expressing so clearly what I was trying to say in such a muddled way. I'm not sure if my post suggested that I was supporting the right to carry guns - I actually intended the opposite. The 'what if they all had guns' argument is one I've seen when satisfying my guilty pleasure of reading the comments attached to news articles on websites. It's one that has annoyed me for the reasons you addressed in your post.

It's certainly true that, on some occasions, the rules get in the way of a positive (or less negative) outcome. It's certainly true that a well-meaning, gun-carrying private citizen COULD have neutralised the situation quickly; it's also true, though, that the same citizen could have escalated things even further. There are plenty of places I shouldn't go if I don't want to get shot. The streets of my suburb are not (or should not be) among them. We take our chances when we leave our houses; thanks in part to Howard's gun laws, though, the odds are stacked slightly further in our favour.

Ludwig,
The right to bear arms does not automatically mean that everyone carries a gun wherever they go. Well, not in my book anyway. This right means that if you want to go to a shooting event or go Bush or shoot vermin on a big property then you're able to do so without having to be treated like a criminal. If you carry a gun whilst attending a Cinema etc then you should be treated like a criminal because then you are one.
No different to drink driving etc.

basically condemned all academics as d!ckheads,
Ludwig,
Steady on old lad not all, only the majority. By my experience there are more people in our judiciary who'd be less qualified to carry a gun than the average licensed gun user. Just look up the many insane verdicts in many court cases. All Law people came via courtesy of Academia. The odd ones who mange to free themselves from the academic yoke are the good ones we hardly ever get to hear about.

John Howard was right, as Ludwigs first comment stated. Please note that today in the Melbourne Age (1-8-2012) John Howard has another erudite article spelling out more detail why.

"Brothers in arms ,yes, but the US needs to get rid of it guns".

An excellent ending to this discussion I think.

Thanks PEST.

Here’s the article. Well worth reading:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html