Two further thoughts on my "Guns" posting:
Since Utopia remains a fictional country dreamed up by Sir Thomas More, I do not believe it is useful to discuss how much better society would be without guns. Guns are here to stay, and so are knives and spears and clubs and countless other deadly weapons that fallen human beings in a sinful world have used to kill each other before guns were invented. While the earth lasts, guns will only go away once someone invents a simpler, cheaper, more efficient way to kill. This sounds horrible, and it is, even if stated somewhat glibly. As good-intentioned as gun control laws may purport to be, the main effect of removing guns from the hands of the law-abiding is providing peace of mind to the criminal who is doing the shooting. James Holmes reportedly wore body armor during his attack, but how concerned did he really need to be that anyone was going to fire back? Let's not make it any easier on the next would-be mass assassin.
Second, a headline of a recent Yahoo! News article reads: Calls for gun control stir little support. The story reports that "...Barack Obama's White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver." As quick as the White House has been to jump on liberal bandwagons to gain the support and votes of disparate groups, why would the president take this position given his past support of gun control? Could it be that the spectacle of the administration of Fast and Furious infamy calling for keeping guns from law-abiding citizens would be too much for the public to bear? Two-thousands illegal guns for the Mexican drug gangs, but none for thee? The capacity for cognitive dissonance even among the supporters of Barack Obama must have some limits.