Yes that is my argument. I find your response incomprehensible. Do you not think he could have killed more people with a full-auto?

Your argument seems to be that just because some deranged lunatic might come up with a non-gun means of killing a lot of people, we should not have gun restrictions. Is that right?

A lot of media outlets share your viewpoint. In America we have been trained to view everything as a statistic. The first stories that came out focused almost entirely on the death or injury toll. Different numbers were reported in each story. What I'm saying is this guy was going to kill people any way he could. You are focused on how many people. If less people died, would that somehow be better than understanding why events like this happen and what motivates a person to do this? I don't have the answer to that question but I know it has nothing to do with gun laws.

I already made my point several pages back. You either didn't see, ignored it or don't comprehend it. My point is this. The shooter had 4 weapons: an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, 2 Glock 40 caliber handguns and 1 Remington pump action shotgun. He could have done the same amount of damage with just one handgun and multiple loaded clips as he did with all 4 guns. A Glock 40 caliber with 4 loaded clips can be expended in under a minute. He didn't need ther other three guns.

Let's just say for a minute that the shooter only had one hand gun with multiple loaded clip and the carnage was still the same. Now what's your argument?

I already addressed this (in at 3 prior posts). For example post #72:
"I think it [civilization] could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire."

This problem of course includes the Glock - it is of course now ubiquitous and a major problem.

My Glock holds 10 rounds. I do not consider that a "large magazine capacity." I think most would agree.

In other words if the shooter had killed his victims with a 6 shot revolver, we wouldn't be having a discussion on gun control? Is that what you're saying? Do you really, really believe that?

Saying less guns equals less deaths is an easy solution to a complicated problem. I don't see any truth in that statement either. To say that simply eliminating guns would solve the problem of mass murders or murderers in general seems overly simplistic. To say that shooting a gun makes killing people easier I think is false as well. What makes it hard for most people to kill are the moral questions surrounding the act, not the method. Eliminate the morality and it becomes very easy.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with a couple of handguns and a few extra clips.

I've mostly stayed out of today's discussion but I can't bear seeing Mark take it on the chin. So I am going to say one final thing, and feel free to respond, but I won't be back. Promise this is my last post on this thread.

For those who don't want to see any changes made in the gun laws, did it ever cross your mind that even though the most determined killers will probably still reek their havoc regardless of the laws, isn't it within the realm of possibility that maybe one or two people might get caught with tougher laws in place? And if even one person is stopped, wouldn't that save the life of somebody's spouse or child or parent?

No constitutional rights would be violated if the assault ban went back into effect. If you want a hunting rifle you are legally able to have one. If you want to carry a handgun for protection you are allowed to. But the constitution doesn't give you the right to have any weapon you want to, or to build up an arsenal like this Colorado idiot.

We always make distinctions in life. There are powerful drugs that are legal- codeine and xanax come to mind- and there are powerful drugs such as heroin and meth that are not. Society makes distinctions and we accept them. And it's okay to distinguish between different types of guns too.

But instead of looking at the problem in the most open minded way possible, too many people stand behind a very rigid interpretation of what the government may or may not be allowed to do. But the NRA won't even budge a fraction of an inch on anything. There isn't a modicum of flexibility in any gun law whatsoever.

Maybe nearly every deranged individual who wants to kill still will do so even if assasult weapons were banned. I don't know what's inside the heart of these maniacs. But maybe, just maybe, one person will be stopped in his tracks. If there were some kind of database to check gun and ammunition purchases, perhaps somebody would have noticed that Mr. Holmes was buying 6000 bullets and reported it to the feds. And maybe the feds would have decided to question him. I don't know, it's pure speculation.

But if you believe that the status quo is all we need, then the status quo is what we are going to have.

And with that gentlemen, I bid you a good evening. I won't be posting here again. Thanks for listening.

You wouldn't be having it with me, and the toll would likely be lower. Do you really, really believe he would not have killed more people with a fully automatic weapon?

As to the Glock - the rate of fire plus the fast reload is something that in my view we don't need, though I do appreciate that some may feel they need such a thing for personal protection. However, some may feel that they need a fully automatic weapon for personal protection.

We have a murder rate much much higher than Western Europe, Canada, etc. but obviously that has nothing to do with differences in the availability of guns.

Barry, you're absolutely right. However, in reading this thread, I didn't see anybody say that the gun laws didn't need to be changed. You certainly won't hear that from me. Heck, I even gave a few suggestions on how we could tighten gun laws. Others did too. I'm not sure where you get "For those who don't want to see any changes made in the gun laws..."

Yup. And the University of Texas tower sniper, Charles Whitman, killed 16 people and wounded another 31 with every day hunting rifles - not to mention the two stabbing deaths (his mother and wife) just before that, but let's ignore all that and only focus on assault weapons.

This is not what I meant. You are taking things way out of proportion. I simply said there is too much media attention, and these guys the usually do this stuff are not mentally ill. How often do they get an insanity plea? Almost never. My problem is that there is too much media attention on this. How will the media and causing widespread panic help us understand mental illness, especially if many of these killer are not mentally ill at all. Dahmer, Gacy were all never diagnosed with disorders. You are acting like I have no compasion for the mentally ill. I just have no compassion for those who kill for the hell of it. Is this guy one of them, I do not know yet. But tons of media exposure to it and our society in a state of fear is ridiculous.

I have guns with 30 round magazines. So what? I don't go around shooting at people. This guy was a nut case, as are all who would kill another human being except in time of war. No sane person would shoot another. All killers are nuts. As has been said a million times, if it wasn't a gun it would have been some other way this guy would have done it. Why do I have guns with such firepower? Because the world is in big trouble and it's going to get a hell of a lot worse. The day will come in this country as all others that I may be happy to have them. I hope I'm wrong, for I sure as hell don"t want to have to use them for such a purpose. But no one should have the right to take them from me. They are there for protection if needed. Frank

+1 proud gun owner here too

Where would you draw the line on what you should be allowed to possess?

How many kids die each year from accidental gunshots? Just curious.

I would draw the line with what I own. I have no full automatic weapons and don't feel that anyone not in the military does. I however am sane, I think. However there are many crazies out there who own such weapons. Gangs and drug dealers come to mind. But our government doesn't seem to make much of an attempt to get them. Me, I just want to live in peace and be left alone. However being able to protect myself if needbe makes me feel better.

When was the last shooting on a commercial airline? Thank you gun control.

I don't know the answer to that question, but just one is too many. Peter, there are responsible gun owners and then there are irresponsible gun owners - just like dog owners or anything else.

How many kids die each year from falling down the stairs? I bet you money it's more than die from accidental gunshots. So, do we ban 2 story homes? Or do we make a law that says if you have kids under a certain age then you must live in a one story home? You're doing your best to take the focus off the real issue here which is personal reposnsibility.

Edited to add: Question for Peter (or anybody else). What's the difference between a child finding a gun and accidentally killing themselves or finding their parents drugs, ingesting them accidentally killing themselves? So, why don't we just make drugs illegal? Oh, wait! We did! How's that working out? The bad people still get the drugs just like the bad people would continue to get the guns even if we banned them all. Once again, the focus should be on personal responsibility.

I have one last question for all who want guns gone. How do you think this could possibly be done? A criminal is never in a million years going to give up his gun. Even with all the guns here now more are smuggled in. It is now, and will be forever, impossible to get the guns off the street in the USA. So you are saying regulate more so protection from criminals is less. I understand your wants but it is impossible to do. I wish all guns could be gotten, but it will never happen.

I doubt that your premise is true. In any case, this is essentailly the same issue that has been responded to several times, yet you ignore the response and keep raising it. Multi-story dwellings are essential to economic housing. In contrast, society would do just fine without certain types of firearms in private hands.

Your premise here seems to be that controls cannot work, but in fact they do. See prestigecollectables post just above, and controls on fully automatic weapons have been remarkably successful.

BTW - when was the last time you bought OTC drugs that weren't in a sealed container. How many "Tylenol murders" have their been since this has been required? Is there a way a lunatic could get around this - of course there is, yet it has been very effective.

How many times are you going to say this? If you feel this strong about it, quit your job, go to Washington and fight for your cause. Otherwise, you're just sounding like a broken record.

When you say "certian types of firearms", I'm guessing you mean assault rifles? How many examples of other mass shootings have we provided in which assault weapons weren't used? V-Tech shooter didn't have an assualt weapon. UT sniper didn't have an assault weapon. Jared Loughner didn't have an assault weapon. Etc, Etc, Etc,.

Let me ask you Mark, do you really believe that if assault weapons were banned, that the mass killings would stop? Or even be reduced?

No, read my posts. Frank A is of course correct in that dealing with existing weapons is a huge problem.

You have several times said essentially the same thing, likening guns to motor vehicles and now private housing. I find the analogies ludicrous and have explained why.

No? You didn't mean assault weapons? Then what do you mean by, "society would do just fine without certain types of firearms in private hands." Please clarify "certain types of firearms" because I took it to mean assault weapons.

Post 72, post 164, post 169.

Let's cut the crap, Mark. Just answer the question. You said, "Society would do just fine without certain types of firearms in private hands." Please be specific and explain what types of firearms you are referring to.

The posts are general clear and intentionally general.

Backed into a corner and you can't answer the question. Ok.

Discussing the relative merits of, say, a vintage govt. 1911 (or even a specific revolver) vs a Glock 17 would be ludicrous in a forum like this, hence general comments are most appropriate. I think this is evident to most. If you don't understand what I posted, I don't know how to make it more clear.

You do seem to have trouble understanding the posts you are responding to (at least mine). Maybe it's my writing style.

I'm still waiting to hear why equating a multi-level house or a truck (clear economic necessities) to a gun in the context of the arguments you made is anything but ridiculous.

Mark & David, forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't you both seem to be arguing that we should allow guns but not the kind that can fire a million rounds per second with an endless supply of ammo? And that maybe if there was some signs that the feds could've picked up on, then those signs should've been looked into in the case of Holmes, the Colorado shooter? It seems like you both agree but are just coming at it from different angles.

I'm not big into politics, but I believe in less laws/gov't (maybe I'm a libertarian???). I don't own a gun, but believe they should be allowed. Freedom to protect oneself and family. If a few restrictions go into play when purchasing a gun, such as a waiting period etc, then I'm fine with it.

An example to go along with what David is saying, people die every day in backyard pools. We create a few guidelines to minimize deaths/injuries (such as fences around the pools, "no diving" signs in shallow depths, etc) but unless you ban backyard pools there will always be accidents. We shouldn't ban backyard pools and we shouldn't ban guns. Just educate people on them and create guidelines to keep the bad people with bad intentions away.

Carry on ...

Rob, you're pretty close. I know the "million rounds per second" comment was an exaggeration, but I think that's where me and Mark differ. I agree that fully automatic weapons (the million rounds per socond ones) should be banned - and they already are - but I think he's saying that semi-automatic weapons should be banned as well. If he is, good luck with that one, but won't clarify his comments.

The AR-15 "assault rifle" like the one used in Aurora was not a fully automatic weapon. It was a semi-automatic weapon, like many, many other rifles/pistols.

A fully automatic weapon will disburse rounds at a high rate of speed as long as the finger is held on the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon will only fire with each pull of the trigger.

Also, the AR-15 only holds one round in the chamber. The gun itself is not a high capacity gun. The rest of the rounds are housed in the clip. You can get anything from a 5 round clip (very reasonable) to a 100 round drum/clip (not reasonable). So this conversation shouldn't be about "gun control," it should be a magazine capacity issue. I already said in post #55 that we should "ban high capacity clips." What else does Mark want? He just wants to argue and be vague with his comments.

I saw that post and I did not disagree with you on magazine size. It is a major concern. If you carefully look at what I posted, it was primarily directed at the specific analogies you presented. That is because I often hear them (or similar) as general arguments against restrictions (including magazine size, ammunition availability, whatever, etc.) and in my view they aren't well thought through.

My apologies to Zach and Ty for my responses - I took their posts in the worst possible way, which is always a bad move.

Hey no problem, my post needed more detail anyway so I apologize as well.

Perfectly alright Scott. My apologies to you as well. Poorly chosen wording on my part.

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

I have to agree with the President on that one. But as others have said, Holmes might have found an even more hideous killing method such as tossing grenades in the theater, poison gas, etc.

Well well well. It seems that our great president has not been speaking about the gun issue because behind closed doors they are planning to sign a Internathional arms trade treaty with the UN. Since when do we need to regulate our freedom to own guns with foreign nations. Your slimey government is taking another route to take your guns away. Then they will find something else to take away. These lowlifes in washington don't give a dam about this country, just the money they can line their pockets with. I know one thing, the first foreign basterd who comes to get my guns will be shot on sight. Your current leaders are a bunch of scumbags. Frank

Frank,

You are referring to the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in which meetings have been going on all month in New York City. I've been following this closely. Yes, this is an attmept to take guns out of the hands of private ownership. Some say that would never happen in this country, but pre-conference position papers call for exactly that. Any treaty with the UN would supersede the 2nd Ammendment. Anybody that doesn't believe that can look it up. It's a fact!

Fortunately, we have the NRA there on our side to make sure our own government doesn't undermine the Constitution. We also have many senators on our side as any such treaty would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, 57 senators signed a letter and sent it to Barry Soetoro to remind him of that. In other words, it wouldn't pass Senate approval.

The sad thing is that they try to keep things like this quiet. You don't hear anything about it on the news and I bet you that many gun owners don't even know what's going on. It might be signed, but it will never be ratified.

Edited to change my wording (for Peter)

A "dumb ass"? David, you only debase yourself referring to the President, or anyone really, that way.

Unless the Supreme Court has overruled Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), I'm pretty doubtful that treaties supersede the Constitution.

Kenny you are right, a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution.

My premises was made on Article VI. Section 2 which says, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

If I’m interpreting it wrong, then my apologies. I don’t want to give out false information.

Edited to add:

Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have both said that international law should take precedence over US law.

Duh. Kenny shame on you for pointing out the obvious.

Words of wisdom:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...talk&Itemid=69

Sincerely, Clayton

David, as I understand it that provision means a treaty takes precedence over the laws of any state -- it's a federalism provision. A law passed by Congress is also the supreme law of the land, but is still subject to the Constitution -- as is a treaty.

Wow, I did not think that this thread would go in the direction it has gone.

Sorry I even started this thread

Why? It's a discussion within a discussion thread within a discussion forum: People having intelligent conversation without beating each other to death, which is fairly rare on the internet, and to be commended.

I don't think straying from victim empathy is a bad thing - we all are very aware of how tragic this was.

pertinent language from Reid v. Covert:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. ... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.

The latest in this morning's news is evidence indicating possible schizophrenia.

The more I read about this guy I am thinking he very well may truly be mentally ill. At first I thought not but now it is seeming like he is.

I don't think it will matter. Murder seems to be the line drawn by the public, and whether or not the killer was mentally ill is irrelevant to them - in fact, it's an impediment in their minds, to getting the justice that society needs. Here's an example, which shows the "common sense" of the jury:

"After pushing a woman, Kendra Webdale, under a moving train, Andrew Goldstein, a former schizophrenic psychiatric patient, was charged and convicted of second-degree murder. Though he had only been released from a mental facility for a couple weeks, the jury rejected Goldstein’s plea of insanity, and sentenced him to twenty-five-to-life in prison. However, to prevent similar incidents, New York passed “Kendra’s Law”, which, had it been in place sooner, would have forced Goldstein to take medication for his condition."

Scott, I think juries are skeptical of mental illness defenses because it's difficult to swallow the proposition that someone who carries out a pre-meditated crime is so impaired that they aren't capable of distinguishing right from wrong, or controlling their conduct. Particularly where the evidence of insanity typically would be an expert psychiatrist paid for by the defense, which has been contradicted by a prosecution psychiatrist.

Peter, I'm skeptical of such insanity defenses as well, but the example I showed above indicates that society needs its pound of flesh, even when they know someone was insane PRIOR to killing. I also understand that most people don't understand that the ability to plan a killing does not mean that someone is operating in his own mind - nor do they care (although I'm sure some have slight qualms at having the insane lethally injected), as long as the person was acting with a mind that performed acts rational for a killer.

Scott let me give you a hypothetical. Schizophrenic, does fine on meds, takes a medication holiday because of side effects or for whatever reason, in uncontrolled state commits murder. Just put him back on meds and send him on his way?

Peter, schitzophrenia is not a "get out of jail free card". From what I've heard, the psych wards within the prison system is much worse then the general population. The people in there can be unstable and dangerous.

Your hypothetical is very possible and is something that I deal with on a frequent basis. Not only from "taking a vaction from meds" but also from the meds not having the same effect over time, also over medicating.

What are we supposed to do? The average schitzophrenic doesn't end up mass murdering... Most end up living a VERY difficult life being seriously uncomfortable in their own skin. Not having a normal functioning brain is a hard way to wake up in the morning. It's also very hard on the families of them.

It's very frustrating to me that only mass murder will very slightly raise awareness, and only for a short period of time. It doesn't matter what the jury decides. This guy will never see the light of day, regardless of whether or not they accept an illness plea.

I've always been of the opinion that a rational person pleads insanity and an insane person is not aware they're insane.

But Matt, suppose, and maybe it's a hypothetical that doesn't exist, but suppose that a schizophrenic would be normal or at least functional so long as they take meds. What would be the point of confining them indefinitely for a crime they committed while off the meds?

You nailed it.

I've said this in several posts, but it bears repeating: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder affect the part of the brain that controls 'insight'. This means that schizophrenics NEVER know that they are schizophrenic. They have to be talked into taking meds for reasons other than: you are schizophrenic. People with bipolar disorder do not have insight during mania, but usually (but not always) have insight when they come down.

It's a tough concept to wrap your brain around - unfortunately, many psychiatrists can't do it either.

Peter - the 'medical vacation' you refer to is VERY common with schizophrenics; in fact, almost all take such a vacation regularly. It's a tough illness to deal with, but it's still mental illness.

Matt - thanks for this post.

Did anyone here mention how we sent a notebook with his plans/drawings a week before to his psychiatrist but no one read it.

Peter, there are many levels of schitzophrenia ranging from mild to the very extreme. Once it's known what a particular individual is capable of, like in this case, or any case involving murder, it's too risky to trust any medication to keep the individual stable enough for reintegration into society, IMO.

I haven't heard of any case where someone snapped, killed somebody, was given medication, and sent home.

It's really up to families, of the mentally ill, to make sure things are ok. For me it's been a 15 year battle that I expect to never end. I'd love to see more funding, better research, and better understanding.

Scott - thanks for you posts too.

Matt, do you think it's likely Holmes' family, or psychiatrist, had some clue about just how disturbed he may have been?

Imagine someone, a close family member, suddenly changing into a completely different person, almost like they were possessed. It's really hard to ignore, unless you're trying really hard.

It's now known that he was saw a psychiatrist, confidentiality hides the details for now. A psychiatrist can't prescribe medication but should have referred him to a psychologist.

Schizophrenia can be difficult for a family to come to terms... But what he did/planned doesn't happen overnight. I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

I feel so bad for those kids and adults that died. It's important for parents to know this is a possibility and to be aware. No one else will do it; however, we'll see what the psych knew.

A psychologist can prescribe meds...

He was seeing a psychiatrist, Lynne Fenton, MD.

I had it backwards, my mistake.

Since this thread has over 5,000 hits, and many young men in their 20's read it, as well as parents of children that age...I'll take advantage and post once more.

No parent wants to admit their child has a mental illness, so they will write off the odd behavior to other things - 'mental illness' will never even cross their minds. Both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder keep the person from having the insight to realize they are ill. Given these unfortunate facts, no one will be prepared. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. This affects MANY people; however, despite the fact that many of your friends have already dealt with it, you won't even be aware of the fact, and if you are - they will spare you the details. I was totally surprised at how many people I know either have it, have a child who has it, or a spouse who has it.

Bottom line - there is usually no one to blame: not for ignorance, for incorrect responses, for anything. It's just a tough situation. The best you can do if it hits your family, is to call someone (or PM someone) who has been through it. They will all help you.

Love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4

Wow, that was really vague... I don't get the "It takes more than just statements," Part.

I'm guessing the problem here is that Dr Fenton worked for the university and their policies are different. Many cases are evaluated in a hospital, too bad this one wasn't.

My prayers go out to the families of the deceased. :(

Reporting it to police is useless unless he's seen to be an immediate danger. Even then, unless it can be shown to a judge that he is a "grave danger", either to himself or to others, a judge generally won't sign an order to involuntarily confine.

I've seen people get placed on holds by a hospital. Do they call a judge or something? Actually just curious.

It seems that way, but there's a little more to it.

In Washington State, a social worker at the hospital will have a MHP (Mental Health Professional) come out to evaluate the person. If the MHP thinks the person presents a grave danger to himself or others, they will ask a judge to sign the 72-hr hold order. The MHP will look for an available bed at a psychiatric facility, then make arrangements for the person to be transported. If no beds are available, they stay in the E.R. until one is found.

NM- too negative

Sincerely, Clayton