If a fully automatic AR-15 had been as easily obtained, don't you think he would have obtained and used it? The restrictions on fully automatic weapons while not perfect, are effective. Their use by criminals is relatively uncommon. Why must we always assume that other restrictions would not be effective?

By the way, Zack, I know someone who is in their early '20s and bipolar with schizoaffective disorder. Before his first manic break, it's true that he had drug problems, but he was not hateful or particularly angry. Now he is very angry and until recently hospitalized, was carrying a gun and threatening to kill people (while in a manic episode). No one who knows him ... now, with his new manic mind .... has any doubt that he would have carried out the threats. He's currently hospitalized, finally taking medication voluntarily, and doing very well. He didn't hurt anyone. This only occurred because he had a family that went above and beyond what many are capable of.

If more people asked questions about mental illness, then awareness might rise ,and as a result, funding. That leads to more hospital beds, more psychiatrists per patient, less inappropriate drugs administered simply because of lobbying, quicker identification by the public of mental illness symptoms....and fewer manic or psychotic episodes that result in harm to others. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I think the people related to the five who were killed at Cafe Racer in Seattle, by a mentally ill man whose parents had unsuccessfully sought treatment for for years, would agree with me.

If the person I mentioned in the first paragraph had not been hospitalized, and had killed a few people, I WOULD NOT have been looking for a death penalty for him. I would have been horrified that, while out of his mind, he had carried out actions that he would not have done otherwise.

If Ian Stawicki had gotten the help he needed, I doubt those people at Cafe Racer would have been killed. But who cares? Murder is murder - let God sort out his own.

Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program from the mountains of Idaho.

You can take many semi-automatic rifles (including the AR-15) and convert them to fully automatic with minimal effort. Just Google it.

We have made great strides. At what point do you think it should have stopped? 100 years ago, perhaps?

Edited to add: I don't read the Marietta Daily Journal, and I'm not sure why I'm reading the posts in this thread. I'll bow out now and let you guys go look for rope.

I've exchanged a few constructive PM's regarding this subject - if anyone else has anything useful to say about this, please feel free to PM me.

So - how do you explain the extremely low rate of murder by machine gun?

You are avoiding the larger issue at play which is the motivation a person has to kill people regardless of their weapon of choice. A semi-automatic rifle fired the shots. But a person fired the gun. It could have been that gun or any other gun.

No I'm not, but you are avoiding my question - that's fine, you aren't required to answer. As far as I know, threads aren't restricted to a single issue.

As to mental health, very important and there have been interesting posts by knowledgeable people. That doesn't mean that the means used is not an issue worthy of discussion. Why must one exclude the other?

Heck, it could even been a blow gun with poison tip darts. I tried to make the same argument. He didn't get it.

Murder has always been a societal problem, even before guns or "society." Do you think this man decided to kill as many people as he could so long as he was able to obtain a semi-automatic rifle? Your argument is that he wouldn't have killed as many people, right? To that I would say there is no way to quantify how motivated a deranged person is or what they are capable of.

While at least Packs understands the argument, you haven't understood any of this. Try and shoot 70 people in a minute with a blow gun.

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