OT: Colorado shooting

[packs]

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.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by packs

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?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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

[packs]

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.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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?

[packs]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/justic...html?hpt=hp_t3

[vintagetoppsguy]

Love it!

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

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/justic...html?hpt=hp_t3

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

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.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

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.

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?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

"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."

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?

[packs]

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.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

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.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

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

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.