if you can shoot 12 or 30 people at once IT IS ABOUT GUNS

[CreekDog]

its what makes a crazy person capable of huge destruction

yes, deal with it. it's true.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I agree COMPLETELY.

It is the truth.

I don't know what kind of gun the shooter used, but if it was an assault rifle or something like that, then I have a big problem with it.

There is NO place in our society for such weapons.

Recommended.

[northoftheborder]

3. I agree.

[kelly1mm]

5. Probably a handgun. Just a guess but reading between the lines

of the reports (in a crowd and the shooter was able to get to point blank range) as well as the reported number of shots (15ish) is well within the capacity of many handguns without reloading.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. Thanks for clarifying...

I just had no idea.

[jallo]

6. I will bet you it was NOT an "assault rifle"

It may have been a so called "assault weapon". There is a significant difference.

And fwiw, I disagree with the OP. A dipshit with a car can (and does sometimes) do as much damage as this person did.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. I hear you...

Yes, a dipshit with a car can do this much damage......

But it's not usually intentional, now is it?

This shooter meant to do harm, and he did.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Sure, under certain rather elaborate circumstances. A gun makes it so much easier.

NGU.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. There's a typo in your message.

You mis-spelled 'stalwart defenders of the Second amendment' as 'mass-violence apologists'.

I'm sure the edit window is stil open.

[villager]

12. no, the typo would appear to be in your head

Sadly, the windows there would appear to be shut.

[ClassWarrior]

4. K&R

NGU.

[bluestateguy]

11. Ambulence chaser

nt

[golfguru]

13. Was the gun used in this atrocity legal or illegal?

If it was legal and it was an assault type weapon we need to
clamp down on assault weapons. Those are not defensive weapons.

If it was illegal, it is a different issue.

[sofa king]

14. People were running amok well before automatic weapons came around.

Running Amok

Although commonly used in a colloquial and less-violent sense, the phrase is particularly associated with a specific sociopathic culture-bound syndrome in Malaysian culture. In a typical case of running amok, a male who has shown no previous sign of anger or any inclination to violence will acquire a weapon and, in a sudden frenzy, will attempt to kill or seriously injure anyone he encounters. Amok episodes of this kind normally end with the attacker being killed by bystanders, or committing suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181064/">And:

Captain Cook is credited with making the first outside observations and recordings of amok in the Malay tribesmen in 1770 during his around-the-world voyage. He described the affected individuals as behaving violently without apparent cause and indiscriminately killing or maiming villagers and animals in a frenzied attack. Amok attacks involved an average of 10 victims and ended when the individual was subdued or “put down” by his fellow tribesmen, and frequently killed in the process.

(Which also puts certain classic cartoons in a different perspective.)

The phenomenon is independent of the weaponology, and in fact predates semi-automatic weapons by at least a hundred years in this case. Public mass murder/suicide has a long and ignoble history in human culture. Taking away the weapon of choice does nothing to alleviate the danger of it happening or to illuminate the circumstances that cause it, nor does it provide insight into potential warning signs.

Edit: I think a better approach would be to use the gun ownership, licensing, and training process as a way to identify those at risk of exhibiting such behavior. We're not going to get rid of the guns, so we might as well use them as bait to identify and document the truly disturbed before they can pop off.