What do you think of the Denver shootings?

According to researcher RJ Rummel… governments have been responsible for the killing of over 262 million people globally in the last century alone. http://funadvice.com/r/165a7t3lr15 His number does not include the plurality of those killed in combat. The fact that major media focuses on the civilian mass murders belies the actual discrepancy in potential hazard. Incidentally… of the 262 million figure provided by Rummel… roughly 100 million of those deaths occurred following the disarmament of the public. http://funadvice.com/r/btl6f34qsbl So… I am inclined to disagree… although giving up ones means of protection may reduce the attention paid to the loss of life by murder… it greatly increases the likelihood that murders will occur.

i think it is a very tragic happening, and i truly sympathize with the families of the victims and wish the wounded victims a speedy recovery .

as far as the gun laws go- NOT THE PROBLEM. a firearm is a TOOL and it is at the whim of the person using it. murder was not invented with the firearm- it has been around since mankinds ancestors developed the opposable thumb so we could grasp a weapon and fight for territory or food.

is the the cars fault that the drunk driver used it to crash into innocent people? is it the alcohols fault the drunk used it to get intoxicated and drive?

it is far past the time for pointing fingers at inanimate objects and blaming them for what a human being decides to do with it.

the blame lies completely with the mind of the individual and their mental status ( which cannot be measured every day) if someone truly wants to commit murder - the tools and methods to do so are legion. if not a gun- a bomb- or an axe, a hammer, screwdriver, icepick, car, plane, rock, stick, club, fork, knife, sword, nail, cinderblock, water, ice, plastic bag, gas, rope, string, wire, fish fin spine, poison, parasitic worms, trained dogs, trained cats- see my point?? lets just lock people in a padded room where they can be safe and not have access to ANYTHING and the murder rate will go down- but what kind of a life is that?

the trick here is to try and identify the person having issues before the tragedy occurs- which would require careful vigilance of your friends and neighbors and taking them to the ‘shrink’ when they seem unbalanced. which would be nearly impossible as well and a border line invasion of privacy.

BLAME THE PERSON AND NOT THE GUNS.

SENSELESS EVIL

I agree that banning guns isn’t the answer but adding laws so a mental evaluation and other precautionary processes have to be taken before a person can buy a gun. Banning them isn’t the answer, limiting access to those who would use them improperly is

how do you identify that?? have you ever heard of answering a question on a test with a lie? i am not coming at you in a mean way- just playing devils advocate here. in my state and other states you do have to fill out an application- it asks if you have ever been declared mentally unstable- it asks if you have ever been found guilty of domestic violence, and 10 other questions- there is one question that requires you answer yes, if you answer the others with a yes then you do not get a gun. if you answer all the questions correctly then your record gets checked by a third party with access to criminal records- if it comes back clear then you get the gun. so i buy a gun- i am a legal LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, i am sane and not a danger to others, no past criminal record and i am not a drug user or a woman beater- i walk out the door with my firearm which i just purchased legally- take me to a shrink and the evaluation would be the same- capable of owning a firearm (who would pay for that evaluation anyway??) so i now have a firearm- two years go by and i develop a brain tumor which effects my thought processes and makes me increasingly paranoid and hearing voices and the neighbors dog begins talking to me and telling me to do bad things to people- i am a lawful firearm owner still remember- so i use that tool to do bad things. so where is the fault here? is it the fault of the gunshop for not knowing i would get a brain tumor in 2 years?? is it my fault for having a brain tumor and having an altered perception of the world? the people who develop psychosis most times don’t know they are sick- so who catches that?? family and friends would be the only ones that could tell that something is not right, how many family and friends would act on this? and send a family member for an evaluation? say i don’t develop psychosis - EVER HAD A VERY BAD DAY? do we have a computer at our door like the HAL2000 from the movie 2001?? that asks you how you are doing today and if you lie it can sense the deception and not allow you to go outside- not allow you to walk out the door with one of your legally owned guns?? the ONLY way a psychological profile will catch this is if WE as a society begin to turn our family and friends in to a psychologist every time we are having a bad day or when we are just not behaving normal- how many people reading this would go that far for a family member or friend- EVERY TIME THEY ARE ACTING WEIRD??? there really is no valid solution to this problem- except to INCREASE FIREARM TRAINING AND AWARENESS- INCREASE PRIVATE CITIZENS ABILITY TO CARRY A PERSONAL FIREARM FOR THIER PROTECTION AND OTHERS. most of these shootings may have been stopped early if someone with a carry permit noticed that ‘guy pulling out the gun and aiming at everyone’ had a gun and dropped the dude in his tracks in a self defense scenario. there are very few ways that an upfront mental evaluation would prevent mass shootings.

I think Adam was asking about people’s emotional response not for a tirade on gun control. Anyway, the gunman shot 71 people in 90 seconds. He would have shot more but his 100 round drum magazine jammed. My question is why does anyone outside of soldiers need a 100 round clip on their gun? Last year in Tucson AZ Jarad Lee Lougntner used his Glock with a 33 round magazine to shoot up Gabrielle Gifford’s meeting with constituents. He would have shot more but he fumbled reloading. Seems to me the only purpose of high capacity clips is the wholesale slaughter of people. In both the Tucson and Aurora CO shootings the list of fatalities would have been shorter if the shooter had to reload every 10 shots. As far as “dropping the dude in his tracks” almost every gun fight is decided by who clears leather first. Not much chance getting the shooter with a handgun while trying to take cover.

the ‘tirade or gun control’ is in response to gabby if you would have read down further. it would be far easier to employ other methods of genocide since both of the nuts you mentioned planned their attacks. who clears leather first does not always win the fight- read some of the writings of the old west gunfighters- who has the ability to keep their wits and can actually HIT their target while under fire will win. being fast is not the 100 percent gunfight winning strategy. hollywood has distorted reality when it comes to gunfighting.

10 round magazines would most likely NOT have made a difference- since it is still THE PERSON BEHIND THE FIREARM THAT IS IN CHARGE. a sick mind can come up with plenty of alternative forms of mayhem to make up for lack of firepower.

this is the land of the FREE- a free society should not have to justify the need for a 100 round magazine- the tools utilized are not the problem- it is the sick mind that wields it, and sometimes the intelligence to figure out alternate ways to kill on a mass scale.

@filletofspam: My question is why does anyone outside of soldiers need a 100 round clip on their gun? My question would be… why do soldiers need 100 round clips? The obvious answer… is so they may kill more easily… perhaps because they face an enemy who wields similar weaponry. What makes the opponent an enemy? Being at odds with the state the soldier is fighting on behalf of. Why the disconnect when we tally up bodycounts brought about by agents acting on behalf of a state? The figure is astronomical… States are overwhelmingly responsible for the loss of life in the last century… so who in their right mind would argue that only agents of the state should be so well armed? For example… American drone strikes in Pakistan have killed 40 times more civilians than purported terrorists… to the tune of 1950 casualties that cannot be justified. If these dead had equal measure to protect themselves from the drones… they would have stood a much better chance to be alive today. So… why do these dead not matter? Because they were born under a different flag with a different set of beliefs? Because they had the audacity to resist the greatest state on the planet? Should no one be allowed to resist the state? If there were one collective governance for the entire planet… do you think this global government would disarm its own agents? Not a chance, because modern central governance is just the current iteration of the same top down power structure mankind has languished under since prehistory. In order for an elite few to live a life of limitless leisure and bequeath the same to their future posterity… they must employ the fasces and keep the lower tier in check. They do so by having superior fire power… and they use it… the legion of dead they’ve put down tell no tales.

it made me sick when i heard about it i dont get how anyopne could do such a thing . i though it was ridiculous when people tried to blame the gun laws and the commic books even fideo games. how much more can they re think gun laws besides banning them all together which would be dumb.they already do background checks on you and you fill out applications for them. the guy that shot all those people bought all of those guns legally on the internet he never commited a crime until that day. i wish people would stop blaming guns and video games theres a lot of people that buy guns or video games that dont go out shooting people.