Any speculation at this point is a an assumption.

Do you know where Rantoul Ill is. I spent the coldest winter of my life there.

Amy, you make an interesting point. I've done the same- had to stop listening to talk radio and give up news sites for a long time around the 2008 election. The thing for me, though, is it isn't the politics itself that gets me so worked up, it's the blind refusal of people involved in the "debate" to assign any validity to those whose views are different from their own. The politicians make me angry when they vote contrary to the expressed views of those they are elected to represent, but it's really more the venom that comes from the average folks on these boards that gets under my skin. I am never one to shy away from expressing my views but I try to do so respectfully. Admittedly, I'm sure I fail at this from time to time but many others make no attempt what so ever. Its sad because in most instances I think we all want the same end result, we just see different paths to achieving those goals. If we'd stop yelling and actually listen to one another we might get somewhere but right now it's too easy to play sides and keel the hate fired up.

The type of gun he used serves no purpose except to kill a multitude of people. There is no reason why any civilian should have this type of gun in their possession. How many more mass killings do we have to see before we do the sensible thing and ban these weapons?

Exactly Amy. Accuracy is not required with the type of weapon he used. Point and let the bullets fly!

Tragic and cowardly of him no matter what his mental state. Even more tragic is the failure to control the purchase of assault weapons!

The exceptionally tragic element of this whole affair is the continued inability of a few to actually read the slew of articles about the shooting which plainly state a 9mm handgun was the weapon of choice.

ED. True the gun is not an "assault weapon" so you are correct; however the agument being made still has merit because this wasn't a hunting rifle either. The gun was obviously designed to kill people.

...and one could kill a man or woman less easily with a rifle made for sport?

...and one could kill a man or woman less easily with a rifle made for sport?

No, but one could kill several men and/or women less easily with a rifle made for sport.

That depends entirely upon the skill of the shooter with the firearm in question and personal preference. Suppose Jared had a penchant for rifles instead of handguns? Suppose he were a crackshot able to snipe multiple people from a distance where a former Army colonel and a little old lady couldn't have subdued him before he had a chance to reload? These aren't things you, I or anyone can say for certain.

How far down the slippery slope would you like to tumble?

A line has to be drawn somewhere. We can argue about where that line should be drawn but we shouldn't ignore the fact that some weapons are easier to do mass killings with than others.

If Jared was only able to buy a rifle there is a high probability that less people would have been killed or injured. I think we should be able to agree on that.

That fact alone doesn't mean that the gun he used should be controlled. We need to weigh the benefits of being able to own a 9mm Glock against the costs, but we can just pretend that there aren't costs.

I don't presume to state there aren't risks involved allowing easy access to firearms in a society. I can agree that, depending on the weapon used and Jared's proficiency with it, deaths may have been lessened - or even increased.

Time and again with incidents like these we learn that there were numerous warning signs on behalf of the shooter's behavior that an incident would likely take place, yet little or nothing was done to intervene. If the lesson here is that we ought to be more vigilant of the troubles in our peers, friends and colleagues, why do we insist on attacking the means with which they carried out their actions, rather than their actions and decision-making process itself? Why do we not fault ourselves for failing to intervene when the opportune moment was presented?

I tend to believe we turn our sights elsewhere because it is the easy thing to do - but not necessarily the right thing.

ED, I've been away from First Read for a week so I don't know if you'll read this. I totally agree with your last post. I kept pressing you on this because I figured there was an underlying well reasoned point that you were making. I believe that the gun restriction arguments are valid although I do not believe the risks these augments point out necessarily out-weigh the benefits of less restricted gun ownership.

You are right though, that the real issue is that we can do more to recongize and address the troubles of the people in our communities.

It was not, however, a garden variety magazine. The standard Glock 19 holds a 15-round magazine. This was an extended magazine that could hold 30 rounds.

Would a 15-round magazine have lessened the inherent evil behind Loughner's actions to any degree?

Why argue semantics?

Would a 15-round magazine have lessened the inherent evil behind Loughner's actions to any degree?

No. Not the inherent evil, but possibly the outcome, at least to a degree. From what I understand he unloaded a magazine and was subdued while reloading. Thus, a 15-round magazine could have potentially reduced the carnage by half.

If it was bullet #25 from the first 30-round magazine that struck and killed 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green would her parents consider it "arguing semantics"?

Three dead and six wounded is no less a tragedy than six dead and eleven wounded. One dead or even one wounded wouldn't change the intrinsic nature of the shooter's actions. I understand what you're trying to say, but again - semantics.

Is the death of the nine-year-old girl any greater a horror than the death of the federal judge? The staff and onlookers? These deaths, regardless of who they are, remain needless deaths brought about by the decision of Jared Loughner to commit an evil act. The weapon he utilized is besides the point; if not a firearm, then what? Knives? Explosives?

Jared set out to kill for to satisfy his own twisted, malicious devices - a creature bent on destruction will find a way to destroy.

I see your point about the intrinsic nature, but I don't agree that the body count doesn't impact how tragic the event was. More dead = more tragic.

By your logic, we should have let him buy a nuclear weapon.

If all you glean from my argument is the abstract condoning of a veritable holocaust, you're missing the point entirely and there's no reason to further discuss the matter of the weapon involved.

Just trying to make my point. See above.

What if he had used Black Talon ammo? What if he had it chambered for a hotter round? What if had 2 pistols? What if it was a competition STI tuned race gun? What if he practiced changing mags? What if he had had a class and knew what he was doing. What if he backed an 1970 El Camino up with a fertilizer bomb.......

Exo:

Would a 15-round magazine have lessened the inherent evil behind Loughner's actions to any degree?

Isn't it obvious that it would have? Twenty people were either killed or wounded, and it would have been hard to do that with a 15-round magazine.

bob-1805084

What if he had used Black Talon ammo? What if he had it chambered for a hotter round? What if had 2 pistols? What if it was a competition STI tuned race gun? What if he practiced changing mags? What if he had had a class and knew what he was doing. What if he backed an 1970 El Camino up with a fertilizer bomb.......

You can dream up all sorts of "what-ifs", some of them sillier than others. But the fact remains that a seriously disturbed person with no training in firearms was able to easily able ot buy a weapon that has no purpose other than killing large numbers of people in a few seconds -- and he put it to the use for which it was intended.

I think that people do have a right to own guns for self-defense or hunting, but the ban on semi-automatic weapons of this kind of weapon needs to be reimposed.

Houston,

You can dream up all sorts of "what-ifs", some of them sillier than others

Obviously you have no clue if you think a Black Tallon .45 ACP is silly.

Obviously you have no clue if you think Glock 19s were part of the AWB (Clips /magazines are not weapons)

A Glock 19 with a 30 round clip for self/home-defense? It's a trade off - how good are you; how many are there; 30 rounders don't feed as well, how good and fast are your mag changes in the middle of the night?

Past two years? It goes way back, not just two years.

The 9mm semi-automatic pistol is not an assault weapon. Most law enforcement officers carry the 9mm as their duty weapon. The school called the police several times about this nut case. My question is why didn't they put a 72 hour hold on him and have him evaluated by mental health personnel. If a police officer thinks an individual is a danger to themselves or others he can be held for 72 hrs and has to go through a mental evaluation.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik failed to protect the community.

You're not making that accusation just because the sheriff criticized violent political rhetoric, are you? I haven't heard anything that suggests the local law enforcement could have stopped this tragedy from occurring.

Houston- because the law would not allow it.

The school forced him to leave pending a certification from a mental health professional that he was not a danger to himself or others. When he chose, instead, to withdraw, they could do nothing further.

Why? Because he had not already committed an act of violence.

We had a situation very similar to this in my county a few years ago. A sixteen year old was forced to remove himself from a private school due to erratic behavior. His parents sought treatment from a psychiatrist, who believed he presented a danger tom society. His parents were forced, by law, to appear before a Superior Court judge to have him involuntarily committed. Since he was sixteen, he was considered competent to speak for himself, and the judge had no choice but to deny the petition to commit him.

Two days later, he raped and murdered a nine year old boy.

The laws protecting the rights of the mentally ill, who, by nature of their illness are not competent to look after their own rights, have become immutable- until their illness comp ells them to destroy their own, or others, lives.

That is the conversation we need to have in this country.

I am a Social worker at a mental hospital. Right now, in Texas anyway, a person has to be a danger to self or others to be committed. A judge has to order the commitment (involuntary). It has to be reviewed every 90 days and the patient released if the conditions have changed. No law requires them to continue medication in the community.

What would you do differently?

You can only help someone who wants help. From what I read about Jared Loughner so far. He didn't seem to have searched for help at all. Maybe he didn't think he was wrong to feel and behave the way he did. What can you do to help someone like that? One thing is very clear. He obviously wanted ATTENTION. All his outrageous behavior, his off-the-wall questions and his seemingly incoherent statements from time to time, clearly spells out the message that he wanted attention. He wanted people to notice him and see him differently. He probabaly fell that people around him don't "fit in" with him. That might have driven him to behave more erratic in order to catch people's attention. He probabaly believed that it worked when people looked at him like he was a different species. To him, that is probabaly some kind of encouragement. It's really scary sometimes how a mind works. This is probably how people like loughner nourish their ego. His murderous rampage may be a result that his ego demanded more and more attention of the weird kind. It's probabaly like an adiction. The more he saw that people looked at him differently, the more this kind of attention and fear he wanted. It seemed he had decided to go to any measure in order to get that. he didn't even seem to have any plan or even any thought of what to do after he shot those people. Yes, he's very demented, and it's his very super ego that has driven him to such extreme measure. This is probabaly how a terrorist's mind works.