Oregon community college shooting, multiple casualties

[seb]

The case you described is NOT a "spur of the moment" killing--that is pre-meditation. The act of going out to get the gun and then coming back is legally pre-meditated.

Going out to their car, getting a gun and going back in and shooting co workers and the boss is pretty much a spur of the moment decision in my book.

If the employee was already wearing his gun, and got fired, and immediately drew his weapon, that might be considered "spur of the moment". I think you mean "heat of passion" which is legally defined:

Now we are splitting hairs over LEGAL DEFINITIONS! Lets just say something has set these people off and they go back and kill.

Legal Dictionary


That would also be a pre-meditated case.


Again, pre-meditated, not heat of passion. If one of the vendors (allowed to be wearing a gun) was wearing a loaded weapon and all of a sudden started shooting the customers, that could be heat of passion. However, if a customer showed up at the gun show wearing a loaded concealed weapon and didn't surrender it at the door but when in, got angry, and started shooting, that would still be pre-meditated. That's because he consciously committed an illegal act (going into the gun show armed) prior to getting "heated."

Oh, so at gun shows you have to surrender your weapon at the door? Did not know that! Seems kinda contradictory to someone who is a gun advocate and maybe even has a right to carry to give up their gun at the door.

If the gun show participants are a "target" that means the shooting is pre-meditated. The shooter planned to go where the action is.

My point was that if a shooting can happen at a school, church, shopping mall, post office, etc. it could occur anywhere.

BTW, not everyone is armed at a gun show, and they aren't "ready to shoot anything."

I've know enough " gun nuts" in my life to know that some are if given the opportunity.

Do you have documented examples of people legally wearing concealed weapons in areas that are legal for them to access all of a sudden going nuts and begin shooting the people around them?

Never said I did.

 

[seb]

Look
The vast majority of mass killers are white males.
The best option is to ban white males from owning guns
Its not like white males will buy illegal guns or take a gun into a gun free zone, or break laws.
Its not like mass murder is illegal..mmm..banning things, like mass murder works, its a neat trick...ban something and the plm is solved

This is the best option...
If your white and male.
A butter knife thats all, should be alowed you, lest you spread someone to death...
And since thevast vast vast vast majority if not all mass murderers where hearie...
Only Deaf should have guns....
Thats how statistics works....
Neat

Nobody is talking about banning anything.

 

[seb]

1. "Her friends have said" is not a professional diagnosis.

2. "Mental health issues" and "brain lesions"--exactly how do each of those impact safe gun ownership? Does anyone know what those "issues" were? Do we know what the brain lesions caused? If she indeed actually had these things.

3. She "might not of passed" so that's still not a guarantee.

1.Her friends have said is not a professional diagnosis but some of it came out in court when the families of the victims sued her estate, so it's a matter of public record.

2. Since she allowed her son to go on living his life without the medicine he was prescribed to lesson and ease his symptoms as well as let her son who was 6 feet tall get down to 112 pounds at the time of his death, only communicate by emails even though they lived in the same house, not come out of his room for 3 months, and I could go on and on, it's pretty clear there was something not right with Nancy. www.drcoplan.com/nancy-lanza-part-3
www.nydailynews.com/.../emails-reveal-adam-lanza-family-il...

3. That's true

 

[jonnyghost]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178914000305

"Because the peer-reviewed literature was so limited, we paid particular attention to additional sources of literature. These included online articles; newspaper articles; court transcripts and in particular two comprehensive online resources:"

"Detailed case summaries were written on each killer and these are available from the first author on request. The name of the killer was entered into the search engine ‘Google’ followed by ‘AND’ and each of the following search terms were explored separately: ‘brain’; ‘head injury’; ‘asperger’; ‘autis*’ and, in some cases, ‘murder’ if the name alone was failing to produce relevant sites."

There wasn't any hard peer reviewed literature so she googled them and made case files from which she speculated who might have ASD. She never met any of the killers or interviewed them. She never did any testing to see who met the criteria. She simply speculated on circumstantial information found on the internet.

This is even stated by the researchers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

"The researchers stressed the study is “clearly limited” by the “anecdotal and speculative” nature of some of the published accounts. Lead researcher Clare Allely, of the University of Glasgow, emphasized the study did not suggest those with autism or Asperger’s are more likely to commit murder. “We’re not saying people with autism will be serial killers,” Allely said, adding “it’s way too early to make any statement like that.”"

 

[whatdidyousay!]

My point was that many with autism such as Adam Lanza could not talk to people they did not know and buying a gun at a gun show would be out out of the question.

You don't know this . A person can just point at a gun and seller will know what that mean . What if a person doesn't speak any English they
can't buy a gun too at gun show?

 

[Reba]

Nobody is talking about banning anything.

Maybe you're not using the "b" word but putting unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership would be the same as an infringement of that right.

This part of the 2nd Amendment:

". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Requiring expensive, time-consuming, invasive psychological evaluations may not be called a ban but the end result would be the same--gun ownership rights for the general American public would be infringed. (We all know that the criminals, and wealthy and connected could still get what they wanted.)

It's just another attempt at a sneak-in-the-backdoor restriction, like banning certain style guns, or banning certain capacity magazines, or making ammo difficult to buy.

 

[Reba]

You don't know this . A person can just point at a gun and seller will know what that mean. What if a person doesn't speak any English they can't buy a gun too at gun show?

That could eliminate deaf buyers, too.

No, you are correct. Buyers don't need to chat with sellers. They usually do because they want to find out the facts about a gun but it's not necessary. Some people go to the shows knowing exactly what they're looking for, and if they see it for sale at a good price they might not need a lot of discussion.

The main requirement at a gun show is that the buyer have a picture ID card with age and residence included. The seller also has the buyer fill out a form, and copies down the ID information. Some sellers also phone in the background check but it's not required at some shows. That part varies. Also, a seller can turn down a buyer if he acts suspicious.

Lanza was old enough to buy long guns by himself.

We don't know how he would have presented himself at a gun show.

He had an enabling mother so he didn't have to buy them for himself.

 

[Reba]

1.Her friends have said is not a professional diagnosis but some of it came out in court when the families of the victims sued her estate, so it's a matter of public record.

Just because her friends gave their opinions in court doesn't mean they were right. They weren't giving expert opinions, just personal observations. Also, if this was a civil trial to get at her estate, it's obviously an angle that the lawyer was trying to pursue to win his case, not to get at the truth.

2. Since she allowed her son to go on living his life without the medicine he was prescribed to lesson and ease his symptoms as well as let her son who was 6 feet tall get down to 112 pounds at the time of his death, only communicate by emails even though they lived in the same house, not come out of his room for 3 months, and I could go on and on, it's pretty clear there was something not right with Nancy. www.drcoplan.com/nancy-lanza-part-3
www.nydailynews.com/.../emails-reveal-adam-lanza-family-il…

Was she "not right" about everything in her life or just in her relationship with her son? In other words, she could have been a perfectly normal functioning woman with a blind spot when it concerned her son. That doesn't make her insane.

 

[seb]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178914000305

"Because the peer-reviewed literature was so limited, we paid particular attention to additional sources of literature. These included online articles; newspaper articles; court transcripts and in particular two comprehensive online resources:"

"Detailed case summaries were written on each killer and these are available from the first author on request. The name of the killer was entered into the search engine ‘Google’ followed by ‘AND’ and each of the following search terms were explored separately: ‘brain’; ‘head injury’; ‘asperger’; ‘autis*’ and, in some cases, ‘murder’ if the name alone was failing to produce relevant sites."

There wasn't any hard peer reviewed literature so she googled them and made case files from which she speculated who might have ASD. She never met any of the killers or interviewed them. She never did any testing to see who met the criteria. She simply speculated on circumstantial information found on the internet.

This is even stated by the researchers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

"The researchers stressed the study is “clearly limited” by the “anecdotal and speculative” nature of some of the published accounts. Lead researcher Clare Allely, of the University of Glasgow, emphasized the study did not suggest those with autism or Asperger’s are more likely to commit murder. “We’re not saying people with autism will be serial killers,” Allely said, adding “it’s way too early to make any statement like that.”"

These are basically newspaper or magazine articles, What qualifications did these "reporters" actually have to even give or interpret the data? Sorry but I'll take the actual study from the good Dr.

 

[seb]

You don't know this . A person can just point at a gun and seller will know what that mean . What if a person doesn't speak any English they
can't buy a gun too at gun show?

What does pointing at a gun mean at a gun show? You want to see it? You want to buy it? They want to negotiate a price and buy it? What exactly does it mean to these mind readers?

 

[seb]

Maybe you're not using the "b" word but putting unreasonable restrictions on gun ownership would be the same as an infringement of that right.

This part of the 2nd Amendment:

". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Requiring expensive, time-consuming, invasive psychological evaluations may not be called a ban but the end result would be the same--gun ownership rights for the general American public would be infringed. (We all know that the criminals, and wealthy and connected could still get what they wanted.)

It's just another attempt at a sneak-in-the-backdoor restriction, like banning certain style guns, or banning certain capacity magazines, or making ammo difficult to buy.

So your obviously okay with crazy or mentally disturbed people being able to buy guns and use them to kill peoples children or family members in schools, churces, restaurants, etc. That's pretty much what you are saying.

 

[seb]

That could eliminate deaf buyers, too.

No, you are correct. Buyers don't need to chat with sellers. They usually do because they want to find out the facts about a gun but it's not necessary. Some people go to the shows knowing exactly what they're looking for, and if they see it for sale at a good price they might not need a lot of discussion.

The main requirement at a gun show is that the buyer have a picture ID card with age and residence included. The seller also has the buyer fill out a form, and copies down the ID information. Some sellers also phone in the background check but it's not required at some shows. That part varies. Also, a seller can turn down a buyer if he acts suspicious.

Lanza was old enough to buy long guns by himself.

We don't know how he would have presented himself at a gun show.

He had an enabling mother so he didn't have to buy them for himself.

When police searched Nancy Lanza's home they found a check made out to Adam for a Christmas present so he could purchase a hand gun(I can't remember the exact gun that was listed on the check) but it would have been the first gun he would purchase himself. I don't know how he would of done it either.

 

[seb]

Just because her friends gave their opinions in court doesn't mean they were right. They weren't giving expert opinions, just personal observations. Also, if this was a civil trial to get at her estate, it's obviously an angle that the lawyer was trying to pursue to win his case, not to get at the truth.


Was she "not right" about everything in her life or just in her relationship with her son? In other words, she could have been a perfectly normal functioning woman with a blind spot when it concerned her son. That doesn't make her insane.

I never said she was insane, just that she was not mentally right. She had been diagnosed with lesions on her brain in 1999, and had told friends she feared she was afflicted with the same illness that had robbed her dad of his mind and killed him. I know this is hearsay, so you don't have to tell me.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

That could eliminate deaf buyers, too.

No, you are correct. Buyers don't need to chat with sellers. They usually do because they want to find out the facts about a gun but it's not necessary. Some people go to the shows knowing exactly what they're looking for, and if they see it for sale at a good price they might not need a lot of discussion.

The main requirement at a gun show is that the buyer have a picture ID card with age and residence included. The seller also has the buyer fill out a form, and copies down the ID information. Some sellers also phone in the background check but it's not required at some shows. That part varies. Also, a seller can turn down a buyer if he acts suspicious.

Lanza was old enough to buy long guns by himself.

We don't know how he would have presented himself at a gun show.

He had an enabling mother so he didn't have to buy them for himself.

Yeah if anyone was partly the blame for the Newtown shooting it was his mother. She knew her son had anger issues and she brought guns into her home anyway.

 

[Reba]

So your obviously okay with crazy or mentally disturbed people being able to buy guns and use them to kill peoples children or family members in schools, churces, restaurants, etc. That's pretty much what you are saying.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

If society needs to be better protected from violent crazies then it needs to deal with the violent crazies. Restricting sane gun buyers won't do that.

Gun purchase forms for background checks already ask if the buyer has been committed for mental problems. If the violent crazies were committed or had their previous commitments recorded properly, then that information would pop up on the background check and prohibit the authorized sale.

 

[jonnyghost]

These are basically newspaper or magazine articles, What qualifications did these "reporters" actually have to even give or interpret the data? Sorry but I'll take the actual study from the good Dr.

No, the first one IS the study and the second one is a quote by the "good dr." and her colleagues.

I would have thought since you read the study that you would have recognized it.

 

[jonnyghost]

That's not what I'm saying at all.

If society needs to be better protected from violent crazies then it needs to deal with the violent crazies. Restricting sane gun buyers won't do that.

Gun purchase forms for background checks already ask if the buyer has been committed for mental problems. If the violent crazies were committed or had their previous commitments recorded properly, then that information would pop up on the background check and prohibit the authorized sale.

Bingo! But according to seb we're all violent crazies until proven otherwise too so none of us have any argument anyway.

 

[Tousi]

That's cuz he's that gun-grabbing Commie I mentioned some time ago....

 

[whatdidyousay!]

I was trying to copy and paste the link I posted and it didn't come our right . I won't do this again.

 

[Reba]

I was trying to copy and paste the link I posted and it didn't come our right . I won't do this again.

You can use your edit button and delete all that white space and ads. It's not hard; I do it all the time. It just takes a little time.