I get it. It's not that hard to figure out. The death toll was only 2 people DUE to the lack of a gun.

A crowded shopping area.... this situation is very similar to Tucson and Jared Loughner. Loughner shot 19 and killed 6.

But go ahead and tell me Loughner would have had the same results with a knife. Uh-huh, sure.

If DeSoto had Loughner's 9mm with a 30-shot clip, he would have had Loughner-like results.

And if Loughner used a knife instead of a 9mm with a 30-shot clip, he would have had DeSoto like results.

But go ahead and equate knives to guns. Those so indoctrinated with the "all guns at all costs" mentality will surely agree that they are both the same. After all, we all know a person with a knife 40 feet away is just as deadly as a person with a gun who is 40 feet away. I'm sure everyone in the theater in Aurora would agree.....

Harold - you ROCK! Thank you for expressing the facts so eloquently!

"sigh"

When are you going to recognize it is NOT the weapon (in this case a car AND a knife), but the individual that commits the murder? 19 victims or 14 victims the intent was still there. Last I looked, I believe during my driving instruction to get my license no where did it say that it was perfectly alright to run people down with a car. It is also against the law to kill people with ANY weapon to include cars, knives, guns, clubs, fists, etc., yet somehow criminals and/or mentally deranged individuals always disregard these laws. This individual was hellbent on killing as many people as he could. Fix mental illness before you create another gun law that will not solve a damn thing.

Just like a cop, if someone was coming at me hellbent on running me down with a car, I will not hesitate to draw my weapon and perforate the assailant's windshield with the intent on placing at least one round through his/her face. Any time someone uses their vehicle to run someone down that is assault with the intent to murder and you are afforded the right to self-defense. Mentally deranged or not, they forfeit their life when they try to take mine.

Thanks, Inspired... someone with actual reasoning capability, unlike Harold of the Rockheads.

Yeah, but when all the guns are gone, knives and cars are next....

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

19 victims or 14 victims the intent was still there.

When are you going to recognize that there is a difference between 19 victims and 14 victims? Loughner killed 6, DeSoto 2. That's a big difference and one that you seemingly refuse to address.

I don't doubt for one second that both Loughner and DeSoto had similar intent. Other than you, who is arguing "intent"? All I'm saying is that if DeSoto had Loughner's 9 mm, he would have had a much higher kill than 2 people.

Will you address that? Or will you continue to deflect and talk about "intent", as if somehow that was ever in question? Maybe you'd like to re-iterate completely OBVIOUS statements like:

no where did it say that it was perfectly alright to run people down with a car. It is also against the law to kill people with ANY weapon to include cars, knives, guns, clubs, fists, etc., yet somehow criminals and/or mentally deranged individuals always disregard these laws.

Was the act of killing and whether it's "perfectly alright" called into question somewhere? Or is that just a convenient deflection to avoid answering the ACTUAL question of "How many more people would have DeSoto killed if he had a gun with a 30 round magazine? You seem to want to talk about whether it's OK to kill people with cars, knives, guns, clubs, fists, etc. Convenient deflection, now answer the question...

How many more people would have DeSoto killed if he had a gun with a 30 round magazine? Do you honestly believe his results would have been the same if he had a gun instead of a knife?

I do realize you're too indoctrinated to answer honestly... so keep deflecting. Hannity would be proud.

I just spit ice tea all over my keyboard... that was hilarious! Just goes to show that an evil person will find whatever means possible to inflict harm on people.

I must say you people are the most stupid people to ever post a line. All you need is to see the pictures of those little kids with their bodies blasted apart by an assault rifle, then you can make jokes to each to other, and laugh it up. Your probably are like those tin hat dudes that think the government is coming to take your TVs so you can't watch Fox Noise. Please, please understand, that ignorance and stupidity, are not virtues.

Piers Morgan, isn't it past your naptime???? You just wait till your father gets home!!!!! You liberals breathe stupidity and ignorance. I pisss on your haircut.

Excuse me Barlow, but your incapicity for mental flexibility is showing. If you cannot grasp the irony of this incident (mass killing without the use of a gun), then it's one of two things. Either you're totally obtuse or totally brain blind. Also as a little side note...apparently you are not very virtuous either.

Why, Barlow- Did YOU see those little kids with their bodies blasted apart by an assault rifle? I served in combat and I have seen the effects of an actual assault rifle. Nothing to trifle with, but the discussion is about a mentally deranged individual that used a vehicle and a knife in an attempt to commit the same effect.

Come down off your high horse, Barlow; your self-righteousness is not needed here. NO ONE condones or wants to see children killed for any manner. Stop mental illness and you will see crime rates go down across the board no matter what the murder weapon is. Whether it is a gun, a knife, a club, or a car, fix mental illness and a lot of this @!$%# will go away. In the meantime, breathe and try not to worry about it- you will feel a lot better about life.

I would like to see those pictures, and the ones of him entering the school with the weapon. Yes, however unpleasant it might be, before I throw away a 225 year old republic, I would like to see those unaltered photos. Can you produce them? Do you have any evidence, other than hearsay? Where are those WMD's I heard so much about? Can I trust you? The government? Show me the brass.

I drive a half ton truck with twin turbos and a forty gallon tank, a pure killing machine, no backround check required.

For your information, just in case you didn't know, Guam is a US Territory. I'm not saying it has been crime free but this is first time I've seen a story on nat'l news. Barlow, I suspect the reason they did not show pictures of those kids, and six adults is IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PRETTY. I've seen what just two bullets from an AR-15 will do to a watermelon, so I can just about imagine what three shots minimum to their heads did to those 20 children. I'm not an advocate of total gun control but AR-15's just don't belong in everyone's hands.

Ed-

AR-15s don't belong in mentally deranged people's hands. I have no problem with other people owning an AR-15 so long they are law-abiding citizens. The objective of ANY law-abiding citizen that owns guns is that fact that responsibility begins with the gun owner. That means if you are going to own a firearm you have to also own a gun safe. I would also recommend taking a safety course on how to use and store your firearm. Lastly, as with any tool, if you don't practice with it on a regular basis, you will be useless when you no-@!$%# need to use it when the @!$%# hits the fan. Regular range time is on order. With that, buy ammo...LOT'S OF AMMO. Buy in bulk; 1000 rounds per order makes it more economical to buy. I usually buy 1000rds of practice ammo and then buy 500rds of the XM855 (steel tip NATO issue) for when the SHTF.

We need to ban mothers too. They cause more children to die than all the rest put together. Fathers should be required to bear children.

"Could have?" Really. You know with utter certainty exactly what *would have* happened in a hypothetical situation with different circumstances?

It's the *exact* same fallacy of the "if only someone armed had stopped this person." Nobody knows what *could* have happened, only what *did* happen.

If this guy had any real Knife Training. He could have easily killed WAY more than 2 people more like 20..

The weapon of choice is not the problem! It is the Nut job with a mission to kill innocent people...

In hand-to-hand combat training using edged weapons, we are taught where the killzones are on a person. Knowing where to cut/jab/stab could easily make each victim bleed out. If this person had that kind of training, he could have killed 40-50 people easily until he was overwhelmed by the local populace or shot by the local law enforcement.

Columbine happened right in the MIDDLE of the last "assault" weapons ban. It didn't work, it just infringed on honest gun owner's rights. The criminals by definition don't care about laws. Facts are such pesky things, aren't they?

Did the kids at Columbine get their weapons from "criminals"? It was my understanding they got them from family members or friends, not criminals. Sure, they probably took them without permission, but so did Adam Lanza, and look what happened to Mama Lanza, the "honest gun owner." Unless "law-abiding gun collectors can guarantee no loonie - friend or family member - can steal their weapons to commit mayhem, then they're just creating a big pool that can be accessed by any determined nut OR criminal. And, of course, no gun owner can make that guarantee.

Where do all the criminals get the guns they use? From Santa Claus?

If you think that mama lanza was a honest gun owner, then your a fool. She was an idiot that purchased firearms for her psychotic son The problem isnt guns, the problem is that most Americans are morons now.

That is the problem with today's liberal parents: "There is nothing wrong with my child. My child is perfect..."

No, your child is NOT perfect. Your child has issues. Get your child medical attention before they do something dumb, different, or dangerous.

Get into your child's life. Know what they are looking at on the Internet. Know who they are talking to. Be a part of your child's life. Get them to attend church regularly and learn what family values are, the fear of God is, what are ethics, integrity, and morals. Make sure your child know the difference between right and wrong and the notion that they (and they alone) are responsible for the environment and situation they are in and they (and they alone) will be held accountable for their actions.

If children do not learn at an early age that the consequences for their actions can be costly, they will not learn until they do something dumb, different, or dangerous. By then, Mom and Dad will not be able to bail their asses out and they will get on the front page of MSNBC.com as the next psychopath that was hellbent on making a name for themselves while the Liberals want to create more ineffective gun control laws.

An unstable person can take out just as many innocent lives with a dull instrument given the opportunity and right cicumstances.

Really? So what you're saying is that if he had a 9mm with a 30-shot clip and got all 30 rounds off, only 2 people would have died ("just as many" = 2)

I'm calling BS. I think this goes to prove that it TOTALLY makes a difference what weapon of choice is used. No one capable of objective thought really believes that if this guy had a 30-shot clip instead of a knfie, that only 2 people would have died.

Jared Loughner had a 30-shot clip. With less people in the area than this incident, Loughner shot 19 people and killed 6. Do you think Loughner would have had the same results with a knife?

Harold-

You really are a tool. It is a 30rd magazine, NOT a clip. Goes to show you have no idea what you are talking about. I could easily have sliced, shanked, cut, and stabbed 50 people and watch them all bleed out. It all depends on knowing WHERE to employ an edged weapon.
I guess with a 30rd magazine Loughner was only able to shoot 19 people and only kill 6. He was such a lousy shot, that he was subdued before he could reload another magazine. That place was packed and he was only able to hit 19. If I was in a packed area with an edged weapon, you cannot imagine the carnage that can be done.
My point is, your logic has failed you. It does NOT matter what type of weapon is used; if you are a determined assailant, you WILL inflict maximum carnage.

Yes, but all of this emotionally charged flaming is ignoring the reality that Guns Make It Easy to kill people, and AR-15's make it easy to kill LOTS of people. This misfit in Guam said he wanted to kill as many people as he could. Would you honestly tell me that you believe he couldn't have killed a LOT MORE people with a gun, especially a rifle like an AR-15?

You can't say that with a straight face.

Think of the physical facts. This dude looked like a skinny wimp, and you notice that he WAS subdued before he could kill as "many people as he could." If he had had an AR-15, how would unarmed civilians "subdue" him? As I've said before, a 98-lb weakling can blow away Conan the Barbarian or Bruce Lee. All he has to do is point and squeeze the trigger. A man, even with 2 or 3 knives, can still be subdued. So, my point is, the kind of weapon a man uses when he "wants to kill a lot of people" DOES make a difference. If this twerp had been armed with an AR-15, we'd be hearing about 20 or 30 people killed, not two. And if your wife or mother was in that crowd, you'd probably be thanking God that the loonie DIDN'T have an AR-15.

We know that it is the person using the weapon that kills somebody, but you can't seem to admit that with certain kinds of weapons, there could be a LOT of "somebodies."

Then let all law-abiding citizens have the right to own and conceal carry their own firearm and should an assailant try to kill everyone with another firearm they have an equal chance to stop the assailant.

If they (ANY criminal or mentally deranged individual) wanted to get their hands on firearm, they will get one and use it.

This individual did not (thankfully) think it through on the procurement of a firearm and instead grabbed a knife and a vehicle; in this case much easier to procure evidently.

Banning firearms will not stop criminals. It prevents law-abiding citizens from procuring one LEGALLY and turns them into defenseless people standing by to become a victim.

Inspired... the best indicator of a weak argument is name calling. I don't need to call you any names, I've got clear logic on my side. A gun is 1000 x more efficient at killing than a knife. Only the dim would argue otherwise. Don't believe me? Ask those in the theater in Aurora if it made any difference if Holmes had used a knife instead of a gun.

Way to bring the argument down to the level of semantics. Oops, I said "clip" instead of "magazine". Wow, that really made my actual point disappear, huh?

So, in a crowd of people, you believe you could get away with stabbing 50 people without someone intervening. Really? Did you see how beat up Mr DeSoto was? He got away with stabbing 2 people before he was subdued. But you're Superman right? You could've easily over powered any crowd of men seeking to subdue you with just your KNIFE.

Say it with a straight face so we can all laugh you.

Where I do buy your argument is that if it had been you in Tucson instead of Loughner, the carnage would have been greater. That I COMPLETELY BUY into. Because the scenario in Tucson involved a gun, not a knife.

You can say my logic fails me, but I'll put my logic up against yours ANY DAY. Here's the bottom line, if you had attempted what Mr. DeSoto attempted, you would have met the same fate. You would have been subdued before you committed maximum carnage BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAD A KNIFE. You are not Superman and you would NOT have cut 50 people. Meanwhile, in Tucson, you would have done a better job than Loughner with the gun.

My whole point is simple... both men had the SAME INTENT. "Intent" is not in question here. It's the tool used after the "intent" was placed into motion. And your logic completely fails if you're trying to say the results would have been the same with a gun or a knife.

Admin-

Please remove ALL of Harold posts; they are all accidental.

I think that's what Harold's parents said. Oops. The best part of him ran down his mother's legs.

When you're argument is weak, name calling is all you have left. Keyboard bravado makes the man, right Ron?

I didn't even attempt to insult you (nor would I). But I understand why you felt the need to insult me.

YOUR ARGUMENT IS WEAK. If it wasn't, your comments would stand on their own and you wouldn't NEED to resort to below the belt tactics.

My feelings exactly. But those in love with guns are not persuaded by reason or logic. They argue over nomenclature, as if that makes a helluva difference to a non-gun-hobbyist.

I had my exposure to weapons in 3 years in the Army. I did pretty good at marksmanship, too, but it was a peacetime military, so I won't pretend I'm some hardened combat veteran. But I was ready for combat, and I knew what it entailed.

But I don't go out in the woods to kill a fine buck just to mount its severed head over the mantle, and I never taught my two sons to love guns. They were exceptional athletes, in wrestling and in soccer, and they learned what an honest day's work was.

It seems that most of the gun hobbyists are in the red states, and wouldn't you know? The red states have the highest number of divorces, domestic abuse, and crimes of violence, despite the fact (or maybe because of it?) that there are more Christians and gun-owners there. And I have to wonder: why is that?

Ron D. I'm a fellow veteran, trained in marksmanship. Like you I've never purchased toy guns for my children and they do NOT do violent video games. I don't own a gun, and I don't glorify guns.

I'm wondering, however, what your beef is with your fellow citizens in the so-called "Red States". Kevin Smith's movie "Red State" propagates the sad Hollywood trope that the Northeast and the West Coast are all sweetness and light, but the middle of the country is where all evil resides. Is this what you're buying into, or like Professor Bloom of the University of Iowa, just have it in for anywhere Gentiles predominate? "Redneckistan" as my Jewish professor of Medical Anthropology put it.

Please don't hang the anti-semite thing on me, my best friend and colleague is Jewish, as is my Savior, Y'shua, or Jesus.

My concern is that, if we are to survive as a nation, we need each other. Please don't gratuitously slap away at stereotypes that dehumanize those of us who don't choose to live in the Megalopolis on either coast. You may find that "fly-over states" really represent some of what is best about America.

Ron D.-571483-

You are drawing way too many conclusions on what a red state is all about. There are all walks of life that have issues on both sides of the political spectrum.

You and DaveyJonesDetroit have chose not to personally own firearms and that is fine. That is your choice. I have chosen the opposite. It is my right as is yours. Do not infringe on my rights because you disagree with my choice.

Thank you for your service, my brothers. I am still fulfilling my duties and responsibilities serving my country and I guess my exposure has convinced me otherwise on what I consider my ideologies to be more moderate conservative, but what I will not compromise on is my 2nd Amendment rights.

Best to you and yours and your families and enjoy the fruits of your labor to be a productive citizen in this great nation...Cheers!

Inspired, very well said. Ciao!