<br>
<br>
<p>So you don’t think that it’s relevant that he made a bunch of grenades and you don’t believe that those could kill people.</p>
<p>“The simple point that I made is that there were other means at his disposal to kill people.”</p>
<p>I apologize that I did not fully follow the whole chain of stuff, there are way to many to read. But again, what other means are we talking about? The gasoline bombs and chemicals are not practical for carrying into the movie theatre or to set it up beforehand. Are you saying that we should not make it harder for people to get their hands on automatic machine guns because in theory he can booby-trapped the movie theatre instead?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not an accurate characterization of my position. The findings in the apartment shift the probabilistic calculus as to what he may have done in an alternate reality in which he could not get guns – such that it is more plausible that he would have used explosives instead – but they do not overcome all of the unknowns I delineated at the top of this page or suggest that restricting guns would have been futile in this case or generally.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m not aware of gasoline bombs - I only read that there was gasoline in the apartment to increase thermal effects. I have not seen pictures of the IEDs but they are described as grenades.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I made no comments in this vein.</p>
<p>The point I made stands alone.</p>
<p>Ownership of full auto “machine” guns is highly regulated and illegal in most states. I believe he had a semi-auto which is very different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does not seem to, as far as I can tell. Please elaborate on why the technical truth that he could have possibly killed people in other ways is relevant.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Now you know how I feel.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The success of Kaczynski and McVeigh and a bunch of terrorists in the Middle East
indicate that those unknowns could be overcome.</p>
<p>My observation is that without repealing the 2nd Amendment, there are going to be some guns legally available. The few States that regulate ammunition magazine capacity usually hold that 10 rounds is a “large capacity” </p>
<p>So long as a person can buy more than one firearm, just multiply the number of firearms they buy times the magazine capacity. BTW–if a person is proficient with firearms, they can eject the clip and pop in a new one quickly. Lack of significant fire power is unlikely when the attack is well planned and funded.</p>
<p>I wonder if Holmes would have rather have had a light saber.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I made no comments in this vein. That should be obvious. If you think that I did, please find the quote that I made and repost it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That an unknown can be overcome is definitionally true. I have yet to understand your intended point.</p>
<p>Yes, I mean “semi-auto” machine gun. The ones that shoot 50-60 rounds instead of whatever how many rounds more.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>See post 319.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve apparently oversold the modesty of your claim. Surely you have additional claims that demonstrate the relevance of that simple claim, namely, why that claim matters. It is possible that anything could have happened. I could point out that if all movies were banned, this could have been prevented; but this has no relevance because of the unstated externalities.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If you want to call me a liar, please provide evidence. That should be really easy because you know it to be true, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. </p>
<p>“So you don’t think that it’s relevant that he made a bunch of grenades and you don’t believe that those could kill people.”</p>
<p>“The success of Kaczynski and McVeigh and a bunch of terrorists in the Middle East
indicate that those unknowns could be overcome.”</p>
<p>Clearly, you think that your straightforward note that Holmes could have done something other than he did has relevance. Your argumentation is therefore fueled by additional, bolder points. Explication of these would be productive for the discussion.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I asked for evidence, not conjecture.</p>
<p>If you can’t find anything, please apologize.</p>
<p>Yes he may have had several other options to kill people. You are assuming is hime made grenades would work. </p>
<p>He chose the method he knew would kill the most people in the most efficient way possible with the least amount of chance of harm to himself.</p>
<p>I would think walking around wi canisters of explosives, home made grenades, etc would be pretty dangerous to oneself. </p>
<p>The gunman knew what would work. So saying oh could have used say knives, or homemade weapons or a truck a distraction. He used powerful guns with the most amount of lethal,power he could get and carry. </p>
<p>Also, word is there were very likely people with concealed weapons in the theater. Its not uncommon for people in Colorado to have carrynpermits. So, if as some say people hand guns hol,es would have killed less people, why didn’t somoneone on the theater kill him?</p>
<p>Having citizens shoot back in a situation like at is very dangerous indeed. Amd the couple of cases of gun holders saving people or thwarting robberies pale in comparision to the innocents killed everyday from gun accidents, etc.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s a lot of irrelevant words for a back-peddle.</p>
<p>I asked for evidence, not prattle.</p>
<p>If you can’t find anything, please apologize.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please see post #335, quotes therein. You wrote that it is relevant that he made grenades and that those grenades could have killed people and further stated that the unknowns that would cloud any suggestion that those claims are relevant are demonstrably not always unfulfilled. In order to engage conversationally, your explication of why those matters are relevant and why the unknowns should not infringe on our capacity to dismiss the potential value of gun restriction in this case is needed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe you mistook the identity of the poster whom you quoted.</p>