For a lawyer, that is a pretty uninformed thing to say. Maybe it should read, "at least he didn't use his assault vehicle to murder dozens by driving into a crowded shopping center or metro station."
And what is "the 100+ ammo"? Do you mean a magazine that holds 100 rounds?

Do you mean that only statements that fit in with your world views are "informed?" I read the paper all the time, and don't recall hearing about a lot of incidents where a suicidal/homicidal person drove into dozens in a crowded shopping center. ( I think I remember one about 20 years ago in NY--and most people were able to dodge the car and finally a group overpowered him and pulled him out.) He could also have hijacked a plane and flew it into a building a killed thousands, he could have poisoned the water of a major city, he could have loaded his car with explosives and drove it into a crowd, or yes, could have tried to run down dozens by driving into a crowded shopping center parking lot (getting into the mall itself would be a trick)--luckily, all those actions are somewhat difficult to accomplish. Getting a gun that holds 100 rounds is pretty easy to do in most parts of this country.

Kathy,

If your going to makes comments on articles, please for the sake of the community at least have your comments be somewhat relevant to the article. Cars don't = assault rifle + 100 rounds.

Not to mention nowhere in the article did it state that the person was attempting to harm others. Only that someone was killed in a collision while a person was attempting to 'suicide by cop'.

You are a lawyer, details are your arsenal. You've shot yourself in the foot.

James, I agree that there is no evidence that this person deliberately killed another with his vehicle, but that does seem to be the assumption of people, and since that is what the discussion was about in general, I responded accordingly, if somewhat hastily. But you are right, cars do not = assault weapons, because there is a legitimate purpose for a car other than killing someone. And since I don't own a gun I can't shoot myself in the foot, although I could perhaps run over my foot with a car. :-)

By the way, I have no objections to people owning guns--as long as there are reasonable regulations in place to ensure that criminals and mentally ill persons cannot obtain them. And yes, that won't prevent all homicides, or even all crazies from getting guns, but it is at least a start. It is disingenuous to say "We can't stop all murders so we shouldn't have any restrictions on the right to own guns." We don't say "We can't stop all underage drinking, so let's do away with the age limit."

Nice straw man argument there, Kathy. Overruled!

Last year over 3000 people committed suicide--and we don;t remember any of them. But we remember the names of the guys who shot dozens of people in Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Auora. These people want publicity and to be remembered, The more horrific the crime, the more their name gets plastered on the news.

I know, let's pass a law that prevents plastering the names of these killers all over the place... Oh, wait... the media wouldn't let that happen. Their right to a "free press" trumps everything else in, near, about, alongside, on the same planet at their right to freedom of the press.

Remember newsies: If they can destroy any one of the ten amendments to the Constitution formerly known as the Bill of Rights, they can destroy them all.