I hope James Holmes will at least put a stake through the argument

[thucythucy]

108. Not a stretch at all. "Heavily armed Maine man arrested"

this according to Reuters, July 23, 2012. The police stopped him on the turnpike and saw he had several guns and boxes of ammo in his car. They asked him, what's with all the guns, and he told them he was on his way to the place where he used to work to shoot his former employer.

Perhaps this is highly unusual...but perhaps not. Certainly not all potential murderers, or even most potential murderers, will answer honestly--but some will. These are the folks who basically want someone, anyone, to intervene, to recognize their desperation, to offer them a straw to clutch. This may seem "naive" to you -- but it's a not entirely unheard of scenario for mental health providers.

If even one potential murder or mass murder is prevented by simply asking, "what's with all the guns?" (as was the case in Maine), you still don't see the point? Bearing in mind in most cases the person being questioned is perfectly free to answer, "None of your business," or simply walk or drive away without answering at all--you're still telling me that people should NEVER be asked what they plan to do with weapons, ammo, full body armor, etc.?

As for straying from original subject, the OP is about how Holmes violated no laws at all when he stockpiled his guns and ammo. The sub-thread is about whether inquiring as to why someone is purchasing or possesses a stockpile of weapons is useful, or even appropriate. I'd submit that there are instances when it's both appropriate and potentially life-saving.

Of course, we'll never know if we never try.