On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:41 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
But, it doesn't happen that way does it? Guns are by far the tool of choice when some nut job goes off the deep end and goes on a killing rampage.
I can't remember *ever* hearing of someone rampaging around with a bomb. Sure there have been bombings, but it's usually someone who plants it and then isn't there when it goes off.
That's a completely different scenario than someone walking through a building shooting people.
Read my answer to Mike. It doesn't matter what materials are easier to obtain, it's just not happening that way.
And as far as you person with the knife, 22 people were stabbed and it wasn't clear if there were *any* fatalities. Can you tell me if it would have been the same if those 22 people were shot instead?
Guns are popular because they have been in our culture since the days of having to own one so that you could eat and the movies glorify their use. Out law the guns and the movies will switch to mimic and other devices will be used.
Well I can assure those the used a bomb instead of guns in Boston yesterday watched the whole thing go down. They planted the bomb where they knew there would be cameras recording the event. And I would say it is quite likely that they were one of the spectators.
Well in this case I believe they got to watch a couple of buildings be destroyed and 100+ people get hurt. and I heard one expert indicate that this looked like an untrained persons work.
It is happening that way but it is not as popular. Take away the guns and it will become popular.
Naturally there could have been worse injuries with had a gun been used but this lunatic could have used a knife from the school cafeteria. Had he had a military knife which is readily available he could have easily killed them all.
In article , Dave wrote: .... With
Especially if YOU have a gun!
+1
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
That's not what we're discussing though. There's a completely different mind set between someone going around and shooting people and the person who plants a bomb (of any type) and it's there when it goes off.
The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:56:53 -0500, Leon
No it won't. Shooting people in person will never be the same as someone bombing people. The shooter isn't in immediate danger from the people around him, not until the authorities arrive.
The bomber is in danger if he sets off a bomb while he's there. ~ They're two distinctly different mind sets at work.
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:29:53 +0000 (UTC),
Yeah, well, I knew someone was going to say that. And if I knew everyone out there had a gun, then I'd probably be carrying an Uzi. There really isn't any end to out arming someone who might be carrying a weapon that can hurt you.
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:33:02 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
I wonder if there's any psychiatrists here to enlighten us?
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:56:53 -0500, Leon
I'm not sure there is a difference in most cases... the anecdotal evidence suggests most of the mass shooters intend suicide either by self or by cop, i.e., getting away uninjured or alive isn't a criteria in their decisions. Theirs is a thought pattern of which most people cannot conceive as self-preservation is a core part of any animals' make-up... these people are not thus normal.
As access to guns becomes more difficult (real or perceived) in the U.S. it is likely that the methods used in other countries will become more common here in the U.S., e.g,. bombing, fires, chemical/poison attacks, and even knives and machetes. It all falls back to the notion of weapons substitution which historically is and will continue to be the norm in the face of weapons shortages. Put another way, goal oriented attackers will find a way to carry out their goals... Disregard for laws is also the norm!
John
And that is because of gun laws that restrict every one from carrying a gun. If every one that wanted to carry guns, did, the shooter would be in immediate danger before the police arrived.
I don't think the many suicide bombers are too concerned with self protection/preservation!
suicide bombers don't have much of a sense of self protection.
Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just that regardless if guns are readily available or not.
I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make. For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.
There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And, that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.
I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.
door triggered shotgun burglar deterrents were made illegal, but it's a class of these. they also have radar controlled weapons, used for sentry duty, for example, so there may not be anyone around.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:47:53 -0700, chaniarts
Of course there's an exception to everything, but it's certainly not the status quo.
IMHO that would all depend on the expense and or ease of acquisition.
You have to believe that those seeking Allah are not thinking straight or have so much hate/loss of need to exist and that have explosives strapped their bodies are of a similar mind set as those spraying bullets.
Their mind set is not strictly to kill numbers of people only if they can do it with a hand gun, the gun is simply the most readily available weapon. A bomb would require a few hours of preparation to do the same act and seldom do these people just snap, most all have planned the event in great detail.
Different until one weapon of choice is unavailable and then like in the middle east less expensive and just as deadly weapons are used.
Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not better. So trying to fix what is not broken is not going to solve the problem of people not being held accountable for their actions or for how they have let their children be raised.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:16 -0500, Leon
Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective" gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what constitutes "gun control"?
Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning the 60 votes needed to pass.
'A society terrified of gun violence, so they buy more guns to protect themselves from it. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic'.
Read more:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.