If you're motivated enough to kill somebody, none of that matters. Nobody is going to give up just because they don't have a firearm. If they want to kill people in mass they'll find ways that are just as deadly if not more deadly, such as bomb making. Higher amount of knowledge? These people in the middle east don't have the education,materials, and money we have and yet they are so easily able to make bombs and blow up people. If you want to kill specific people accurately and precisely and without causing collateral damage and danger to yourself or those you care about, then a firearm makes it easier without a doubt. If you want to kill as many people as possible and not caring about those things, then a bomb is better in my eyes. If you're talking about person to person, then you're right that a firearm makes it easier.
how many bomb murders do you hear about that aren't acts of "terrorism" or political in nature in nations where guns are not readily available? has that ever happened in the world, once.
About the only time I can think of it happening was a Columbine, which was supposed to be primarily a bombing, but the explosives didn't detonate so they just started shooting.
But I thought explosives were so fucking easy to make???? Even middle easterners can do it!!!!!
Political or terrorism is irrelevant to this argument. That's not my argument.[DOUBLEPOST=1344124476][/DOUBLEPOST]
But I thought guns made it to easy to kill people! Why did this guy miss at point blank range?
I get what he's trying to say, which is that guns are not the only way to make killing people easier, Ermac is just not clearly stating this.
They are incredibly easy to make, and your intimation that the average middle easterners [sic] are of below-average intelligence is just plain false. Procuring the ingredients (without giving away your intent) is usually the most difficult part. Also there is the part where if you mix them wrong you disappear in a puff of smoke. On top of that, no matter how easy something is to do, it will be very difficult for you to do if you have never done it before.
Timothy McVeigh? What do you call that? And whether he did for the reason for killing a lot of people or for political reasons is totally irrelevant. He proved you can kill a lot of people without firing a shot.
We are talking about scenarios involving mass killing of people, not 1,2, or 3 people.
That's some cool Gasbandit levels of misleading posting. You have no idea if those officers shot that man. No idea. You're jumping immediately to conclusions.
Like I said, the reason why he did it is totally irrelevant. I could flip the argument and say he could have killed even more people if his intention was just that, killing people.To my knowledge, no mass shooter in the US has managed to shoot 76 people all at once using only a firearm.
Because there's no way he had a gun, handcuffed behind his back, and magically shot himself in the wrong side temple
You don't know any of that. You know what Huffington Post just put up.
I don't agree with Charlie on full out banning guns, but don't do this.
I have the powder actuated nail gun for slamming nails into concrete. Loud, but boy it beats the heck out of drilling concrete.
who can forget the time a guy killed 7 people with a nail gun at a church?
Improperly secured building materials kill hundreds every year.
I don't know whether I should laugh or face palm...
Facepalm, defintitely. Even if the two of them had been drunk and in-your-face and following them, beign a nuisance - would that have been cause to pull a gun on them? No, it wouldn't. The guy's an idiot beyond idiocy for thinking pulling a gun is a good idea at all in such a situation. Of course, in the US, those two guys might've been packing, too...
No they wouldn't be. Don't be stupid. I've lived in the Philadelphia area for a good 70% of my life. I've been mugged once - in one of the roughest parts of Philly. I still don't see a reason to carry. Why? Because I'm not afraid of everyone and everything, like most gun enthusiasts are. Funny enough, I find that the longer you've lived in a US metro area, the less afraid you are of people than in rural areas (where gun ownership is more common). It's a culture of fear, but it doesn't mean that everyone is packing.
I can see how you'd take that ouf my message, but that's not what I meant. I meant what I wrote: might have. In the USA, if you're accosted by a couple of (drunk/aggressive/...) guys in a park, there's a credible chance that they might be carrying a gun. Depending on where in the US, those odds might bze somewhat higher or lower....But they're definitely higher than anywhere in Canada or most of Europe (yes, yes, I'm sure there are regions somewhere between two Inuit where every guy has a gun, and there's Switzerland and Finland and whatever - but I'm, once again, exagerating for effect). Point was that, in the USA, carrying a gun to defend from all those evil bastards carrying guns makes some sort of sense. It wouldn't, at all, in Belgium, and even in Canada, it's rather peculiar and almost all Canadians will look at you funny for even thinking that way.
