49
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 11:53 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Немного трудно понимать о чём идёт речь в этом, без код светов...
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2018 12:10 am
@gungasnake,
Всяк сверчо́к знай свой шесто́к.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2018 12:29 am
@vikorr,
The gun lobby is the one that's been manipulating the media then claiming the opposite. It's looking glass politics, accuse your opponents of your own crimes, lie, lie, and lie again and eventually your lies will be believed. It helps when there's a load of people, with no intellectual curiosity whatsoever, who want to believe the lie.

It's not like those lies are easy to disprove. I just googled "school shootings prior to Columbine" and that is one of many websites that popped up.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 01:20 am
Quote:
Seven US law enforcement officers have been shot, one of them fatally, in an incident in South Carolina, officials say.

Police in the city of Florence had been responding to a call for help from the sheriff's office.

A gunman had been holding children hostage and was involved in a two-hour stand-off before surrendering and being taken to hospital.

He has not been identified and the motive is unclear.

All the children are now safe, police said.

At a press conference, Florence county Sheriff Kenney Boone said three county sheriff's deputies and four Florence police officers were shot during the incident.

One of the Florence officers, named by local media as Terrence Carraway, 52, died from his injuries.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45740922
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2018 07:57 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
There are so many things wrong with this, that I wonder how you can possibly say this with a straight face.
There is nothing wrong with what I said. Everything that I said is true.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2018 07:59 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
it's got nothing to do with publicity and everything to do with guns.
Wrong again. Mass killers would just use bombs if they couldn't use guns.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2018 08:01 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
The way columbine was portrayed, it was like the first mass shooting at a school...but perhaps it was portrayed that way because of the number of victims, and type of guns used.
There was nothing special about the type of guns. The fuss was due to the number of victims and the fact that the shooters turned the entire school into a no-man's-land for a period of time.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2018 08:02 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
The gun lobby is the one that's been manipulating the media then claiming the opposite.
Nonsense. Give one example of this supposed manipulation by the gun lobby.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2018 10:27 am
@oralloy,
More lies. Bombs are easy to make, guns are easy to obtain.

Yours is a very simplistic and ill informed argument. America has such a high homicide rate because of your ridiculous gun laws.

I notice that you've gone quiet about your lies over Columbine being the first school shooting.

You lost this argument long ago, you just can't see it.

You're like this bloke.

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16500000/Monty-Python-and-The-Holy-Grail-monty-python-16538977-845-468.jpg
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2018 12:09 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
More lies. Bombs are easy to make, guns are easy to obtain.
I assume that you meant bombs are not easy to make. However, they are easy enough to make that any nutcase who wants to carry out a massacre can make them, so any slight difficulty in making them is no barrier to future massacres.

izzythepush wrote:
Yours is a very simplistic and ill informed argument.
On the contrary, my argument is very highly informed. All of the facts are entirely on my side.

izzythepush wrote:
America has such a high homicide rate because of your ridiculous gun laws.
That is incorrect. International comparisons of gun availability rates and homicide rates show no correlation between the two.

izzythepush wrote:
I notice that you've gone quiet about your lies over Columbine being the first school shooting.
What I said was that Columbine was the event that kicked off our rampant epidemic of school shootings. That was not a lie.

izzythepush wrote:
You lost this argument long ago, you just can't see it.
You're like this bloke.
The link to the picture does not work for my browser. This may be due to my DNS server refusing to return an IP address.

Regardless, I have all of the facts on my side and all of the law on my side, so I won't be losing anything.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2018 12:12 pm
https://www.vtmag.vt.edu/spring16/img/fighting-for-flint-samples.jpg
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Oct, 2018 03:40 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Mass killers would just use bombs if they couldn't use guns.


Preparation:
1. You need knowledge to make a bomb, so no knowledge, no bomb. Not the same for a gun
2. Internet searches for bomb making recipes are monitored by the government. They interrupt terrorist events this way. They won't get everyone, but they get the majority. Not the same situation at all for guns.
3. The chemicals for bomb making (mass casualty bombs) are monitored by the govt. They interrupt terrrorist events this way. They won't get everyone, but they get the majority. Not the same situation at all for a gun.
4. Equipment: you should have extra apparatus to do the mixing. You do not want your chemicals mixing prematurely.
5. Storage. You need much better storage for the chemicals for your bomb. Them accidentally mixing, will cause all sorts of issues to your storage facility.

Danger to Offender
6. Missing the chemicals in an explosive is dangerous to beginners, picking up a gun (with just the most modest of knowledge) is not
7. Turning a bomb from an explosive into a bomb (ie within a container, to create an exmplosion that is dangerous to more than just the person right next to it) adds more danger....the danger to yourself, from your own gun, remains constant

Practicality:
8. Weight. You think suicide vests are easy? Those are from expert, practised bomb makers. You average beginner (we're talking about your first time mass killer, which just about all the mass shooters have been), has no chance of making something so small. So it's going to be weighty, if they want a mass killing

9. Bulk. See above.

10. Transport - parts one and two are why vehicle bombs are so popular. And the car adds to the explosive impact. Still, it's likely to be difficult, and dangerous for the bomb maker to get the bomb to the vehicle.

Trigger
11. Suicide is one option - but many mass killers don't want to die.

Remote Detonator:
11a. A remote detonator is not easy. Searches for it would be monitored much more closely by the govt.
12. Purchases of them would require licences, with very tight control over those licences, and over the sale of them.
13. Making them would not be easy,
14. Installing them (ie connecting them to the home made bomb) so that it is ensured to work, would not be easy

Transport:
15. Bomb makers don't always want to be identified. Driving a bomb in a car is a good way to be identified, whether you go the hire vehicle route or otherwise.

Time:
16. It takes a LOT longer to make a bomb, and plan an attack, than it does to pick up and use a gun.
17. That time allows those who would do mass killings based on recent build up of emotions...if their chosen thought was a massing killing...to cool down, and change their mind. It allows the govt time to notice them, and catch them.

There's a reason even terrorists in Western countries have moved away from bombs towards guns and vehicles.

So no, there isn't just problems, but gaping holes in your nonsense 'they would just use bombs'.

-----------------------------
Some (compared to mass shootings) very few might, as they have in the past. Any other view is quite delusional. There's not a shred of logical thought or evidence backing your thought. And remember, I'm not talking about 'might' use a bomb in place of guns...but the nonsense thought that all, or most (you suggest all, or most), or even half, or even a quarter, or even 1/10th.... of mass shooters would use bombs if they didn't have access to guns.

And no, Iraq and the ME are not usable examples for you. They have practised bomb makers from years of wars, and the multitude of terrorist cells. The very, very vast majority of your mass shooters in the U.S. will never have that prolonged practice at bomb making. Nor access to all the devices needed. Nor the oversight on chemicals faced in Western countries. nor the monitoring of internet searches like Western countries face (and yes, I'm aware of TOR and its associated tools to hide searches) etc.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2018 02:07 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Preparation:
1. You need knowledge to make a bomb, so no knowledge, no bomb. Not the same for a gun
It doesn't take much knowledge at all. Take a pipe or a pressure cooker and fill it with match-heads.

If incendiaries are preferred over explosives, fill a bottle with kerosene and stick a rag in the top.

vikorr wrote:
2. Internet searches for bomb making recipes are monitored by the government. They interrupt terrorist events this way. They won't get everyone, but they get the majority. Not the same situation at all for guns.
Not that internet searches are even needed for bombmaking, but actually that is exactly the same situation with guns. School shooters research and plan their school shootings, and they talk about their plans before carrying them out.

vikorr wrote:
3. The chemicals for bomb making (mass casualty bombs) are monitored by the govt. They interrupt terrrorist events this way. They won't get everyone, but they get the majority. Not the same situation at all for a gun.
You can buy matches (for the match-heads) at many stores. Same with kerosene.

vikorr wrote:
4. Equipment: you should have extra apparatus to do the mixing. You do not want your chemicals mixing prematurely.
5. Storage. You need much better storage for the chemicals for your bomb. Them accidentally mixing, will cause all sorts of issues to your storage facility.
No mixing or special storage is necessary for match-heads or kerosene.

vikorr wrote:
Danger to Offender
6. Missing the chemicals in an explosive is dangerous to beginners, picking up a gun (with just the most modest of knowledge) is not
7. Turning a bomb from an explosive into a bomb (ie within a container, to create an exmplosion that is dangerous to more than just the person right next to it) adds more danger....the danger to yourself, from your own gun, remains constant
Guns are dangerous too. Lots of people accidentally shoot themselves.

vikorr wrote:
Practicality:
8. Weight. You think suicide vests are easy? Those are from expert, practised bomb makers. You average beginner (we're talking about your first time mass killer, which just about all the mass shooters have been), has no chance of making something so small. So it's going to be weighty, if they want a mass killing

9. Bulk. See above.

10. Transport - parts one and two are why vehicle bombs are so popular. And the car adds to the explosive impact. Still, it's likely to be difficult, and dangerous for the bomb maker to get the bomb to the vehicle.
Large and heavy bombs do more damage than small and lightweight bombs, but bombs can be made in many sizes.

Bombs with the size and power of hand grenades are easily carried.

vikorr wrote:
Trigger
11. Suicide is one option - but many mass killers don't want to die.
School shooters tend to want to go out in a blaze of glory.

vikorr wrote:
Remote Detonator:
11a. A remote detonator is not easy. Searches for it would be monitored much more closely by the govt.
12. Purchases of them would require licences, with very tight control over those licences, and over the sale of them.
13. Making them would not be easy,
14. Installing them (ie connecting them to the home made bomb) so that it is ensured to work, would not be easy
Fuses are easy enough. Just light it and run (or light it and throw).

A simple timer will work too.

So will a cell phone.

vikorr wrote:
Transport:
15. Bomb makers don't always want to be identified. Driving a bomb in a car is a good way to be identified, whether you go the hire vehicle route or otherwise.
School shooters tend to want people to know who they are and what they did. They also tend to kill themselves if they are not killed by police.

vikorr wrote:
Time:
16. It takes a LOT longer to make a bomb, and plan an attack, than it does to pick up and use a gun.
17. That time allows those who would do mass killings based on recent build up of emotions...if their chosen thought was a massing killing...to cool down, and change their mind. It allows the govt time to notice them, and catch them.
School shooters tend to spend a long time planning their attacks.

vikorr wrote:
There's a reason even terrorists in Western countries have moved away from bombs towards guns and vehicles.
Vehicle attacks are another way that disturbed students could massacre their classmates if guns were unavailable.

vikorr wrote:
So no, there isn't just problems, but gaping holes in your nonsense 'they would just use bombs'.
The Columbine shooters rigged large propane bombs to go along with their shooting spree. The bombs did not go off because of one simple and easily fixed error. Had they not used guns to launch their attack, no one would have known of the failed bombing, and the kids would have investigated and fixed their error.

vikorr wrote:
Some (compared to mass shootings) very few might, as they have in the past. Any other view is quite delusional. There's not a shred of logical thought or evidence backing your thought. And remember, I'm not talking about 'might' use a bomb in place of guns...but the nonsense thought that all, or most (you suggest all, or most), or even half, or even a quarter, or even 1/10th.... of mass shooters would use bombs if they didn't have access to guns.
Hardly nonsense. If someone is bent on perpetrating a massacre, they will find a way to do it.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2018 02:09 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
https://www.vtmag.vt.edu/spring16/img/fighting-for-flint-samples.jpg
That's bit off topic, but thanks for the reminder. I was going to post an update to Farmerman in whatever thread it was that we were discussing it, and it totally slipped my mind.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2018 03:54 pm
@oralloy,
It appears we live on different planets when it comes to bombs.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2018 03:48 pm
@vikorr,
Bombs are like any other weapon. Greater sophistication gives greater potency, but "crude and simple" will still cause damage.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2018 12:25 pm
@oralloy,
I don't see anyone disputing that even crude bombs can do some damage.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2018 04:31 pm
@vikorr,
So then if mass killers cannot get their hands on guns, they will use bombs instead.

For that matter, they could also build crude shotguns and commit their massacres that way.

Or they could emulate recent terrorists and use a vehicle against a crowd in the open.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2018 12:22 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
So then if mass killers cannot get their hands on guns, they will use bombs instead.
Uh, no, we disagree quite drastically on that.

I don't think that 1000 US style mass shooters would translate into 1000 mass killers of another sort - I don't buy that at all. I think some of those mass shooters would not go on to murder at all, without easy access to guns. Of the number that remained killers, which would still be high, the 'mass' would be missing from a high percentage of those killers. In your version, for bombs, I think it would translate into maybe 10 mass bombers. Possibly 50, but that seems quite extreme. And a handful of those people that might use vehicles.


oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2018 01:06 pm
@vikorr,
People do not carry out a massacre without first deciding to do so.

Guns do not make people decide to carry out a massacre. The same people will decide to carry out massacres regardless of whether or not guns are available to them.

Anyone who decides to carry out a massacre will look for a way to carry the massacre out.

They will be able to find a method with or without guns being available to them.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/22/2018 at 02:51:03