Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

What does any of this have to do with the school shooting?
Is Izzy saying AJ & Gore are broadcasting messages to the mentally ill?

Are you saying humans purposely don't use the most effictive way to kill?

I love the argument that it's safer for the murderer. No one would ever mix chemicals wrong and blow themselves up.
Let's see.. Go to one store and buying a gun and bullets .. load gun ... find person and kill
OR
Googling how to build bomb. Going to store or several stores to buy items, spending time building the bomb. Be careful to not blow self up. Build trigger device to control the when the bomb explodes, then find a place to put the IED so it kills the intended target and no one finds it before that happens.

I think you are confused about how effective an IED is for a normal person compared to a gun. Simply look at the killer in Aurora. He killed several with guns. Killed none with the bombs he set.

Failure for the bombs to go off is NOT a bombing...

I suppose you can shoot someone if your gun doesn't go off.

The biggest bombing was prior to control of dynamite.

Since we have not had school bombings with dynamite since then, wouldn't that show you that controlling who can purchase an item helps prevent it's use?

It's a failed bombing attempt, what's your point?

How many bombs have you built thus far?

What are you planning to do with your homemade bombs?

Do you prefer the standard pipe bomb or are you building something extra special?

Failed bombing attempts are NOT an effective way of killing anyone. In fact it would be highly INEFFECTIVE.

You need to be as effective as you possibly can don't you?

Are you wanting to be the next big news story?

So to recap...
The gun nuts here all agree that bombs are more effective than guns when it comes to killing someone.
They all agree that anyone can easily build a bomb and the bomb is safer for the person using the bomb than a gun is.

Everyone agrees that you are a nut.

When threatened by someone that you think may kill you, wouldn't you want the most effective way to kill that person before they kill you?

I think I would.

So guns are not the most effective way. Bombs are. Yet I don't see anyone carrying a bomb for self defense. I wonder why that is.

In the spirit of seatbelt usage,
we r trying to encourage potential future victims
to defensively arm themselves,
but we do not always succeed in convincing them b4 its too late.





David

Why is a gun a better weapon to carry than a bomb Spurt. Guns are less effective, don't you agree?

Boms r too bulky n clumsey, tho faster to make.

I just dial 911 and wait patiently for the government to protect me from armed criminals with evil intentions.

So you think guns are better than bombs. Guns are more effective and efficient for killing a person.

You worry me para, just how many people do you plan to kill?

Just between you and me, when & where?

Someone of authority needs to pay parados a visit and check out the situation.

People who are killed with knives are less dead than people killed with guns?





Interesting trivia, but I still think they'd be just as dead if they were killed without a gun.

And, once more, we have considerably more school-age children being killed and wounded in this country, rather constantly, as the result of gun violence, and not as the result of bombs.

You, and the other gun-lobby groupies, posting in this thread have to resort to denying reality because you have no other option when you try to assert that the prevalence of guns, coupled with our lax gun laws, does not have a destructive effect on public health and safety in our country. If you continue to deny reality, you will continue to have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to reduce our national problem with gun violence.

Fortunately, other, more responsible, gun owners are now raising their voices, and opening their wallets, in order to counter-act the self-serving interests of the NRA/gun manufacturers lobby that has hampered attempts at better gun control and regulation, and that has stymied research into the entire issue of gun violence on the part of the CDC. Unlike you, these more responsible gun owners recognize that gun violence is not a "gun rights" or 2nd Amendment issue--gun violence is a public health and safety issue--just as the spread of a harmful disease is a public health and safety issue--and it must be addressed with governmental actions to better protect the general welfare of our populace.

This is no longer the "pro-gun" vs the "anti-gun" factions, because the people we are hearing from now, and who are demanding change, like Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and Mark Kelly and Gabrielle Giffords, are people who own guns, and have experience with guns, yet recognize the need to take action to address our problem with gun violence.
To call such people "anti-gun" or "anti-gun rights" would just be absurd.


Responsible gun owners understand that rights confer responsibilities--and one of those responsibilities is to protect others from the violent harm that firearms can inflict on the population, and better controlling the purchasing of such weapons, and certain types of ammunition, is one way to accomplish that. And the influence of gun owners, like Kelly and Giffords, and their new PAC, Americans For Responsible Solutions, will now offer other gun owners, as well as non-gun owners, a vehicle to accomplish such aims. And this is the kind of effort that may effect an attitudinal change on the part of lawmakers that leads to more effective solutions to the problem of gun violence.

And, the more you babble about other ways people can be killed, or try to deny the country's problems with gun violence, the more foolish and out-of-touch you sound--particularly when compared to realistic and responsible gun owners, like Kelly and Giffords. You are simply left sounding rather silly. And sounding silly doesn't usually convince anyone of anything.