|QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 20:48)|
|QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 21:02)|
| Do you have any idea just how simple it really is to make a bomb? Apparently not, or you'd realize how weak your own argument is. People have been making bombs for quite a while, and it doesn't take much more scientific know how than Bubba cooking up a batch of meth. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, it was a home-made ammonium nitrate ( fertilizer in case you didn't know ) bomb that did that damage.|
Meanwhile, it's well documented that pipe bombs were found undetonated after the Columbine massacre. Now what would have happened if instead of two under-achievers, you had a couple of high school kids that had a little more know how?
Have you ever heard of the bombings during the "outlaw biker wars" in Canada? One of the largest explosive devices ever detonated in North America was used in one of those cases.
Not to mention Ted Kaczynski
So again can you remind me why bombs are so difficult and esoteric that a lone psychopath couldn't use them to kill many people?
you know you're just making my point for me...
that was ONE successful mass-bombing incident. one. maybe if that was a common thing I could see your point... but it's not.
there are mass-shootings almost every single month lately.
those bombs didn't even work. the kids who died that day were killed by guns because it's MUCH more difficult to kill someone with a bomb than with a gun.
again, that's a rare/isolated incident. it's not like bombs are flying around in public places.
yeah he only killed 3 people out of the 30 or so different bombs that he attempted to detonate. the other 20-something people were just injured.
so you're really making my point for me
No, you're just missing my point. You talk about how there's a mass shooting every other month ( a little bit of an exaggeration but I'll run with it ) but that's not typically by a person's design. It's more a matter of accessibility and convenience as has been stated before in the thread so I'm not going to reiterate all that over again...
My point in showcasing these people is that it shows that A) You have people who will learn how to use bombs B) That you have people that will learn how to use them very successfully C) The accessibility to explosives is not very hard to circumvent if even strict to begin with and D) The motivation for using these types of weapons varies greatly. Does that sound like anything you know of? Firearms perhaps?
I don't think it's logical to look at these other countries that have weapons bans and low crime rates and say, "See, no guns, no crime," when you can still point out other countries with
gun bans that have high rates of violent crime. There's other factors involved here with all of these shooting incidents than just guns being easily accessible or restrictions being too lax. There's too many instances where the person committing these crimes wouldn't even be precluded from owning a firearm anyway.
I just think that there is a problem in America--really in many other parts than just the U.S. if you really research it--where violence and murder are quite rampant. I don't think that guns being here in great numbers and accessibility or not is really going to have much of a bearing on that situation. When people suggest, "Well if you didn't have mass guns, you wouldn't have mass killings," it just seems like such a band-aid-fix type of idea.
Meanwhile I think the problem is that there's a few different camps of pro-gun people. There are people like me who will concede that having a permit to own and operate a weapon, and not being able to buy an AR-15 at WalMart in under an hour aren't such bad ideas. I also don't really feel that the 2A is imperative to keeping our evil tyrannical government under check, I just believe that an armed society has benefits and that these types of violent incidents are not actually related to the accessibility or prevalence of firearms, and that for the most part all these types of restrictions will accomplish is making someone who is legally able to own a gun into someone who is not legally able to own a gun, and I'm not insinuating a gun grab or ban or something when I'm saying that.
What I mean is that, every time there is more legislation written that furthers restrictions on firearms in some way, implements more background checks, prohibits certain type of people, then there are quite a number of people whose rights get trampled on. They just get swept under the rug for what is perceived as "the greater good" by people who believe more restrictions are actually going to stop these types of incidents. Did the Brady Campaign to prohibit those committed to a mental institution stop Seung-Hui Cho from committing the VT massacre? No, but it did stop thousands of Americans ( maybe millions ) who have had that unfortunate experience of depression or drug addiction preclude them from acquiring a firearm, and is that really right? Have you ever read the questions that are asked on the NCIS criminal background check? In case you didn't know, some people are precluded from buying a firearm due to misdemeanor drug charges. Now tell me which mass shooting incident that stopped?
All that's going to happen with these "universal background checks" and the like is that more people are going to be prohibited from owning a firearm based on even more private and absurd matters, and it's not going to stop any of the type of psychopaths that have actually went and committed a crime like the ones in question. What more reasonable things could they want to check on a background screening anyway? I mean, what happens when instead of people who have been involuntarily committed for suicide watch being prohibited from owning firearms ( as they are now ), we have people who have been prescribed anti-depressant medications being prohibited? Yes that sounds absurd, because it is absurd, but there are already certain types of jobs in which that type of background will blackball you, why should I want my right to bear arms subject to the same type of frivolous dismissal?