Building your own flamethrower is easier and cheaper than buying a gun. So is ramming into a crowd with a car. Or torching a building full of sleeping people or setting huge forest fires.
You would think we’d see killers running all about with flamethrowers. And yet flamethrower violence is not on the same scale as gun violence, unless you have something to show that it is. And (correct me if I’m wrong) it’s your contention that the only reason we don’t see killers torching people with the same frequency is because the entertainment complex doesn’t glorify flamethrowers to the same degree as firearms?
Except we aren’t proposing we ban cars or gasoline either. Take weapons and gasoline and cars away from murderers, not law abiding citizens. Pretty simple concept, you don’t punish innocents for the acts of criminals. Should we take your internet away because some people use it to peddle kiddie porn?
1 Like
Maybe you would.
The point in all this is that it’s the person, not the tool.
The point you are digging at is that guns are used because they are available. Easy. Efficient. Lots of reasons.
The only way to address that, though, is to eliminate all guns, else they will still be available and therefore used.
Run with that. It’s not going to happen.
We’ve created a society that foments these killers. Taking guns away won’t change them.
I can’t think of any other good reason. If your goal is causing death and misery and getting a ton of press coverage, torching a few dozen people in a crowd would be a more effective means to do it.
Cars are regulated. You can’t drive any car on the road. I can’t use an F1 car as my daily commuter. I need a CDL for certain uses of motor vehicles. I’m not a criminal. There are still restrictions.
I’ll challenge you the same way I did zantax in that I’d like to see you quote the post I made where I said eliminating all firearms would end mass killings.
To the bolded - yes that is my point. There are a number of reasons why these sorts choose a firearms over other means of violence, and ease of use/efficiency are just two of them. I’m glad to see at least you will agree on that very basic point, which to me seemed readily obvious but I’m somewhat amazed how others continue to dance around such a simple truth.
Why?
I didn’t say you said that.
I said what you highlighted. That’s the point you are making. You and I agree on that.
Now what? What do we do to address that fact?
And you don’t think there are any gun restrictions?
Good question - but acknowledging that fact without deflecting to flamethrowers is an important first step, don’t you think?
In all honesty? I don’t think anything can be done to fully eliminate the tragedies. That genie left the bottle a long time ago. What can we do to minimize them? I’m not disagreeing that it wouldn’t hurt for the entertainment complex to move away from glorifying gun use in much the same manner they moved away from glamorizing smoking. Also?
The less our national leaders indulge in uncivil, divisive rhetoric the better. We all bleed red.
1 Like
How is it a deflection? Because these killers don’t choose them? They are better tools to kill people in a crowd situation. And you don’t need to pass a background check to make one. They are dead easy to make with off the shelf components and there are loads of videos online showing how to make them. But even if we concede guns are easier to get and use, how is that applicable? You think these killers are just going to shrug their shoulders and say, “if I can’t buy a gun in Walmart I guess I am just going to forget my whole mass killing plan”? Really?
These people are obsessed, they’re going to do it no matter how many roadblocks you throw up in regard to guns. If they can’t get guns they’ll turn to arson, ramming people with vehicles, propane tank IED’s etc. These aren’t impulse crimes, they don’t see a gun lying around and pick it up on the spur of the moment and kill a dozen people. They obsess over and plan their attacks over months or years. There is nothing you can do short of identifying and locking them up to stop them in an open society where there are hundreds if not thousands of ways to inflict mass casualties lying around.
Again - no one is saying lack of access to firearms means these idiots will give up on the idea of murder. That straw man is a dead horse you are beating into a fine paste.
2 Likes
If they are still going to do it, what is the rationale for infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens?
Then why do you © get to impose on me?
1 Like
There is so much quality stuff in this thread to share, thank you everyone.
1 Like
That’s a conversation entirely independent of the point I’m making.
Or perhaps it isn’t, since the simple acknowledgement that firearms have tactical advantages over other means of killing (ease of use, availability, efficiency to name a few) sends some people off into bizarre deflections. “Flamethrowers are to easy to make!”
Good grief.
Their tactical advantage lies in hitting the desired target, not in killing large numbers indiscriminately in a crowd, there are better weapon choices in that regard. If we had a targeted sniper problem instead of a mass killer problem you would have a point.
Well, thank goodness for rape and incest keeping those numbers up, eh?
1 Like
I think what’s great is that a few keyboard commandos popped in to brag about how they could have done better than this guy. I mean, what more does a mass killing need than a few internet warriors popping in to say this guy sucked at killing people. “Pffft. I coulda done better”.
1 Like
