Mass shooting in Buffalo NY. (1 Viewer)

[Dago]

So, theoretically, if it was just as easy to kill lots of people with a pressure cooker bomb as it is with guns, then you'd see just as many pressure cooker mass casualty events as you do mass casualty events with guns. But we don't. When someone wants to go out and kill a bunch of people, they almost always choose guns. That suggests that when people want to kill others they believe they have a better chance with guns than pressure cooker bombs.

Guns are very efficient tools for killing people. That's what they are designed for.. requires not a lot of training, and are readily and cheaply available.

Over a large population you can lower homicides by raising the costs of committing a homicide and by providing better alternatives to homicide. Part of raising the cost is making it more difficult to do so. There is some percentage of homicides that occur because it is relatively easy to do so with not enough barriers in the way. Get angry, buy a gun for very little money, and go shoot people.

So, sure, there are definitely cases where someone is determined enough to kill despite all obstacles, but over 300 million people and 25000 homicides, some percentage would not occur if it was harder to do so.

Right now for every person in the US there are 1.2 guns. That's twice the number of the next highest country (the Falkland Islands, and then Yemen). Basic economics - more supply = lower cost. Guns are crazy cheap and easy to get here.

However, we do have the 2nd Amendment, and the way it's interpreted means gun control is difficult, so it's not likely going to happen.

we live in a copycat society
do you really think that these hate groups are going to say "Whoa....this is too difficult now so let's all sing Kumbaya" or do you think they are more likely to just change tactics?

And again....unless someone can provide a logical, reasonable way to round up all those guns and to prevent them coming in from our border with Mexico then talking about banning guns will only negatively affect law abiding citizens.

I, for one, will never be helpless in a situation where I get to watch someone put the barrel of a gun against my head while another piece of sheet puts one against a loved ones temple and tells me they are going to blow their head off while I watch.

 

[Dago]

I mean, the thought did cross my mind that part of the issue is that "some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses", but I didn't necessarily want to open that can of worms and decided to go with the idea that it's a failure not intentional ignorance.

Wouldn't surprise me....the powers that be will do anything to keep us divided and at each other's throats

 

[Sailorsaint]

I mean, the thought did cross my mind that part of the issue is that "some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses", but I didn't necessarily want to open that can of worms and decided to go with the idea that it's a failure not intentional ignorance.

It may have been reluctance more than anything. With all the pressure put on law enforcement lately, what would have been the blow back if they went in early and ended up in a firefight at the guys house?

 

[Bayouboy]

The banning guns thing will never happen in this country. If Sandy Hook didn't change ANYTHING, what event will????

 

[St. Widge]

It may have been reluctance more than anything. With all the pressure put on law enforcement lately, what would have been the blow back if they went in early and ended up in a firefight at the guys house?

I mean, that's their job and it's not really those kinds of things that have lead to law enforcement getting bad publicity lately. It's excessive use of force, biased policing, an us against them attitude toward the public in general, and targeting minorities that has been the issue. And, frankly, the fact that this guy posted what he was doing to do along with when and where, and law enforcement did nothing about it makes it look even more suspect in term so of biased policing and targeting minorities. I doubt many would have an issue if they went in to arrest this guy and it resulted in a firefight after people saw what he posted on 4Chan. These are the things we need Police for and this is clear probably cause with exigent circumstances. Yet, they did nothing either because they somehow did not know about it or because they didn't care.

 

[SystemShock]

So, theoretically, if it was just as easy to kill lots of people with a pressure cooker bomb as it is with guns, then you'd see just as many pressure cooker mass casualty events as you do mass casualty events with guns. But we don't. When someone wants to go out and kill a bunch of people, they almost always choose guns. That suggests that when people want to kill others they believe they have a better chance with guns than pressure cooker bombs.

I don't want to put words in @Dago 's mouth, but I think that what he's saying is that, even if guns are easier to use than pipe/pressure cooker bombs, in the absence of guns, if someone wanted to perpetrate a mass killing, pipe/pressure cooker bombs are not so hard to make that it'd deter someone from using them.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes, where there is a will there is a way... most of the time. But if it's easier to use gas and a lighter, why are people choosing to use guns to commit homicide?

Yeah, it's definitely easier with guns. But clearly, if guns aren't accessible, you'll see a marked increase in other means.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't want to put words in @Dago 's mouth, but I think that what he's saying is that, even if guns are easier to use than pipe/pressure cooker bombs, in the absence of guns, if someone wanted to perpetrate a mass killing, pipe/pressure cooker bombs are not so hard to make that it'd deter someone from using them.

Yep.

 

[sfidc3]

People are just going to be standing around while some random person walks around pouring gasoline? Over a huge area, and then walk outside and somehow bar the door to prevent people from leaving?

If it were easier and cheaper than guns, then why do more homicides occur with guns than with mass gasoline incendiary events?

Nice response to a ridiculous argument.....I don't think a gun ban is the right solution. I strongly believe folks should be able to own guns for hunting (single shot rifles, shotguns) and pistols for home protection but I've never heard any argument that makes any sense as to why high caliber large magazine guns are available or needed for any good reason.....

 

[St. Widge]

So, guns are clearly easier to use to do mass killings and that is why they are used. And, yes, I think if we were to somehow get rid of all the guns people would still use knives, swords, cars, and bombs to do mass killings. It does happen in the U.K. where guns are more or less unheard of. But, it does happen less often. I'm not sure if that is a simply a cultural difference or if it's because the ease of use of guns makes it more likely for people to commit a violent act. But, I do know that knife crime is a fairly major issue in the U.K. Although I think their murder rate is vastly lower than ours. But, again, I'm not sure that it isn't more of a cultural thing than an access to guns thing.

Anyway, bombs are really easy to make. I almost got killed by a pipe bomb when I was a junior in high school. Some 8th grader got ahold of a couple boxes of his dad's shotgun shells, broke them open, poured all the gunpower into a pipe, drilled a hole and put in a fuse. He put it in a bathroom at my high school, lit it and took off. I walked into that bathroom with a friend and it went off with my friend about 3 feet away and me like 6 feet away. My friend got hit in the arm with a piece of pipe but it was luckily a minor cut. I mostly just lost hearing for an hour. But, we were lucky because the kid stuffed socks into either end of the pipe. Had he been smart enough to put easily purchased metal caps on either end of the pre-threaded pipe, it would have exponentially increased the explosive force and likely killed both of us. So, if some 8th grader in the 80s can make a bomb with some pipe and dad's shotgun shells when there was no internet telling him how to do it, imagine what someone could do now?

On a side note, times have really changed. The kid who made that pipe bomb only got a week long suspension and was back in school after that. The Police were not called and he faced no criminal charges. If that happened now, that kid would probably be in jail for several years.

 

[Dago]

I don't want to put words in @Dago 's mouth, but I think that what he's saying is that, even if guns are easier to use than pipe/pressure cooker bombs, in the absence of guns, if someone wanted to perpetrate a mass killing, pipe/pressure cooker bombs are not so hard to make that it'd deter someone from using them.

No....that is accurate.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

we live in a copycat society
do you really think that these hate groups are going to say "Whoa....this is too difficult now so let's all sing Kumbaya" or do you think they are more likely to just change tactics?

And again....unless someone can provide a logical, reasonable way to round up all those guns and to prevent them coming in from our border with Mexico then talking about banning guns will only negatively affect law abiding citizens.

I, for one, will never be helpless in a situation where I get to watch someone put the barrel of a gun against my head while another piece of sheet puts one against a loved ones temple and tells me they are going to blow their head off while I watch.

I don't want to put words in @Dago 's mouth, but I think that what he's saying is that, even if guns are easier to use than pipe/pressure cooker bombs, in the absence of guns, if someone wanted to perpetrate a mass killing, pipe/pressure cooker bombs are not so hard to make that it'd deter someone from using them.

Yeah, it's definitely easier with guns. But clearly, if guns aren't accessible, you'll see a marked increase in other means.

This seems to be saying if a solution isn't 100% effective we might as well not bother. Which seems silly to me.

I feel pretty confident in saying if guns all suddenly disappeared by magic, homicides would drop by like 70%. Sure, some people would stab people to death, others would build a pressure cooker bomb, and so on. But I don't think something needs to be perfect to be good.

Obviously there's no magic make guns disappear button, but there is a super strong correlation between the number of guns available and homicides. I think it would make sense to enact policies that over time would make guns more expensive and hard to find.

HOWEVER, it would have to pass constitutional muster, which I don't think will happen. I would wish that there was a requirement that in order to own a gun you had to be a part of a well regulated militia, and train with your weapon at least once a month. But that does not seem to be the interpretation of the Constitution, so at this point there would need to be another amendment, which has 0% chance of passing.

 

[DaveXA]

So, guns are clearly easier to use to do mass killings and that is why they are used. And, yes, I think if we were to somehow get rid of all the guns people would still use knives, swords, cars, and bombs to do mass killings. It does happen in the U.K. where guns are more or less unheard of. But, it does happen less often. I'm not sure if that is a simply a cultural difference or if it's because the ease of use of guns makes it more likely for people to commit a violent act. But, I do know that knife crime is a fairly major issue in the U.K. Although I think their murder rate is vastly lower than ours. But, again, I'm not sure that it isn't more of a cultural thing than an access to guns thing.

Anyway, bombs are really easy to make. I almost got killed by a pipe bomb when I was a junior in high school. Some 8th grader got ahold of a couple boxes of his dad's shotgun shells, broken them open, poured all the gunpower into a pipe, drilled a hole and put in a fuse. He put it in a bathroom at my high school, lit it and took off. I walked into that bathroom with a friend and it went off with my friend about 3 feet away and me like 6 feet away. My friend got hit in the arm with a piece of pipe but it was luckily a minor cut. I mostly just lost hearing for an hour. But, we were lucky because the kid stuffed socks into either end of the pipe. Had he been smart enough to put easily purchased metal caps on either end of the pre-threaded pipe, it would have exponentially increased the explosive force and likely killed both of us. So, if some 8th grader in the 80s can make a bomb with some pipe and dad's shotgun shells when there was no internet telling him how to do it, imagine what someone could do now?

On a side note, times have really changed. The kid who made that pipe bomb only got a week long suspension and was back in school after that. The Police were not called and he faced no criminal charges. If that happened now, that kid would probably be in jail for several years.

Oh yeah, we had that happen a few times in a couple of different schools when I was in middle and high school. Kids usually got suspended for a week or 2. Repeat offenders would get expelled and they'd end up in a school across town or in one of the local private schools.

 

[DaveXA]

This seems to be saying if a solution isn't 100% effective we might as well not bother. Which seems silly to me.

I feel pretty confident in saying if guns all suddenly disappeared by magic, homicides would drop by like 70%. Sure, some people would stab people to death, others would build a pressure cooker bomb, and so on. But I don't think something needs to be perfect to be good.

Obviously there's no magic make guns disappear button, but there is a super strong correlation between the number of guns available and homicides. I think it would make sense to enact policies that over time would make guns more expensive and hard to find.

HOWEVER, it would have to pass constitutional muster, which I don't think will happen. I would wish that there was a requirement that in order to own a gun you had to be a part of a well regulated militia, and train with your weapon at least once a month. But that does not seem to be the interpretation of the Constitution, so at this point there would need to be another amendment, which has 0% chance of passing.

I'm not so sure it would drop by that much. Maybe like 40-50%, which is still significant enough. But yeah, you're right, it's not gonna happen until there's a political will to modify or eliminate the 2nd amendment.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm not so sure it would drop by that much. Maybe like 40-50%, which is still significant enough. But yeah, you're right, it's not gonna happen until there's a political will to modify or eliminate the 2nd amendment.

So I was basing this off of a comparison between UK's homicide rate and the US's. The US has a homicide rate of 7.8 per 100,000 while the UK has a homicide rate of 1 per 100,000.... so 8x lower. Now the UK is not a perfect substitute for the US, they have stronger social safety nets, and a more homogeneous society (although there is a fair amount of diversity, it's less than the US), and some of that no doubt contributes to the difference, so I said like 70% instead of 90%.