[QUOTE=butre;40967996]how about fertilizer and diesel[/QUOTE]
A weapon like that is big and heavy. You can't conceal it on your person to smuggle it into a building. Dismissing everyone responsible for mass killings as just "random crazies who only want to kill people" is not actually correct, they usually have specific targets or specific priorities.
[editline]9th June 2013[/editline]
Imagining that every would-be mass shooter would, in the face of difficulty finding a gun, Macguyver up an improvised weapon and go on to kill exactly as many people as they would have with a gun just isn't realistic. It's silly fantasy logic informed by video games and action movies.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40968025]A weapon like that is big and heavy. You can't conceal it on your person to smuggle it into a building. Dismissing everyone responsible for mass killings as just "random crazies who only want to kill people" is not actually correct, they usually have specific targets or specific priorities.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/_gas.jpg[/img]
this guy didn't even bring it into the building
[editline]10th June 2013[/editline]
and pouring diesel on a few $30 bags of fertilizer isn't exactly macguyvering
[editline]10th June 2013[/editline]
and he killed more than any mass shooter ever, and then injured another thousand people
Why is the kill-count always in the headlines?
[QUOTE=butre;40968087][IMG]http://imgkk.com/i/_gas.jpg[/IMG]
this guy didn't even bring it into the building
[editline]10th June 2013[/editline]
and pouring diesel on a few $30 bags of fertilizer isn't exactly macguyvering[/QUOTE]
You're really showing some historical ignorance by saying that the Oklahoma City Bombing was something anybody could get away with with a spare hour to kill and some effort. McVeigh was an Army veteran who spent years learning how to make improvised explosive weapons during his involvement with radical militias and who had at least one accomplice. He wasn't just some guy with 30 dollars.
yeah but nearly everyone knows that ammonium nitrate and a fuel oil mixture explodes violently and for the price of an AR15 and a few hundred rounds of ammo you can easily get a few bags of fertilizer, a few gallons of diesel, and a rental truck
golly if explosives are so convenient i wonder why everyone uses guns??
[QUOTE=butre;40968170]yeah but nearly everyone knows that ammonium nitrate and a fuel oil mixture explodes violently and for the price of an AR15 and a few hundred rounds of ammo you can easily get a few bags of fertilizer, a few gallons of diesel, and a rental truck[/QUOTE]
That and it doesn't take special militant training to build this stuff. Any jackoff with a computer can lean how to make this stuff. Hell even without a computer it doesn't take rocket science to know that somethings blow up better than others.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40967367]or because america is incapable of agreeing on effective federal gun control measures he could have gone next door to arizona and just bought his gear from a dude on craigslist[/QUOTE]
And what difference does that make to say going to Mexico and getting a gun? Firearms are heavily regulated there and yet somehow they still have full auto weapons, plenty of which were provided by the US government.
[QUOTE=butre;40968170]yeah but nearly everyone knows that ammonium nitrate and a fuel oil mixture explodes violently and for the price of an AR15 and a few hundred rounds of ammo you can easily get a few bags of fertilizer, a few gallons of diesel, and a rental truck[/QUOTE]
Except that actually making an explosive device out of those things is a lot more complicated than that. It's not just ammonia nitrate and gasoline. I'm not going to post instructions but to make something which you can reliably expect to work as intended is a lot more complicated than you're giving it credit for. You don't actually know what you're talking about.
[editline]9th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40968185]
And what difference does that make to say going to Mexico and getting a gun? Firearms are heavily regulated there and yet somehow they still have full auto weapons, plenty of which were provided by the US government.[/QUOTE]
You're sorta shooting yourself in the foot with your "guns are regulated harshly in Mexico and they're everywhere down there (because they get them all from us, who don't regulate them), ergo gun regulation doesn't work" argument
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40968185]And what difference does that make to say going to Mexico and getting a gun? Firearms are heavily regulated there and yet somehow they still have full auto weapons, plenty of which were provided by the US government.[/QUOTE]
crossing the border to a foreign country and locating and safely obtaining a weapon there then smuggling it back across the border into america is far more hassle and risk involved than driving to phoenix and buying a gun from some friendly dude in a walmart parking lot and you're being intellectually dishonest by denying the difference between the two scenarios. obviously you'll never completely stop gun crime but the point is that common sense gun control at a federal level is a definitive improvement on the current american state of affairs and absolutely has the capacity to help prevent and discourage many crimes, which is an outcome definitely worth your weird aversion to registering your firearms and completing a background check
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40968184]golly if explosives are so convenient i wonder why everyone uses guns??[/QUOTE]
i'm literally arguing with that one kid in third grade who bragged about all the weapons he could make because he GIS'd some jpegs of how to do it
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40968025]A weapon like that is big and heavy. You can't conceal it on your person to smuggle it into a building. Dismissing everyone responsible for mass killings as just "random crazies who only want to kill people" is not actually correct, they usually have specific targets or specific priorities.
[editline]9th June 2013[/editline]
Imagining that every would-be mass shooter would, in the face of difficulty finding a gun, Macguyver up an improvised weapon and go on to kill exactly as many people as they would have with a gun just isn't realistic. It's silly fantasy logic informed by video games and action movies.[/QUOTE]
Its not about being 1:1 comparable to an assault rifle, it is about how if someone wants to kill many people, they will find a way one way or the other.
Hell someone could dismantle a microwave and rig it to radiate. They could go on a crazy car rampage. They could practice the slingshot for a month and be able to really hurt many people. They could take the pressure regulator valve off a water heater.
I mean, even a decent archer could do some serious damage from a rooftop above a crowd. All it takes is imagination and a trip to RONA usually.
That is why we should be concentrating on getting people mental help before they even get to this stage. We should be dumping money into Mental Health and Education, not 'The War on Guns'.
if you regulate guns clearly everyone would start filling clay pots with home made explosives and using those to commit crimes.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40968248]if you regulate guns clearly everyone would start filling clay pots with home made explosives and using those to commit crimes.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone, it's only the loonies and the disgruntled who are predisposed to this kind of behavior in the first place.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40968216]crossing the border to a foreign country and locating and safely obtaining a weapon there then smuggling it back across the border into america is far more hassle and risk involved than driving to phoenix and buying a gun from some friendly dude in a walmart parking lot and you're being intellectually dishonest by denying the difference between the two scenarios. obviously you'll never completely stop gun crime but the point is that common sense gun control at a federal level is a definitive improvement on the current american state of affairs and absolutely has the capacity to help prevent and discourage many crimes, which is an outcome definitely worth your weird aversion to registering your firearms and completing a background check[/QUOTE]
it's either guns in every household or no guns at all that's how it works
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40968241]Its not about being 1:1 comparable to an assault rifle, it is about how if someone wants to kill many people, they will find a way one way or the other.
Hell someone could dismantle a microwave and rig it to radiate. They could go on a crazy car rampage, they could practice the slingshot for a month and be able to really hurt many people. They could take the pressure regulator valve off a water heater.
I mean, even a decent archer could some serious damage from a rooftop above a crowd. All it takes is imagination and a trip to RONA usually.
That is why we should be concentrating on getting people mental help before they even get to this stage. We should be dumping money into Mental Health and Education, not 'The War on Guns'.[/QUOTE]
hello i will ask you this again: if all of your ridiculous improvised weapons like microwaves, cars and slingshots are so effective, why is the weapon of choice for people looking to harm other people guns? is it perhaps, just maybe, because guns have a capacity to do more damage with less effort and less training than all of your moronic contraptions?/
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40968216]crossing the border to a foreign country and locating and safely obtaining a weapon there then smuggling it back across the border into america is far more hassle and risk involved than driving to phoenix and buying a gun from some friendly dude in a walmart parking lot and you're being intellectually dishonest by denying the difference between the two scenarios. obviously you'll never completely stop gun crime but the point is that common sense gun control at a federal level is a definitive improvement on the current american state of affairs and absolutely has the capacity to help prevent and discourage many crimes, which is an outcome definitely worth your weird aversion to registering your firearms and completing a background check[/QUOTE]
The point is someone went somewhere where it was legal to get those guns only to bring there somewhere where it was illegal. Ergo people are going to get the shit regardless.
I'm not saying there's no room for gun regulation, but blanketing everything and everyone under the sun doesn't do anyone any good.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40968262]The point is someone went somewhere where it was legal to get those guns only to bring there somewhere where it was illegal. Ergo people are going to get the shit regardless.
I'm not saying there's no room for gun regulation, but blanketing everything and everyone under the sun doesn't do anyone any good.[/QUOTE]
you can't just ergo your way out of the practical implications of crossing the border into another country, a dangerous one at that, buying a weapon in the black market and smuggling it back across the border safely. its like saying "wellllll what if they spent the next 30 years building a gun manufacturing plant and then made a pistol to kill a bunch of people with?? it could happen!!". you're waving away any non-final effects of gun control legislation with fringe examples of how one might subvert them. you throw a wide net with gun control and catch/stop who you can. obviously people will make it past but the point is that there'd be less people going to mexico than there would be to arizona. get it?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40968256]hello i will ask you this again: if all of your ridiculous improvised weapons like microwaves, cars and slingshots are so effective, why is the weapon of choice for people looking to harm other people guns? is it perhaps, just maybe, because guns have a capacity to do more damage with less effort and less training than all of your moronic contraptions?/[/QUOTE]
Yeah it is. You are right, Guns > Improvised weapons.
The problem is that saying you want to 'get rid of guns' outright is not a goal that can be reasonably accomplished. Just look at the 'War on Drugs'.
What CAN be accomplished is what I stated in my post, a comprehensive mental health care support system.
Let me just restate the basis of my argument so that you don't get confused as to what I am actually arguing:
I am NOT arguing that Macgyvered weapons are better or more common.
I AM arguing that even in the 'theoretical absence' of guns, the mentally unstable would still do harm one way or the other.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40968241]
Hell someone could dismantle a microwave and rig it to radiate. They could go on a crazy car rampage. They could practice the slingshot for a month and be able to really hurt many people. They could take the pressure regulator valve off a water heater.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ. with the exception of just running people over, none of this Postal 2 bullshit would ever be [b]as effective[/b] as just spending a couple hundred dollars on a semi-automatic rifle or even just a handgun. That's the goddamn point. I'm not blaming mass killings on guns, I'm blaming [b]their frequent high death tolls[/b] on easy access to certain guns.
And unless you suggest mandatory mental health screenings for everybody in the country, just as many people would slip through the cracks of your "throw money at school counselors" solution as would slip through some reasonable gun-control regulation. It's almost as if we should do both...
[editline]9th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40968279]
I AM arguing that even in the 'theoretical absence' of guns, the mentally unstable would still do harm one way or the other.[/QUOTE]
EXCEPT IT WOULDNT BE AS MUCH HARM
its really really really simple im literally fucking dyingffffmrejowret
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40968279]Yeah it is. You are right, Guns > Improvised weapons.
The problem is that saying you want to 'get rid of guns' outright[/QUOTE]
gonna stop you right there chief because i've literally never advocated an all out gun ban
its so fuckin irritating how as of late you pro gun dudes just start shouting "MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL HEALTH" whenever someone wants to talk about gun control. how about both? just an fyi: you aren't going to magically fix the mental healthcare system in america overnight, nor will you successfully eliminate gun violence overnight. but maybe if we try both we can make progress a bit faster?? not to mention your valiant "mental health" cry doesn't address the non-mass-shooting crimes that can be prevented with sensible gun control
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40968276]you can't just ergo your way out of the practical implications of crossing the border into another country, a dangerous one at that, buying a weapon in the black market and smuggling it back across the border safely. its like saying "wellllll what if they spent the next 30 years building a gun manufacturing plant and then made a pistol to kill a bunch of people with?? it could happen!!". you're waving away any non-final effects of gun control legislation with fringe examples of how one might subvert them. you throw a wide net with gun control and catch/stop who you can. obviously people will make it past but the point is that there'd be less people going to mexico than there would be to arizona. get it?[/QUOTE]
I'm not referring to just mexico, going to arizona was wrapped under there as well.
Throwing a wide net happens to cover those who do things legally with what they have. The number of those who do things legally is a lot larger than those who choose to do illegal things.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40968284]It's almost as if we should do both...
[editline]9th June 2013[/editline]
EXCEPT IT WOULDNT BE AS MUCH HARM
its really really really simple im literally fucking dyingffffmrejowret[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree, we should do both.
And finally:
The "WOULDNT" is highly hypothetical, that "WOULDNT" is only in the case that we do eradicate guns.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40968299]I'm not referring to just mexico, going to arizona was wrapped under there as well.
Throwing a wide net happens to cover those who do things legally with what they have. The number of those who do things legally is a lot larger than those who choose to do illegal things.[/QUOTE]
TOOO BAD
your inconvenience isn't worth people's lives get over it
wahh i have to go to a gun shop and fill out a piece of paper wahh i want the capacity to kill tons of people without anyone knowing or taking note or checking if i'm a felon or not boo hoo
this is like looking at bread and looking at meat and not even fathoming the concept of a sandwich
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40968311]
The "WOULDNT" is highly hypothetical,[/QUOTE]
it's a hell of a lot less hypothetical than your "rampant microwave murder" alternative
[QUOTE=Kopimi;40968312]TOOO BAD
your inconvenience isn't worth people's lives get over it
wahh i have to go to a gun shop and fill out a piece of paper wahh i want the capacity to kill tons of people without anyone knowing or taking note or checking if i'm a felon or not boo hoo[/QUOTE]
They always do a background check with the FBI. Do you have any clue how the gun purchasing process works in most states? Minnesotas one of the more laxed, yet you're required to go through the city police department and apply for a permit to purchase. Every single new firearm you purchase is logged, every single time a background check is done, and every single time you are required to fill out more than just a piece of paper.
Every gun I own save my pistols and my mosin are "Assault weapons". I don't have high capacity mags because it makes me feel good knowing i can kill people. I've got them because I enjoy not having to throw in a new mag every 5 seconds when I go target shooting, or while I'm competition shooting.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40968326]it's a hell of a lot less hypothetical than your "rampant microwave murder" alternative[/QUOTE]
Wait.... So you are saying that:
"Eradicating all guns, to the point where such a person couldn't get one, is less far fetched than a disgruntled human being finding a method to hurt other human beings."
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;40968342]They always do a background check with the FBI. Do you have any clue how the gun purchasing process works in most states? Minnesotas one of the more laxed, yet you're required to go through the city police department and apply for a permit to purchase. Every single new firearm you purchase is logged, every single time a background check is done, and every single time you are required to fill out more than just a piece of paper.
Every gun I own save my pistols and my mosin are "Assault weapons". I don't have high capacity mags because it makes me feel good knowing i can kill people. I've got them because I enjoy not having to throw in a new mag every 5 seconds when I go target shooting, or while I'm competition shooting.[/QUOTE]
not when you go through private sale
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40968279]
The problem is that saying you want to 'get rid of guns' outright[/QUOTE]
what is reading
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40968343]Wait.... So you are saying that:
"Eradicating all guns, to the point where such a person couldn't get one, is less far fetched than a disgruntled human being finding a method to hurt other human beings."[/QUOTE]
look, it's not hard to process. there are a lot of shootings, right? it's easy to kill with guns. what if there were less guns? even if people who feel the need to kill could still find a way to kill, it would be far more difficult for them to do it. there would be murders, but less of them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.