Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not cars driven into crowds or explosive devices?
They'll use what's around. Take away guns and they'll start using explosives and other things. The problem isn't guns. It's the people behind the guns.
Guns are just a pre packaged matter of convenience... If you take away the guns, there are plenty of alternatives that are even more inexpensive and actually easy to make.. This isn't going away by eliminating the 2nd ammendment folks... The problem is the society. We have lost our character.. We haven't instilled moral values and honor in our children for the last several decades and it is coming home to roost.
They'll use what's around. Take away guns and they'll start using explosives and other things. The problem isn't guns. It's the people behind the guns.
I agree, guns are not the problem, it is the people behind the firearm.
would people rather have a person shooting 1-30 in a shooting spree, or have someone drive a car bomb into a mall and killing 100's.
at least with a shooting spree someone might be able to put the shooter down before they commit too much damage.
Why not cars driven into crowds or explosive devices?
You asked the question, so here are some answers in the link that I've provided. Once you reference the charts, you'll see that rampage killers don't just limit themselves to firearms.
Guns are just a pre packaged matter of convenience... If you take away the guns, there are plenty of alternatives that are even more inexpensive and actually easy to make.. This isn't going away by eliminating the 2nd ammendment folks... The problem is the society. We have lost our character.. We haven't instilled moral values and honor in our children for the last several decades and it is coming home to roost.
Yup. We taught our kids that they are special and everyone's a winner and then wonder why they can't deal with a society that treats few people special and where there are few winners.
I'll challenge you on the last several decades though. I grew up in the 70's and I was taught to honor my parents, respect adults, that I am no more deserving or special than the next person (my mom was known to ask me, in a sarcastic tone "What makes you think YOU'RE special?", that anything worth doing was worth doing well and to put others before myself. That was just 40 years ago. I don't know when or why we changed to teaching our kids they are special, putting their self esteem first, blaming everyone but them for their failures, teaching them that everyone's a winner and deserves the prize and that they come first. I have a theory but it's just a theory. Somewhere along the line parenting became a competitive sport and our children became the losers. Now society has to deal with what we created. Banning guns won't fix this. Guns aren't the problem.
I read a piece on facebook attributed to Morgan Freeman where he talked about how people who do things like this are choosing to go out with their names plastered across the newspapers of the nation rather than as pathetic loners no one will remember. I think he's right. They'd rather be known as monsters than as the miserable little people they are. Why? Because they were promised the sun and the moon and life did not deliver. They want their piece. Why we ever taught them they deserved it is beyond me. This self esteem movement has to stop. We have to get back to teaching our kids to respect life and put others first. We have to get back to teaching them that they owe society for the right to live in society not that society owes them. Reality is, a certain percentage of young adults who feel entitled and cheated are going to react badly. The solution is to quit teaching them they're entitled.
One thing we need to do is stop printing the name of those who do such things. Don't give them the notoriety. If they are doing this to go down in history as monsters (when you want attention negative attention is just as good as positive), don't give it to them. One thing Morgan Freeman (if this piece was by him) called for was forgetting the name of the shooter and remembering the names of the slain instead. Sadly, he's right in saying that many of us can name a shooter in the columbine massacre but few of us can name a victim.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-16-2012 at 05:06 AM..
Sooner or later the violence will escalate and we will see more sinister means of killing employed. Sad to say, but it's coming to a town near you.. The casualty count will skyrocket and there won't be a single firearm used.
Why not cars driven into crowds or explosive devices?
Strikes me.... Bin Laden preferred explosives
Rev. Jim Jones preferred poison
Heaven's Gate preferred poison
A few years ago, a guy dressed like a ninja and used a couple of swords to "hunt humans".
Some of the ones that have used guns might have used hand grenades if they could have gotten them. And, remove the guns and they may resort to bows and arrows or knives and slashing. It isn't a matter of removing the guns. It's a matter of removing their desire/need to kill. It isn't the gun that is the root of the problem, and without addressing the root, you have no cure.
Having had reason to consider a means of effectively killing people for a fictional story, I would not use either guns or explosives. Not a bacterial agent. And, not a poisonous powder. Even driving a car into a crowd is too easily stopped.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.