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.
Probably more than we know about, such incidents are not reported on the news just because guns weren't used; Stabbings do kill people, and what difference does it make when 1 person kills 17 people in the span of 5 minutes or when 1 knife-wielding serial killer, kills 17 people in a year's time? Do you know about serial killers of the past, like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and others who followed him, and John Wayne Gacy, who killed 33 boys and 32 of them were murdered by either asphyxiation or strangulation with a makeshift tourniquet, and one was stabbed to death.
Oh, that's a fun way to have a debate. Surmise that your ideas are right without any proof. Just a "probably."
So, you put owning an assault weapon in the same category as having the right to free speech ? Therein lies the problem. Words do not kill, guns do, some more efficiently than others.
You can try to defend your position any way you want, but the question no one can answer is "Why do you, a normal citizen, need a gun that spits out hundreds of rounds at a clip?" Can't use it for hunting, and if you can't hit a target with one bullet you shouldn't own a gun. There is NO LOGICAL reason for anyone, outside of military or LE to possess one of these very dangerous instruments of death......and that is all that they are.
Correction, the most dangerous "instruments of death" are unstable humans, that has been the case since the beginning of time, long before guns were invented.
Well, as you seem to be a 100% liberal/leftist, and may not understand or comprehend, but if you'd like to have a discussion about "whatever" you should not insult those that you'd like to have a conversation with.
It's hard for me to believe this has to be explained to those on the liberal/left, but it explains a lot.
Take a look at your own posts. You certainly have ZERO moral high ground to stand on here.
Nope. In almost no case does mental illness make a non-violent man violent.
It most certainly can.
Quote:
Yep. But he didn't choose to drive into the crowd or plant a bomb in the lobby of the hotel or crash a place into the concert. The gun folks keep trying to change history. For whatever reason, he chose one of his many, many guns to kill people.
There are thousands of people who own many guns that never kill anyone. Owning guns didn't cause him to kill.
Because he had a mental illness. If he had used a truck to run into the crowd waiting to get into the venue, would you question why he used a truck or what drove him to do that?
There is a whole school of study on why killers do what they do. Part of that study is why they choose the weapons they do. So, yes, the question is valid and important.
Timothy McVeigh had easy access to guns. He was trained to use guns. Is the question of why he used guns more important than why did he do this?
McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb to kill 168 people, and injured over 600 more people. He had access to guns, yet chose a bomb for whatever sick reason he had. I am guessing he figured out he could kill more people in less time with a bomb than with a gun. So you are correct. People will kill using whatever means they want. If guns are banned, and confiscated the criminals will not turn them in, and will be able to even propagate more violence on the unarmed. Or they will just use bombs, vehicles, bio agents, knives, etc.
Timothy McVeigh had easy access to guns. He was trained to use guns. Is the question of why he used guns more important than why did he do this?
Try to stay with us here. we're all talking about this little creep down in Florida who used a gun to kill people. Somehow Las Vegas came up again. That guy used a gun, too.
I would guess McVeigh used his method because he knew he could make a bomb from the materials he had. Most people can't make bombs or get those materials in bulk. McVeigh was also a terrorist whereas Paddock and Cruz were not. And I know some disagree that they weren't terrorists, too. I used to think in those terms, but most people in law enforcement do not consider mass shootings to be terrorism.
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.
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.
