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.
That's like saying some cornered dogs don't bite, and when they do, it's solely the fault of the dog. Ignoring the building pressure for people in desperate situations is a bit disingenuous IMO.
We aren't talking about dogs, we're talking about people.....
If people commit a crime, that is their fault. They chose to do it.
Subscribing to your logic would mean that people who knock off a gas station or steal someone's car, shouldn't go to jail or face any consequences, as long as they are poor or in a desperate situation. Do we want to go down that road? Is that what you believe? Because if its "not their fault", than they shouldn't be punished for it.
You were there? How do you know the guns distracted from their bomb making plans? Like in San Bernardino, ( except in reverse ) the primary objective of the killers was to detonate the bombs, and hide in the woods, shootings first responders and other students as they fled the school. When the bombs failed to detonate, they decided to just start shooting. One bomb did detonate in the car of one of the killers, 12 hours after it was intended to.
Because they both left journals, and blogs, and writings on the Internet, and even Doom Mods.
Prior to obtaining their firearms the primary plan was bombs, after obtaining the firearms both of them showed signs of switching towards using firearms either exclusively or in addition to. They took their focus off their original plan, their original plan if successfully enacted would have resulted in a far greater body count..
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
I've got to give it to you, that's about the best spin I've ever heard.
Why? Because it's actually what the bomb disposal experts said of the bombs left in the cafeteria in Columbine. That if those bombs had detonated all 488 students at the time they were set to detonate would have been killed or seriously injured, and anyone above (the library) would be both affected by the initial blast, and then dropped into the cafeteria. Had Harris and Klebold focused on one weapon rather than two, and one plan of attack, rather than changing it a short period before they acted, then the outcome could have been significantly worse. They had already determined what they were going to do, and were working towards it. They weren't stupid they knew they could never exceed McVeigh's body count with guns, and that was one of the stretch goals they had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
My point isn't that bombs can't be used successfully. My only point is that of all the attacks in recent history, there is a decent sample size to examine from with the use of both bombs and firearms, but only one has a mostly successful track record of actually working out the way the killers intended.
Except for the vast amount of history of terrorist bombings you're choosing to ignore. How many people were killed in Ankhara? Oh that's right 102 when was the last US shooting that had a body count of 102? Oh that's right never. How about Suruc? 33, Cho has the #1 spot on the body count with one less than that. Would you like me to continue. While people using bombs may have fewer instances, the actual harm caused is in general far greater.
Terrorists aren't munitions experts in general, they get information, follow recipes, and instructions. Recipes and instructions are all available on the internet too. Look if you really want to take out a lot of people all it takes is some planning, HVAC plans, Clorox and Lysol toilet bowl cleaner (the lime and rust remover kind), by the time anyone notices, chances are that they're already above the IDLH levels.
Because they both left journals, and blogs, and writings on the Internet, and even Doom Mods.
Prior to obtaining their firearms the primary plan was bombs, after obtaining the firearms both of them showed signs of switching towards using firearms either exclusively or in addition to. They took their focus off their original plan, their original plan if successfully enacted would have resulted in a far greater body count..
Why? Because it's actually what the bomb disposal experts said of the bombs left in the cafeteria in Columbine. That if those bombs had detonated all 488 students at the time they were set to detonate would have been killed or seriously injured, and anyone above (the library) would be both affected by the initial blast, and then dropped into the cafeteria. Had Harris and Klebold focused on one weapon rather than two, and one plan of attack, rather than changing it a short period before they acted, then the outcome could have been significantly worse. They had already determined what they were going to do, and were working towards it. They weren't stupid they knew they could never exceed McVeigh's body count with guns, and that was one of the stretch goals they had.
Except for the vast amount of history of terrorist bombings you're choosing to ignore. How many people were killed in Ankhara? Oh that's right 102 when was the last US shooting that had a body count of 102? Oh that's right never. How about Suruc? 33, Cho has the #1 spot on the body count with one less than that. Would you like me to continue. While people using bombs may have fewer instances, the actual harm caused is in general far greater.
Terrorists aren't munitions experts in general, they get information, follow recipes, and instructions. Recipes and instructions are all available on the internet too. Look if you really want to take out a lot of people all it takes is some planning, HVAC plans, Clorox and Lysol toilet bowl cleaner (the lime and rust remover kind), by the time anyone notices, chances are that they're already above the IDLH levels.
In your examples of bombings with large scale fatalities, are the perpetrators terrorists who are radicalized, belong to an organized cell, have likely received training, and are motivated by a warped religious or political ideology? Or are we talking about the disaffected kid with acne scars and an endless stream of bad luck with the opposite sex, who wants to get revenge on what he sees as an unfair world? It wouldn't be fair to compare the two in terms of success rates.
The latter is usually the demographic most associated with these rampage killings, and has the least success with explosive devices.
We aren't talking about dogs, we're talking about people.....
If people commit a crime, that is their fault. They chose to do it.
Subscribing to your logic would mean that people who knock off a gas station or steal someone's car, shouldn't go to jail or face any consequences, as long as they are poor or in a desperate situation. Do we want to go down that road? Is that what you believe? Because if its "not their fault", than they shouldn't be punished for it.
It's not an either/or. It's both internal and external pressures.
Let me play Devil's advocate for moment and turn your theory around on you....
Had you ever considered that an armed populace is actually what spawns a totalitarian police state? I mean, when the public is as armed as it is, it's little wonder that our police forces have become as militarized as they have and adopt the "Us vs. Them" attitude that they have. 30 years ago, police were still carrying the classic six shooter. Then, in the late 80's and early 90's when the public started to favor semi-autos, and the criminals were outgunning the police, law enforcement started packing more firepower too.
So the irony is that the armed populace that is seen as protection from a totalitarian police state is the very thing that leads to a totalitarian police state in the first place....
Just thinking outside the box here, and trying to look at the situation from both sides as a matter of intellectual clarity and honesty.
Finally; someone not only thinking outside the box but actually building a new box!
Your hypothesis won't be popular on here but dang if it won't start some folks to thinking about that 'box building' themselves.
It's not an either/or. It's both internal and external pressures.
Also, understanding is not the same as condoning.
I think we agree on that front. My point is that the individual committing the crime bears the responsibility for it, but that's not to deny that external pressures contribute to crime rates.
It's not an either/or. It's both internal and external pressures.
Also, understanding is not the same as condoning.
But understanding should also lead to some form of pre-emptive measures taken to prevent future occurrences shouldn't it? Understanding the whys and wherefores from years of studying these events should have led to some forms of prevention methods we're currently not seeing, shouldn't it?
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.
