Mass killings/guns vs other means

[Haggis_McMutton]

Porygon?

[puppydog85]

It varies by state but getting an AR-15 is as easy as passing a background check for felonies and having $600 cash in most states. Bombmaking is way easier though. You can get all the materials you need at any local hardware store for under $100. No background check needed. Ignorance is what keeps most people from making bombs. Well, that and a host of missing psychological issues.

[Army of GOD]

Everyone ITT is now on US government terrorist watchlists. Good luck trying to get on a plane guys

[heavycola]

It varies by state but getting an AR-15 is as easy as passing a background check for felonies and having $600 cash in most states. Bombmaking is way easier though. You can get all the materials you need at any local hardware store for under $100. No background check needed. Ignorance is what keeps most people from making bombs.

So EDUCATE us for go';s sake. Shine the light of learning and knowledge into our dark holes.

How do you make a bomb? I tried the coca-cola/mentos thing but it's too sub-lethal.

[crispybits]

You obviously weren't using enough diet coke or enough mentos

[heavycola]

You obviously weren't using enough diet coke or enough mentos

It would be a great start to a novel.

'As the covers were rolled back, the massed spectators at the All-State Swimming Championships fell silent. The pool was black - and it appeared to be fizzing.

"What's wrong with the water, daddy?" asked a sad little girl with ponytails and some sort of chronic illness. Her father could only shake his head.

He had no time to answer. Because that was the moment the Mentos began to fall from the sky.'

[puppydog85]

A nitrogen based fertilizer and diesel fuel + an ignition point.
To make it more deadly add a box of nails, to get more sadistic add a bloodthinning agent (rat poison)
Does no one watch MacGyver and Burn Notice?

I should say that the ignition point is a little tricky and based on the moronic level of some peoples intelligence (what's that video channel? Very Funny something) it could turn out quite disastrously for them, but anyone with access to Google can get a good one.

[PLAYER57832]

Really? Most of the stuff that makes the media over here is about shootings, not bombs. There are bombs obviously, but most of them can be linked back to some sort of ideological cause rather than just a wacko who wants to kill for kicks.

I have not seen compelling evidence for your theory that guns with wackos are causing a lot of violance here in the US.

Most gun killings are actually ideological. The "wacko" part comes in, not because there is no ideology, but in the way they take their ideology and use it to justify these actions. That is true whether it is a gun or a bomb.

The difference between using a gun and a bomb is mostly a matter of complexity of use, but without getting into details (don't want to, don't think we should here in CC) bombs are getting simpler. The other factor is that groups wanting to create havoc for ideological means will often find a "wackjob" to actually "do the deed".

[heavycola]

Really? Most of the stuff that makes the media over here is about shootings, not bombs. There are bombs obviously, but most of them can be linked back to some sort of ideological cause rather than just a wacko who wants to kill for kicks.

I have not seen compelling evidence for your theory that guns with wackos are causing a lot of violance here in the US.

Most gun killings are actually ideological. The "wacko" part comes in, not because there is no ideology, but in the way they take their ideology and use it to justify these actions. That is true whether it is a gun or a bomb.

The difference between using a gun and a bomb is mostly a matter of complexity of use, but without getting into details (don't want to, don't think we should here in CC) bombs are getting simpler. The other factor is that groups wanting to create havoc for ideological means will often find a "wackjob" to actually "do the deed".

Pfft. The difference between guns and bombs is about power - not killing power but power over another human being. If i'm a psycho with a grievance, then i want t o see the fucker suffer and i wnat them to know it was me who took their life. Bombs are impersonal.

There is compellign evidence that whackos with gusn are causing a lot of violence - there have been two high-profile random shootings in the past month!

[PLAYER57832]

Pfft. The difference between guns and bombs is about power - not killing power but power over another human being. If i'm a psycho with a grievance, then i want t o see the fucker suffer and i wnat them to know it was me who took their life. Bombs are impersonal.

This is true for some, not others.

There is compellign evidence that whackos with gusn are causing a lot of violence - there have been two high-profile random shootings in the past month!

I see, and you consider that a statistically significant anomoly?

[heavycola]

Pfft. The difference between guns and bombs is about power - not killing power but power over another human being. If i'm a psycho with a grievance, then i want t o see the fucker suffer and i wnat them to know it was me who took their life. Bombs are impersonal.

This is true for some, not others.

There is compellign evidence that whackos with gusn are causing a lot of violence - there have been two high-profile random shootings in the past month!

I see, and you consider that a statistically significant anomoly?

take a look

There have been 62 shootings of more than 3 people in the US since 2005. 24 in 2012 already.
Anomaly, sure.

[PLAYER57832]

Pfft. The difference between guns and bombs is about power - not killing power but power over another human being. If i'm a psycho with a grievance, then i want t o see the fucker suffer and i wnat them to know it was me who took their life. Bombs are impersonal.

This is true for some, not others.

There is compellign evidence that whackos with gusn are causing a lot of violence - there have been two high-profile random shootings in the past month!

I see, and you consider that a statistically significant anomoly?

take a look

There have been 62 shootings of more than 3 people in the US since 2005. 24 in 2012 already.
Anomaly, sure.

Not sure how you decide that 3 is "mass killing". Someone killing a family would meet that number. I would say you need more like 10, but even 5-6 would present a different picture.

HOWEVER, for the full story.. how many other kinds of mass killings and how many have occured outside the US?

[PLAYER57832]

That's the price for the the 2nd amendment.

Definitely don't want to drag this thread into yet another guns/no guns or "guns cause violance" thread, but this is just plain wrong. Mass actions don't require guns at all.. visit the UK terrorist acts, for example.

No, but mass shootings do. I should have been more specific initially.

I'm not trying to make a political point. I don't pretend to understand the US' relationship with guns. And sure this happens elsewhere - Utoya Island in Norway; Dunblane in Scotland; Hungerford in England; etc etc. My point is that in the US, which I will bet my left testicle tops this morbid list of western countries, every so often mass gun violence creeps out of the poor black neighbourhoods and some nice cinemagoers or some friendly Sikhs (i have only ever met friendly Sikhs - seriously, my favourite religious group) get shot to death instead; and that is, in one sense, the price you pay for the 2nd amendment.

I'm english and doubtless misguided - just seeing what folk think, is all.

Your post actually points to one pretty big disconnect between the US and other countries's views on guns. When you talk about US and guns, you have to understand that there is a very wide difference between hunters/sportsmen, protectionists/second amendment proponents (folks who see guns as necessary for protection against state oppression, and to some extent individual protection); the defense-minded (the shopkeeper who was just robbed or lives in a violent neighborhood, for example) and the criminals/gangs. The differences are not just about why they want guns, value them and use them, the differences are also to a large extent socio-economic and cultural. There is NO connection between the Sikh temple killings or even Columbine and inner city gangs. In the case of the Kentucky school shooting, the reason the kid had access to a gun was the family shot for sport/hunting. However, it was no more an offshoot of that culture than saying a scitzoprenic is somehow tied to middle America suburban culture.

The tie-in above is to racist white supremicists. You have plenty of those in Europe, though they may not feel as much need to act upon their ideas, given that Europe is still largely white and unicultural within each area. In the US, we have a much wider mixing of people's --even though Europe is becoming far more mixed, the UK particularly is growing quite mixed of race & culture.

Per the numbers.. I would say that our population size has more to do with it than anything else. When you have more population, you tend to have more wackos.

[heavycola]

Pfft. The difference between guns and bombs is about power - not killing power but power over another human being. If i'm a psycho with a grievance, then i want t o see the fucker suffer and i wnat them to know it was me who took their life. Bombs are impersonal.

This is true for some, not others.

There is compellign evidence that whackos with gusn are causing a lot of violence - there have been two high-profile random shootings in the past month!

I see, and you consider that a statistically significant anomoly?

take a look

There have been 62 shootings of more than 3 people in the US since 2005. 24 in 2012 already.
Anomaly, sure.

Not sure how you decide that 3 is "mass killing". Someone killing a family would meet that number. I would say you need more like 10, but even 5-6 would present a different picture.

HOWEVER, for the full story.. how many other kinds of mass killings and how many have occured outside the US?

You're quibbling over the numbers? Seriously? So shooting a family dead doesn't count, obviously. Anything below 10 deaths in a single shooting - we'll disregard that. Unbelievable.

As for your other assertion - that a larger population size means more whackos - that is self-evident, which is why the only useful statistics here are per capita numbers. And they point to a much higher number of firearm homicides per capita than, say, my country England & Wales (countries where you can own guns, incidentally, for hunting and sport, and where hunting game is a big part of our rural culture)

According to the UN office on drugs and crime, 65% of homicides in the US in 2000 were caused by firearms. In England/Wales, it was 8%. Are Americans more violent than Brits? Of course not. So what, in that case, might be a causal factor? The ready availablity of guns? Possibly?

[PLAYER57832]

Pfft. The difference between guns and bombs is about power - not killing power but power over another human being. If i'm a psycho with a grievance, then i want t o see the fucker suffer and i wnat them to know it was me who took their life. Bombs are impersonal.

This is true for some, not others.

There is compellign evidence that whackos with gusn are causing a lot of violence - there have been two high-profile random shootings in the past month!

I see, and you consider that a statistically significant anomoly?

take a look

There have been 62 shootings of more than 3 people in the US since 2005. 24 in 2012 already.
Anomaly, sure.

Not sure how you decide that 3 is "mass killing". Someone killing a family would meet that number. I would say you need more like 10, but even 5-6 would present a different picture.

HOWEVER, for the full story.. how many other kinds of mass killings and how many have occured outside the US?

You're quibbling over the numbers? Seriously? So shooting a family dead doesn't count, obviously. Anything below 10 deaths in a single shooting - we'll disregard that. Unbelievable.

Killing of a single family is just not the kind of random violance you claim is being encouraged somehow. Those tend to be domestic cases or disputes over drugs/business.
Important, sure. Mass killing as we were discussing? Absolutely not.

As for your other assertion - that a larger population size means more whackos - that is self-evident, which is why the only useful statistics here are per capita numbers. And they point to a much higher number of firearm homicides per capita than, say, my country England & Wales (countries where you can own guns, incidentally, for hunting and sport, and where hunting game is a big part of our rural culture)

Changing data again, now. The debate was not over higher levels of homicides overall, it was whether these mass killings are becuase of gun freedoms or something else in the US.

According to the UN office on drugs and crime, 65% of homicides in the US in 2000 were caused by firearms. In England/Wales, it was 8%. Are Americans more violent than Brits? Of course not. So what, in that case, might be a causal factor? The ready availablity of guns? Possibly?

Well, what you make plain is you have no real interest in debating the topic. just in trying to draw me into yet another "guns are bad/good..erp" "debate". Not playing.

[heavycola]

what absolute fucking arse you talk.

[BigBallinStalin]

what absolute fucking arse you talk.

What did you expect from PLAYER98384?