Conquer Club

crispybits wrote:Can you name 3 random (i.e. non-ideological) mass murders committed with a bomb or some other weapon in the recent past?

All mass murder is disgusting, but random nutters killing people they don't know for no other reason than "the voices told me to" seem to favour guns as a weapon of choice.

Actually, most of the gun-based violances were "ideological".

Let see...

Waco, Oklahoma, the UK train and bus incidents, the burning of the other Sikh temple, Japanese terrorist acts,

Those are just a few that came immediately to mind, without a lot of thought.

Gotta go do dinner, so I leave this for now...

Waco - that was some sort of weird quasi-religious cult therefore ideological

Oklahoma - was a response to Waco and a form of rebellion against the government therefore ideological

UK train/bus bombings - religious fundamentalism therefore ideological

The other Sikh temple I'm not sure about - not all US news reaches us here in the UK

Japanese terrorism - I assume you mean things like the sarin tube train attacks? If so they were committed by a quasi-religious terrorist organisation, therefore ideological.

I'm looking for 3 short timeframe mass murders of the columbine / batman film variety, where a nutcase just decides to go kill som people because they feel like it. But I want ones that were bombs or some other weapon.

I'm also not blaming guns (my edit in the original post was too late to be picked up in your quote), but I would be interested to know why they are the weapon of choice in most, if not all, of these kinds of killings?

Wait so is this about finding 3 horrible killings that didn't involve guns?
Or is this about finding 3 horrible killings that weren't ideological?

Both - the subject came up (and may have gone slightly off-topic in it's original thread) that the crazy guy killings in the Batman / Columbine sense almost always seem to involve guns. I simply asked Player to name 3 that involved other weapons. I don't think there's any great over-arching point, I just find it interesting that so many diverse nutjobs all use the same weapon of choice.

crispybits wrote:Both - the subject came up (and may have gone slightly off-topic in it's original thread) that the crazy guy killings in the Batman / Columbine sense almost always seem to involve guns. I simply asked Player to name 3 that involved other weapons. I don't think there's any great over-arching point, I just find it interesting that so many diverse nutjobs all use the same weapon of choice.

When it comes to diverse nutjobs I think they prefer home-made bombs. Gun's really aren't used that often as it's too much work to shoot all those people....a single bomb going off once does a much better job.

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.

Didn't columbine have some pipe bomb type material that didn't work?
Batman also had bomb type material at his house.

They may not have worked out as deadly in the end for various reasons but believe both involved other weaponry.

The reason is likely psychological.

ideologues consider themselves to be doing important "work". They likely want to continue doing that work. It would therefore make more sense for them to use bombs as they can plant the bombs and escape in order to plant more bombs and continue their "work"

the crazies on the other hand, are doing it as some sort twisted gratification of whatever is making them so crazy. Personally going out and doing the shooting has more instant feedback and would therefore be more gratifying for the psychotic doing the killing.

Just my armchair psychologist take on things.

Bombs capable of killing tens of people at once require materials, plenty of planning, and technical knowhow & ability. Guns are freely available, easily concealed, and all you have to know is a) where the safety is and b) how to pull a trigger. Of course they are the weapon of choice for amateur mass murderers.

heavycola wrote:Bombs capable of killing tens of people at once require materials, plenty of planning, and technical knowhow & ability. Guns are freely available, easily concealed, and all you have to know is a) where the safety is and b) how to pull a trigger. Of course they are the weapon of choice for amateur mass murderers.

This is the more satisfactory answer to me. Baron's right before you doesn't take suicide bombers into account, which I should think takes up the majority of bomb-based attacks.

heavycola wrote:Bombs capable of killing tens of people at once require materials, plenty of planning, and technical knowhow & ability. Guns are freely available, easily concealed, and all you have to know is a) where the safety is and b) how to pull a trigger. Of course they are the weapon of choice for amateur mass murderers.

I'm getting a weird vibe from this post. Something along the lines of:

I don't think you can separate out the people who you think are "crazies" and the ones that are "ideological" I think the ideological people are crazies, and the crazies have their own ideology.

heavycola wrote:Bombs capable of killing tens of people at once require materials, plenty of planning, and technical knowhow & ability. Guns are freely available, easily concealed, and all you have to know is a) where the safety is and b) how to pull a trigger. Of course they are the weapon of choice for amateur mass murderers.

Spain, a country of less than 50 million, has had nearly 30 bombings in the last 3 years by average people struggling for freedom against Madrid.

Though, I guess it's possible to arbitrarily set a death count sufficiently high to dismiss all of those instances as non-events if that's necessary to establish the continuity of one's position.

InkL0sed wrote:

heavycola wrote:Bombs capable of killing tens of people at once require materials, plenty of planning, and technical knowhow & ability. Guns are freely available, easily concealed, and all you have to know is a) where the safety is and b) how to pull a trigger. Of course they are the weapon of choice for amateur mass murderers.

This is the more satisfactory answer to me. Baron's right before you doesn't take suicide bombers into account, which I should think takes up the majority of bomb-based attacks.

actually thought about making a sub clase about suicide bombers. I think suicide bombers could still be considered under the ideological category, as they do not survive. They use their suicide as a means to push their cause.

saxitoxin wrote:

heavycola wrote:Bombs capable of killing tens of people at once require materials, plenty of planning, and technical knowhow & ability. Guns are freely available, easily concealed, and all you have to know is a) where the safety is and b) how to pull a trigger. Of course they are the weapon of choice for amateur mass murderers.

Spain, a country of less than 50 million, has had nearly 30 bombings in the last 3 years by average people struggling for freedom against Madrid.

Though, I guess it's possible to arbitrarily set a death count sufficiently high to dismiss all of those instances as non-events if that's necessary to establish the continuity of one's position.

That's because it's incredibly easy to make a bomb. All you need is a glass bottle, some gasoline, and a rag. Or you need some fertilizer and Diesel fuel. You can buy those anywhere, without restriction. If you want to buy a gun, well those are expensive and require ID etc.

That's because it's incredibly easy to make a bomb.

MaGuuuuuuuuyyyyveeerrr!!!!!!!




Was the Unibomber ideologically driven?

saxitoxin wrote:

heavycola wrote:Bombs capable of killing tens of people at once require materials, plenty of planning, and technical knowhow & ability. Guns are freely available, easily concealed, and all you have to know is a) where the safety is and b) how to pull a trigger. Of course they are the weapon of choice for amateur mass murderers.

Spain, a country of less than 50 million, has had nearly 30 bombings in the last 3 years by average people struggling for freedom against Madrid.

Though, I guess it's possible to arbitrarily set a death count sufficiently high to dismiss all of those instances as non-events if that's necessary to establish the continuity of one's position.

Eta does indeed blow up innocent people, just like the poor old IRA freedom fighters used to, and it also does so in the name of a pretty well-known cause. Not that that, or your post, have much to do with what we were talking about.

Anyway, enough rudeness. Sure - you can arbitrarily set death counts, well, arbitrarily! They can be anything you want, depending on your argumentative needs. For example; the number of deaths required to distinguish unsympathetic, directionless mass murderers from your poor, average, struggling Basque mass murderer, is 27. That's in one go, mind.

Bedub, i think the only way to sort this out is to have a kill-off. Choose your middle-class suburban facility and let's go!
I bagsy the M60 though. Good luck with the molotovs.

IcePack wrote:Didn't columbine have some pipe bomb type material that didn't work?
Batman also had bomb type material at his house.

They may not have worked out as deadly in the end for various reasons but believe both involved other weaponry.

f*ck you, I was literally going to post the same thing.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Actually, most of the gun-based violances were "ideological".

Let see...

Waco,

crispybits wrote:Waco - that was some sort of weird quasi-religious cult therefore ideological

Waco? You mean the mass killing at the compound of that religious fellow Koresh or something another? Is the US government a weird quasi-religious cult? It seems to me it was the Feds who went in there and initiated the violence. Ideological? I suppose in that the Feds were enforcing federal laws. The ATF walked into a mess there I'd say, very poorly handled, very poorly indeed.

All the people who ended up burning to death was as a direct result from the actions of the federal agents. Tossing in tear gas, smashing walls with a tank and stuff. Of course, after the fact I'd imagine the government put all the blame on the religious nutjobs inside. But no one from the Waco compound went out in public and started offing people in killing sprees.

No, Waco was government agents offing civilians and the civilians fought back as well as they could.

I don't see how the Waco debacle is very much related at all to the other incidents you two are mentioning.

crispybits wrote:I'm also not blaming guns (my edit in the original post was too late to be picked up in your quote), but I would be interested to know why they are the weapon of choice in most, if not all, of these kinds of killings?

Why guns? Because they cost less. Although it probably costs less than $50 to make several pipe bombs, price alone does not factor in the time required and the risks. For example, compared to making and using explosives, not much technical knowledge is required with handling small arms, and the risks are much lower in hurting oneself.

Think of the opportunity cost. For every hour spent on building and learning how to effectively operate explosives, each hour could be spent on learning how to use small arms. Which yields the most "profit" per hour? I'd guess that small arms do for nearly all of these murderers.


Oh, that and it's legal to buy guns. It's probably more risky to go around purchasing raw materials for bombs, storing the bombs, and the transporting the bombs. With a gun, it's much safer.


(just read through thread) edit: and what heavycola and BVP said

I know nothing about owning guns so I'm sure one of CC's resident rednecks could help me out, but the Batman shooter had an AR-15 and I was wondering how difficult that is in obtaining (I know it's a legal weapon for civilians, but I don't know what the qualification/waiting period for owning one is) vs. making homemade bombs.

heavycola wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

heavycola wrote:Bombs capable of killing tens of people at once require materials, plenty of planning, and technical knowhow & ability. Guns are freely available, easily concealed, and all you have to know is a) where the safety is and b) how to pull a trigger. Of course they are the weapon of choice for amateur mass murderers.

Spain, a country of less than 50 million, has had nearly 30 bombings in the last 3 years by average people struggling for freedom against Madrid.

Though, I guess it's possible to arbitrarily set a death count sufficiently high to dismiss all of those instances as non-events if that's necessary to establish the continuity of one's position.

Eta does indeed blow up innocent people, just like the poor old IRA freedom fighters used to, and it also does so in the name of a pretty well-known cause. Not that that, or your post, have much to do with what we were talking about.

Anyway, enough rudeness. Sure - you can arbitrarily set death counts, well, arbitrarily! They can be anything you want, depending on your argumentative needs. For example; the number of deaths required to distinguish unsympathetic, directionless mass murderers from your poor, average, struggling Basque mass murderer, is 27. That's in one go, mind.

Bedub, i think the only way to sort this out is to have a kill-off. Choose your middle-class suburban facility and let's go!
I bagsy the M60 though. Good luck with the molotovs.

Gee guys. Insurgents switch to suicide bombings and regular 'ol bombings for several reasons:

(1) Harder targets require deadlier and quicker means (e.g. suicide bomber versus guys with AK47s without intending to get themselves killed).

(2) Shock value, and to instigate a counterterrorist response, which if poorly carried out, will irritate the local populace, which in turn will consolidate the support of the insurgency/terrorist organization.

(3) that's enough for now


It's hard to argue that Columbine-esque events constitute as terrorism or insurgency. Namely, a political motivation is lacking. Another would be that these kind of events are not sustained attacks from an organization. They're one-time freak ordeals. There's more to add, but the main point is that there isn't an arbitrary distinction between "amateur mass murderers" and insurgency/terrorist organizations like the ETA, for reasons stated above.

Army of GOD wrote:I know nothing about owning guns so I'm sure one of CC's resident rednecks could help me out, but the Batman shooter had an AR-15 and I was wondering how difficult that is in obtaining (I know it's a legal weapon for civilians, but I don't know what the qualification/waiting period for owning one is) vs. making homemade bombs.

http://www.impactguns.com/ar15-rifles.aspx

http://www.gunbroker.com/Bushmaster-AR-15/Browse.aspx?Keywords=Bushmaster+AR+15

YEAH, BUDDY< THE BUSH MASTER!!

It probably takes a week or two for everything to get the go-ahead and for you to finally receive it.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Homemade bombs?

Instructions can be found here:

show

I don't understand what a giant polygon has to do with anything