School attacks couldnt happen without guns? Bombs and other means of mass attacks

[bybee]

But most people who kill aren't "determined to kill others", it's often impulsive and poorly planned. Plus your own argument invalidates the argument for guns protecting people, since if the world is filled with people "determined to kill others" then they would factor in gun ownership and kill with methods which make guns useless in defence (sniper, bombs, poisons, etc).

Fortunately the world isn't filed with many such dangerous people, unfortunately it is filed with dumb aggressive impulsive people who when given a tool for killing people sometimes actually use it.

Like their fists? Husbands who beat their wives to death?

 

[Tyrathca]

Like their fists? Husbands who beat their wives to death?

Yes, fortunately however most people's fists are fairly ineffective killing instruments (i.e. Most people lack the strength to do it in only a few quick punches). We also can't take peoples fists away.

Guns on the other hand are far more effective as they require almost no strength, skill (at close range), time or effort to use in a lethal manner.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes, fortunately however most people's fists are fairly ineffective killing instruments (i.e. Most people lack the strength to do it in only a few quick punches). We also can't take peoples fists away.

Guns on the other hand are far more effective as they require almost no strength, skill (at close range), time or effort to use in a lethal manner.

So are bombs, knives, cars, poisons, etc..

 

[bybee]

Yes, fortunately however most people's fists are fairly ineffective killing instruments (i.e. Most people lack the strength to do it in only a few quick punches). We also can't take peoples fists away.

Guns on the other hand are far more effective as they require almost no strength, skill (at close range), time or effort to use in a lethal manner.

A woman is no match for a man's fists.

 

[Rusha]

So are bombs, knives, cars, poisons, etc..

You forgot chainsaws ... and ice picks.

 

[ok doser]

A woman is no match for a man's fists.

try selling that to ronda rousey

Spoiler

 

[Angel4Truth]

You forgot chainsaws ... and ice picks.

yep!

 

[PureX]

But most people who kill aren't "determined to kill others", it's often impulsive and poorly planned. Plus your own argument invalidates the argument for guns protecting people, since if the world is filled with people "determined to kill others" then they would factor in gun ownership and kill with methods which make guns useless in defence (sniper, bombs, poisons, etc).

Fortunately the world isn't filed with many such dangerous people, unfortunately it is filed with dumb aggressive impulsive people who when given a tool for killing people sometimes actually use it.

Absolutely! Which is exactly why the number of guns that are out there matters so much. They are far too easy to grab in a moment of drunkenness or rage, which is very often the situation when people shoot other people. And even though in a moment of drunken rage they could also use a knife or a bat, the knife and bat attack will not likely likely be as deadly, and neither of them will accidentally travel beyond the immediate incident and kill a bystander.

The fact that guns make killing so easy, and the fact that guns are so available in this country in those moments of idiocy and rage, is why we Americans kill each other at such alarming rates. Almost no one is ever killed by an intruder with deliberate intent. And almost no one has their gun handy when someone does break into their home. So the idea of self-defense is not much of an ACTUAL factor, even though it is the most prominent psychological factor. Yet it's having all those guns around in all those houses that IS the major factor in our extremely high homicide rate.

Putting more guns in more homes will only increase that rate.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Absolutely! Which is exactly why the number of guns laying around out there matters so much. They are far to easy to grab in a moment of drunken rage, which is very often the situation when people shoot other people. And even though in a moment of drunken rage they could also use a knife or a bat, the knife and bat will attack will not likely likely be as deadly, and the neither of them will accidentally travel beyond the incident and kill a bystander.

The fact that guns make killing so easy, and the fact that guns are so available in those moments of idiocy and rage, is why we Americans kill each other at such alarming rates. Almost no one is ever killed by an intruder with deliberate intent. And almost no one has their gun handy when someone does break into their home. So the idea of self-defense is not much of an ACTUAL factor, even though it is the singly most prominent psychological factor. Yet it's having all those guns around the house that IS the major factor in our extremely high homicide rate.

Putting more guns in more homes will only increase that rate.

Having no guns in the home increase the likelihood that those in the home are killed by one in a drunken rage, and unable to defend themselves.

 

[achduke]

Absolutely! Which is exactly why the number of guns that are out there matters so much. They are far too easy to grab in a moment of drunkenness or rage, which is very often the situation when people shoot other people. And even though in a moment of drunken rage they could also use a knife or a bat, the knife and bat attack will not likely likely be as deadly, and neither of them will accidentally travel beyond the immediate incident and kill a bystander.

The fact that guns make killing so easy, and the fact that guns are so available in this country in those moments of idiocy and rage, is why we Americans kill each other at such alarming rates. Almost no one is ever killed by an intruder with deliberate intent. And almost no one has their gun handy when someone does break into their home. So the idea of self-defense is not much of an ACTUAL factor, even though it is the most prominent psychological factor. Yet it's having all those guns around in all those houses that IS the major factor in our extremely high homicide rate.

Putting more guns in more homes will only increase that rate.

About 270 million guns in US. 12,000 out of 16,000 murders by firearms out of 2.6 million deaths . It would statically be better to ban cancer and heart disease if you wanted to make a difference.

 

[Angel4Truth]

High School Student’s Ominous Tweet Sparks Investigation. What Police Soon Uncovered on His Phone Is Horrifying.

“One million retweets and I’ll blow up the school,” Devon Foster allegedly tweeted Sept. 4 while in the nurse’s clinic at Florida’s New Smyrna Beach High School.....

....“Deputies seized Foster’s phone for a forensic examination and extracted hundreds of pages of text messages, web postings and photos,” Gant said. “Foster wrote multiple entries about how first responders and school administrators ‘always forget the explosives’ and illustrated making and setting off pipe bombs in a specific location of the high school.”

 

[Tyrathca]

So are bombs, knives, cars, poisons, etc..

Not true, of all of those only knives are the most "gun-like" and even then not at the same level.

Bombs - require skill to make and use lethally without blowing only yourself up. They are particularly difficult to make portable enough that anyone would consider carrying them around for an impulse use.

Knives - while these are portable enough to use on an aggressive impulse and require only limited skill and strength to use they have significant limitations which mitigate a lot of their legality. They require extreme proximity, some agility and/or surprise, are easier to defend against (run away, grab any big object eg chair, martial arts, etc), difficult to use on more than one person, difficult to injure bystanders with, etc. Furthermore they have a legitimate and unavoidable nonviolent usage, so banning them would be extremely difficult.

Cars - Unless you want to run over any random pedestrian then cars are difficult to use lethally with any sort of intent. Particularly if you don't want to also get yourself killed. Mainly because cars are fairly limited by when and where they can strike (near roads) and so impulse killing is hard (except if you're nuts and want to kill randoms or perhaps run someone off the road). Again they also have a legitimate and unavoidable nonviolent usage, so banning them would be extremely difficult.

Poisons - takes skill and planning to obtain a lethal poison which you can then administer to another person. Not an impulse threat and not something most people would even know how to do well without a lot of research.

 

[Tyrathca]

A woman is no match for a man's fists.

Sure but unless the man is young and strong those fists will mostly injure (quite badly yes) unless a concerted effort is applied. Furthermore in most of these types of assaults the presence of a gun in the house is unlikely to protect the woman, quite the opposite as it gives the man a quick way to kill her in a way that his fists don't.

 

[alwight]

Having no guns in the home increase the likelihood that those in the home are killed by one in a drunken rage, and unable to defend themselves.

But the idea of guns being as freely available to drunks in a rage as anyone else doesn't concern you? :think:

 

[Angel4Truth]

But the idea of guns being as freely available to drunks in a rage as anyone else doesn't concern you? :think:

Sure it does (the drunk in a a rage) part, because someone like that wouldnt need a gun to kill someone, they do it without them all the time.

More concerning to me is the drunk, period.

 

[Ktoyou]

I'm on side A

 

[rexlunae]

Having no guns in the home increase the likelihood that those in the home are killed by one in a drunken rage, and unable to defend themselves.

[citation needed]

Seems like having a gun increases the odds of such violence if you take into account the actual residents of the house.

 

[Angel4Truth]

[citation needed]

Seems like having a gun increases the odds of such violence if you take into account the actual residents of the house.

You need a citation to know you would be better off being able to defend yourself than not being able to? :rotfl:

Personal evidence, my father stopped a guy breaking into our home with his shotgun, it took 3 calls and almost an hour for the police to arrive.

All the residents of our house remained safe.

 

[rexlunae]

You need a citation to know you would be better off being able to defend yourself than not being able to? :rotfl:

I need a citation to know how the risks and rewards balance out. Sure, if you know your home is going to be invaded, you're probably better off with a gun. But if you take into account the fact that the weapon can also harm the residents, and there's no certainty that you will be able to use it defensively, it could well be a greater liability than a help.

Personal evidence, my father stopped a guy breaking into our home with his shotgun, it took 3 calls and almost an hour for the police to arrive.

All the residents of our house remained safe.

That's nice. I'm curious, was that three calls after the guy was chased off?

 

[Ktoyou]

Sure but unless the man is young and strong those fists will mostly injure (quite badly yes) unless a concerted effort is applied. Furthermore in most of these types of assaults the presence of a gun in the house is unlikely to protect the woman, quite the opposite as it gives the man a quick way to kill her in a way that his fists don't.

There was one time, I was alone, way out in a ranch. Two men, that is 2, as in one plus another, men, young, strong, were out on the property, breaking into a tool shed. I saw them and came out with my revolver, and told them in no uncertain terms, they better leave or I would be calling the Corner. They ran like they seem their lives flash in front of them.

So what are you saying, you little dope?