SeaSnake
OG
Literally just a distraction. Last bombing I heard about was Boston. Last shooting we heard was two weeks ago maybe. Not even close to the same
Guns in America
- Thread starter ImaInfluenza
- Start date
Literally just a distraction. Last bombing I heard about was Boston. Last shooting we heard was two weeks ago maybe. Not even close to the same
Eyerone
(i·ro·ny)
You change the means and people will change the tactics.
natural evolution of things, my man. You can’t logically expect the most determined of “crazy” people to just give up because in the utopia you are conjuring, there are less guns.
People will plan differently. It may take longer to execute said plans, but it won’t make those plans any less dangerous.
ImaInfluenza
Who do you think you are? I am
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
If a single bombing event kills 10x the number of people killed on average in a mass shooting, does it need to be as widespread to have the same effect? The number of people wounded or maimed in such an attack usually far exceeds the number killed so now you have people still alive but maybe lost a leg, hand, arm, etc. Is this really any better???
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
Here you go again with the “if you can’t prevent all events do nothing at all” logic.
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
10x average is 50-100 people. 10x more than Uvalde is 200. Stop with the hyperbole and stop acting like carrying out a bomb attack is just so easy.
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
These people carrying out these shootings are planning them over time, typically months. Apparently it's not so easy to carry out an attack with a gun either.
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
Only because they want to make sure they kill as many as possible, not because buying the gun and pulling the trigger is so hard.
False equivalency. Stop playing.
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
There was once a point in time where bombings in this country were so common that people had become accustomed to it. It became a part of our way of life here.
TheNightKing
J.A.P.A.N.
This is the point where credibility deteriorates. There is no equivalency to be made here, yet you still persist.
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
How about 2500 bombings over the course of a year and a half.
In America.
In the late 60's and early 70's, bombings were a part of protest. Y'all talking about how many shootings we have now... Try 5 bombings a day. Could you live with that? I remember the tail end of it when the explosions would be reported on the evening news one day then forgotten about the next because we had become so used to them. They slowed to a trickle by the end of the 70's, but we still lived through them. Kid blew up a section of lockers at my high school the year before I started. Bomb went off during class so no one was hurt, but imagine if it had gone off while students were changing classes.
You're saying "if they were so easy why aren't there more bombings?"; I'm saying "they're easy as shit to make and there WERE more bombings here in this country before you were born".
As I've been saying all along: Take away guns and we'll start seeing bombings. We've been there already.
Eyerone
(i·ro·ny)
Where did I say or imply doing nothing?
How many times have I given ideas to contribute to common sense gun laws that don’t infringe on the rights of Americans?
Eyerone
(i·ro·ny)
How about 2500 bombings over the course of a year and a half.
In America.
In the late 60's and early 70's, bombings were a part of protest. Y'all talking about how many shootings we have now... Try 5 bombings a day. Could you live with that? I remember the tail end of it when the explosions would be reported on the evening news one day then forgotten about the next because we had become so used to them. They slowed to a trickle by the end of the 70's, but we still lived through them. Kid blew up a section of lockers at my high school the year before I started. Bomb went off during class so no one was hurt, but imagine if it had gone off while students were changing classes.
You're saying "if they were so easy why aren't there more bombings?"; I'm saying "they're easy as shit to make and there WERE more bombings here in this country before you were born".
As I've been saying all along: Take away guns and we'll start seeing bombings. We've been there already.
2500 reported bombings in the span of 18 months.
I had no idea this was a thing in America.
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
that was the 70's bruh. Like I said, you'd be watching the evening news and Walter Cronkite or somebody would be like "Another bomb went off in <insert city and state>, no injuries only property damage, blah, blah, blah..." and then they'd switch to another story. If someone got hurt it might make the papers but for the most part it was something we lived with. I do recall an image of people being bandaged up after one of them. A fairly vivid image of it in fact. Guy in a brown suit staggering by with blood on his face and other people being treated by EMS. This was somewhere between 4-6 years old, so about the mid 70's.
The point I'm making is that bombs ARE easy to make. And we've only advanced in technology so it would be pretty damned easy for someone to build bombs and execute a bombing with maximum casualties nowadays.
The bold is a key difference. If those bombings were killing people in the numbers these shootings are you know the reaction would've been different. That's a very large component that's different. But by your own admission they weren't so the comparison still doesn't match up the way you're trying to make it
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
Y'all have repeatedly said that :
1. Bombs aren't so easy to make where there could be a large number of bombings.
2. If bombs were so easy to make why don't we see them now.
I'm showing you that bombs ARE easy to make by pointing out the fact that this country had mass bombings at a point in time where we didn't have widespread information on how to build them like we do with the internet and far less technology than we do now.
We don't see them as much now because they were used in protest, which is why casualties were lower: They weren't made to kill, they were made to destroy shit in protest. That doesn't mean no one died in these attacks, as the Time article pointed out, but that wasn't the ir purpose.
Now take away every gun in this country and this is what it will return to, only now the point WILL be to kill people and not just destroy property.
I never said bombs aren't easy to make. I said people aren't out here 3d printing guns in mass. My response to your post was to point out that even you said, and as you reiterated, the purpose was not the same. You've repeatedly mentioned bombs being used for property damage and if someone died it wasn't the main intent in most instances. With these shootings the only intent is to cause death. Nobody is shooting up a mall or school hoping to do property damage. They are coming to kill people flat out. So using bombings as a comparison in how they were used in the US vs gun violence doesn't really match up.
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
The only real difference is when it was detonated. Let it off during school hours = dead kids and faculty. Take it to a mall on a Saturday and detonate it = dead people everywhere. This as opposed to bombing a building after-hours where it would be reasonable to assume zero casualties.
And I wasn't saying you were the one saying they weren't easy, per se, but I've brought this up several times across various threads and the prevailing sentiment has always been they're not easy to make and it wouldn't happen. I'm pointing out that we did have a period of time where bombings were commonplace (despite being for a different reason), and they're reasonably easy to make and with today's technology they're easier to target.
Remove all guns and this will be our reality, and I'm a very firm believer in that.
They are easier to make but don't you find it interesting that in a time when bombs are easier to make and people could cause massive more amounts of damage...the prevailing way of committing mass murder in this country is with a gun? In most other countries in the world whenever there's a mass casualty in terms of a public setting it's usually a bomb or some form of explosive. Even in what would be considered 3rd world countries and places where people have far less resources than they do here. In America it's guns for the most part. That speaks specifically to the culture and how guns are viewed here.
konceptjones
The one between three and three.
It speaks more to how human life is valued among the people committing these crimes than anything else. Back in the day, to kill was a line very few were willing to cross in the name of their ideology. Really, it wasn't until the crack epidemic that murder became as commonplace as those bombings in the 70's. Right now, those people that are plotting to commit mass shootings right this second place no value on human life. That's what's most interesting to me: How did we get to this point? In the 80's the murders were largely over drug turf and money. Now it's 'cause of what??? Incels that can't get laid so killing everyone becomes the solution to their problems??? A pedophile that can't reconcile how his lust for children was wrong so kill them instead??? Folks ready to kill themselves but how about taking randoms out with me and let their name live on forever in infamy???
The answer is somewhere in there.