I know it's been around for a while. OJ wasn't the inception, I just think it was a time where they realized that they didn't have to hide any of it. It seemed to get much more obvious and overt after that happened. I was young, and I remember to an extent, but this is generally based on research I have done and information gathered.
It's much harder as soon as you take the gun away. One of the guys this weekend killed 9 people in less than a minute. The other one said he had planned for less than a month. I own guns and I don't think they should be taken away, I just completely disagree when people compare knives, cars, chemicals, and gasoline to firearms. It's so much easier to do something with a gun compared to the other options.
Now, you're 100% correct in saying that they're giving people what they want. My point was more that this isn't a chicken or egg argument. They know what they're doing, they're doing it for profit/to steer society, and they went into the business of doing it knowing exactly what they were doing.
I can totally see that.
In Kyoto, Japan on July 18th a man took 35 lives, an injured 34 others with a gas can and a lighter.
and how would you propose we do that?
I never said it was impossible or that it never happens. It's definitely much harder though. There are exceptions and outliers to everything. There is a reason that most mass killings in the US happen with guns, and that reason is that guns are the best way to do it.
It'll take a long time, and it might not even work, but don't you think it kinda has to?
The reason they happen in the U.S. with guns is that they're perceived to be the best tool for the job.
Waiting on the the I can ride my gun to work.
Why waste so much money in military when we can just buy gas cans?
If I'm being honest, I don't think there's any going back we're on our way out and that's pretty much the end of it.
It's good if you're just okay with chaos and destruction, but if you want to make sure a lot of people die, arson is too much of a crapshoot.
You're aware that a missile is basically just a souped up gas can, right?
So what do we do?
Where do I buy those at again?
That you can aim, dawg. You really don't believe they're the same thing. If you were playing a video game where you need to kill as many people as possible. They offer you a gas can or a missile. Do you see those two things as interchangeable?
I didn't say they were. He asked why the military doesn't buy gas cans (which is a completely fucking retarded question) and I pointed out that the best thing the military has is essentially a refined molotov cocktail. When they want to kill a bunch of people they use fire, not bullets.
It's incorrect.
They are in places where they banned guns and the levels of violence didn't decrease.
They use bombs. Projectiles. Just straight napalming a spot with fire isn't efficient or accurate enough. Fire is too hard to control. A missile is more of a souped up bullet than it is comparable to a gas can and lighter.
Dark web if I understand correctly.
I would start by acknowledging that guns are a tool to hurt, maim and kill. Not saying they should be taken away, but that's what they are built for. No other use but that. Can't ride it to work, can chop veggies with it. Can't fill up the car with it to go to work.
Personally, I agree with you regarding the use and danger of guns.
We're talking about the goals of mass killers, not the goals of precision target elimination, and last I checked bullets don't burst into flames when they hit something so.....
Here's the thing, we can look at places where that happened and violence didn't decrease.
I was responding to your point, and clearly I didn't say that bullets and bombs are the same thing. The point was that lighting something on fire is not the best way to kill as many people as possible, especially when a gun is an option. It's hard to predict what a fire is going to do, so yes it is a good method for terrorism, but nothing beats a gun (as showcased by the fact that the vast majority of our mass killers use guns).
No we can't. Notice I didn't say "if we passed legislation taking guns away tomorrow." I was talking about a magical situation where every gun disappears. That's never happened. If we passed legislation tomorrow, and that legislation required confiscation of all guns, that's a dangerous situation that I don't endorse.
