Mass shootings are poor tools of terrorism but support the gun control agenda perfectly

The spate of mass public shootings in the US have done much to reinforce the gun control agenda of the current political establishment in the USA. Mass shootings require special hardware, training, and logistics to use effectively for this purpose. Typically these goals would be met with far less sophisticated methods. For instance a theater shooter such as the one in Aurora CO could have thrown low tech fire bombs at the various entry points cutting off escape from the theater and then set off a larger incendiary device while exiting the theater as he did. He would not have exited the building with the crowd since he would not have been armed at that point.

Fire bombs are not something you can form new regulations easily in order to stop them from being effectively used by would be terrorists. There is little that can be done to stop them and they are scary effective and cheap to deploy. Why would the terrorist not prefer to use them?

Acquiring a few gallons of petrol and using them with extreme efficiency would be far more effective in both cost and efficient operation than a mass shooting it is clear just using simple logic. Even low grade explosives or chemical agents are far more efficient for the purpose of terrorism so why the mass shooting = terrorism angle all the sudden?

I think the true enemy of the state would not use firearms because they require more expense and training in order to be effective. The real not false flag terrorist would more likely select a more simple attack vector like a firebomb or an infrastructure sabotage like a blown out bridge than a mass shooting event.

Ask any of the thousands of people affected by mass shootings
if they think guns are ineffective tools.
Ask all those children who suddenly don't have their parent forevermore ,
what they think about your second amendment ?

These events are gold for gun dealers .
Shame America .Shame .

"The fear of stricter gun laws Another logical factor is that gun owners'
or soon-to-be-gun owners' sense a tide of gun control regulations following
a massacre and seek to purchase guns ahead of fast-moving laws.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,
spoke to this following a 60 percent uptick in gun sales in the aftermath
of the Tucson shootings in 2011. "Some Americans fear tougher gun control
laws in the aftermath of Saturday’s attack so they want to stock up now,"
he told Politico. “What it shows is maybe gun owners in Arizona and these
other states feel that there’s going to be some change in the law, which
is what I hope our elected officials” trying to enact. "
www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: machineintelligence

A few scarps of legislation have been tightened up, but gun sales have rocketed while Obama is in office. He is like the best salesman ever for guns. They don't want to control it.

As for that (coughs) "terrorist" SB incident, just so happened as there was a vote as to whether or not UK should enter the Syrian IS conflict just very shortly after; a resounding YES from the UK Parliament. These correspondences and coincidences seem to happen all the time. These guys either have the luck and blueprint of the devil or they are manipulating the show totally. One or the other!

I think there is a game being played; psychological trickery, "Only a pawn in their game" (Dylan).

These events are gold for gun dealers .
Shame America .Shame

America leads the world in individual freedom and liberty still despite the best efforts of elitist globalist snobs and the European socialist who enable them.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Decadence is not freedom .
It's a prison .

a reply to: Revolution9

Of course I was aware of that vote in the UK at that time but in the US there was also a vote on allowing the US government to decide who can own a firearm if they are put on the no fly list. Their Republican party resisted a vote on this subject because they feared establishment democrats would use it to disarm their political opponents on the right.

a reply to: radarloveguy

what the heck does that even mean? I speak to liberty and freedom and you respond with some crap about decadence? What nation do you reside in Saudi Arabia?

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: radarloveguy

what the heck does that even mean?

Your freedom has lead to 'anything goes'

I speak to liberty and freedom

No, you speak to 'anything goes'.

and you respond with some crap about decadence? What nation do you reside in Saudi Arabia?

Your country leads the world in decadence . No crap....
No I don't live in Saudi Arabia .
Where I live the Light shines strong.

Is it true that you guys are allowed to own guns because of the second amendment that says you have the right to bare arms to form a well armed militia to defend yourself against your government?

a reply to: machineintelligence

Your title is partially correct. The use of the word "perfectly" is the problem. Many Americans, most already with one sort of gun or another will believe that such weapons are all that stands between them and the crazies. So, there is a reverse perspective. Only those that are true anti-gun folks will want stricter gun laws. ...Add most politicians to that group as they know that it is a hot-button issue without much validity.

Outlaw guns and a gallon of gasoline may be the next weapon of choice for terrorists bent on killing.

ETA: www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Aliensun

Thats not completely true. plenty of countries have gun control and nobody has done that.

actual economic cost of guns. The answer: $229 billion.

CO.EXIST The Staggering Costs Of Gun Violence In The U.S. Every Year If you're the kind of person who needs an economic argument: each murder costs society almost half a million dollars. When nine people were murdered in Charleston on June 17, they were among 5,793 Americans to die by gun so far this year. In an average year, the death toll from guns, including suicides, is a staggering 33,000 lives. In a recent investigation, Mother Jones looked at how much gun violence costs the country—not the deeper emotional costs, or the societal scars from the kind of racial terrorism that happened in Charleston—but the actual economic cost of guns. The answer: $229 billion. A single murder has average direct costs of almost $450,000, from the police and ambulance at the scene, to the hospital, courts, and prison for the murderer. In an average day, the country pays for 32 gun homicides. Indirect costs are much higher—in total, the Mother Jones investigation calculated that the country pays about $169 billion for lost quality of life for gun victims, and $49 billion for lost wages. And the real total is likely even more. Medical costs, for example, are hard to fully account for, and are often astonishingly high, as one example in the story from an ER nurse demonstrates: One of her patients was shot as a teenager: "He was paralyzed from the neck down and could not feed himself, toilet himself, dress himself, or turn over in bed. He will live the rest of his life in a nursing home, all paid for by the taxpayers, as he is a Medicaid patient." She estimates that over the last two decades the price tag for this patient's skilled nursing care alone has been upwards of $1.7 million Mental health care after gun violence costs an estimated $410 million a year but would be higher if everyone who wanted or needed it could afford it. Then there are the costs of beefed-up security, as in Columbine, where the federal government spent at least $811 million to help schools pay for security guards. Ninety percent of American schools also spent money on security after Columbine; by 2017, schools may spend $5 billion a year on security.

m.fastcompany.com...



How Other Developed Nations Have Put A Stop To Gun Violence
www.businessinsider.com.au...

originally posted by: bellagirl
a reply to: Aliensun

Thats not completely true. plenty of countries have gun control and nobody has done that.

I beg to differ. While I was talking about possibilities, I just saw this story on Fox computer news:

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: radarloveguy

Ask all those children who suddenly don't have their parent forevermore ,

Way to go. You worked knee jerk sympathy and "it's for the children" in to one statement. Golf clap.
I lost a relative in a car accident. Can I go rant that we should make cars safer or ban therm all together? Can I insist we have psych reviews for anyone wanting to own one? Do we persecute all cars owners, because a few are careless and dangerous? More are killed each year in cars, so why do we let such a dangerous tool be handed out like candy? Speed limits say we can't go over 70 - 80, so why do they build them so powerful?
We really need to restrict and/or ban cars.

What's that ? I hear a "that's different" coming.

a reply to: radarloveguy

Your freedom has lead to 'anything goes'

No, criminals and radicals have the "anything goes" attitude, the majority of us are law abiding citizens. This continued wish to punish everyone for the crimes of a few is a strange attitude from someone who lives "where the light shines strong".

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: radarloveguy

Ask all those children who suddenly don't have their parent forevermore ,

Way to go. You worked knee jerk sympathy and "it's for the children" in to one statement. Golf clap.
I lost a relative in a car accident. Can I go rant that we should make cars safer or ban therm all together? Can I insist we have psych reviews for anyone wanting to own one? Do we persecute all cars owners, because a few are careless and dangerous? More are killed each year in cars, so why do we let such a dangerous tool be handed out like candy? Speed limits say we can't go over 70 - 80, so why do they build them so powerful?
We really need to restrict and/or ban cars.

What's that ? I hear a "that's different" coming.

Deliberate use of anything as a weapon is a criminal act .
Guns are designed for only one purpose .
The bigger the gun , the bigger the purpose.
Nobody outside law enforcement or military
can be trusted with WMD.
It's just too easy to use them indiscriminately
when you've had a bad hair day.
Cars are rarely used to deliberately take a lot of lives.
If they were , those incidents would be happening every five minutes.... they're not.
I drive a four cylinder , very fuel efficient car.
I agree most big car owners do not need such a huge wasteful
pickup. Maybe if your towing , or a farmer.
Same with guns . You don't need a machine gun , ... ever.
Farmers and sports shooters probably need a rifle , but
a fully automatic large calibre cannon , ... no.
I suggest you read the post prior to this one
by Layaly about the economic cost of gun violence.
It's huge . And that's just the economic cost .
Nothing can compensate the innocent victims.
And yes , that includes children. Your heartless attitude
speaks volumes about the problem. Have any of your kids
been affected by gun violence ? Obviously not.
Life is hard enough without planting land mines(read guns)
at every corner.
If your not part of the solution ,
Then your part of the problem .
Show some responsibility towards others.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: radarloveguy

Your freedom has lead to 'anything goes'

No, criminals and radicals have the "anything goes" attitude, the majority of us are law abiding citizens. This continued wish to punish everyone for the crimes of a few is a strange attitude from someone who lives "where the light shines strong".

Nobody is punishing anyone .
Your insistence on gun rights is a privilege
that comes with responsibility.
It's obvious that nobody outside the guvmint
can be trusted with lethal force.
Your circular logic is illogical.

a reply to: machineintelligence
I can see a function for mass shooting in terrorist thinking.
Mass shooting means more American hostility to the Muslim world.
More American hostility to the Muslim world makes it easier to unite Muslim world against America.

originally posted by: bellagirl
Is it true that you guys are allowed to own guns because of the second amendment that says you have the right to bare arms to form a well armed militia to defend yourself against your government?

Not exactly, no. The 2nd Amendment's purpose was to ensure that the militias could never be disarmed, and the means through which the amendment achieves that is by guaranteeing both a collective AND individual right to keep and bear arms. Regardless, its just that...a guarantee of a right. The right doesn't derive from the amendment itself, and even if one believes the premise that it only applies to arms in service of a militia (and the US Supreme Court disagrees), an individual in the United States *still* has the right to own a firearm unless or until further laws are passed that prohibit it. At this time, those laws don't exist, and therefore, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not immediately dependent upon the existence or interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.