I can agree that a truly dedicated killer does not necessarily need a gun to commit a mass-scale crime. That said, I believe it is considerably harder to create and operate a bomb than a gun, let alone put it to most damaging use. An effective bomb has far greater potential than an effective gun, but the usability and likelihood are quite different between the two. I don't think there's moving from one to the other going on.
Now that's a fair statement. But let's get down to brass tacks. If people didn't get treated like shit by their peers and everyone was treated equally in schools with no bullying, people feeling left out, ignored, uncared about, made fun of, laughed at, teased, or talked about with disdain on FB and other media, and a dozen other things that people do to each other, there would be no mass shooting. In the real world there are always assholes who think they are God's gift to everyone and who care not about whose feeling they hurt. These people are the ones you should blame.
That should absolutely be handled. The issue is partially social, and there needs to be improvements in much more than just "screeeee block bad guns!". Preventative measures such as holding police more accountable to be attentive, the FBI more accountable for taking reports seriously, and fellow students for being aware when things are going south is a fundamental good start that is under exploited at the moment. I recall that a shooting in Ohio was averted from a fellow student reporting threats to local law enforcement. That is what should be encouraged. Then I see what happened in Florida, where multiple levels of law enforcement failed in the first place. That should absolutely be handled.
Despite how many liberal elements in the US seem to believe, it's a more complicated issue than simply blocking guns. Multiple prongs are necessary to make a tangible change, and part of that solution has to be in the attitudes of everyone involved...
I could buy that. Either extreme is unhelpful. While I do not consider guns the primary factor, the laws regarding them are inconsistent - especially in enforcement, but in some cases, in structure as well.
I think most people could find a middle ground on this given the chance to talk calmly.
I *do* think guns are a big part of the problem, but I'd also like to institute your ideas because I think they would help a lot also.
As far as guns, I *don't* want to ban all guns, not at all. As a war veteran, I know how dangerous an AR-15 can really be, and I'd like to make those much harder to buy and to restrict high capacity magazines. Also I think we need a robust, national, background check system and waiting periods. I don't think any of that is insanely unreasonable, what do you think?
Personally speaking, I do not see the viability of civilians handling AR-15's in general, so I am not inherently opposed to regulations for the access of weapons that are military in quality as well as equipment designed to make such weapons lethal killing machines. A background check system is absolutely reasonable - it should certainly be robust and universally applied, which is something that is currently failing - laws as they stand aren't evenly applied. Waiting periods for the sake of waiting periods does not make sense to me unless there is more to the term I'm simply not recalling at the moment. Really, the system in my state is more than enough - a background check, fees and hassle for a handgun in the hands of a more than old enough adult with zero incidents on record. If the system in my state was applied across the country, I'd dare say that the addition of new regulations is no longer even needed.
The main issue that tends to get many folks averse to even discussion is the slippery slope ideal - take one thing away, and that makes grounds for everything else to be taken away. I don't think thorough background checks for assault rifles is a valid basis for such a slippery slope, but when I have heard arguments that come down to outright banning all weapons above the hitting power of a handgun or ancient rifle, I can see where that idea is coming from. Doesn't help that exposure on both sides largely consists of gun-lovers vs gun-haters at two polar extremes.
A thorough background check system is certainly reasonable - what I find to be important on the regulation level is the even application of such laws and procedures (which can tie in with agencies being held more accountable to paying attention). There's also a balance that I would want to keep in mind - one should not have to blow half their bank on a handgun, and I don't think it should be insanely expensive to acquire a heavier weapon on the basis of extra steps such as full blown background checks at the buyer's expense. Said system, if universally applied, ought to be expedient. But that goes into the idea of best results for the least amount of pain involved, and that's a tricky thing to apply. I'll let someone else speak of the validity of assault rifle regulation strictness. I'm not keen on playing devil's advocate for a weapon that I deem entirely unnecessary for home defense, which is my sole interest in firearms. To target a specific point, moving the minimum age of getting an assault rifle to 21 is a reasonable step in my book. But I also find that it was the first step in mind after the Florida shooting, and I do not think that it was the most important or productive application of advocacy in light of highly improper handling of surrounding circumstances.
I assure you that it's more difficult to make a sophisticated and powerful bomb and detonate it in a way that guarantees mass casualties without anyone noticing than it is to legally obtain a gun and go on a shooting spree. Anyone buying the types of ingredients to make a useful dirty bomb in the quantities necessary to ensure their potency is going to have the FBI breathing down their neck, and that's something which takes a significant amount of knowledge to do properly and can't be done as quickly.
No one is talking about a sophisticated bomb, dirty or otherwise. Kids know they can take a 4th of July Whistling Pete sparkler, squeeze it's base to loosen up the insides, light it and after it whistles for a few seconds it blows up. Basically it turns into a small bomb. Making a larger bomb that can do damage besides blowing hour hand off takes a little more work but you can get one to kill with no degree in chemistry needed. You think the people who make IED's have degrees in anything besides terrorism?
I don't think she actually cares about the details. She just wants to spread her moronic opinions everywhere waiting for people to confirm her ill-informed biases, like whichever favorite talking head gave her the idea that fucking bombs are just as dangerous as guns are in a country where there's one for every person.
I've used The Intent to Kill many times. Its range, capacity, stopping power, and firing rate all suck. If you're after a high body count, I recommend mounting your Intent to Kill on an AR-15 with a fifty round drum.
Fortunately, constructing an effective bomb from scratch is actually quite difficult. It requires a good deal of skill and specialized knowledge and equipment. That, coupled with modern controls on materials makes mass murder by bomb much less likely than mass murder by gun. Just look at the record, no large bombings since the 90s, when the Oklahoma City and Trade center bombings triggered new anti bomb measures.
A bomb is much similar to an M-80. just explosive in a tube with a fuse. By varying the material of the tube and can be quite deadly and is effective and is simple to make. Any kid who takes chemistry in high school can figure this out. You must have quit at Biology.
My ignorance? All you seem to know how to do is paint naked women which shows where your brain is. In the dirt. You can make an effective bomb with just black powder without a degree in chemistry. Now stay out of my threads if all you got on your mind is that women are only good for one thing and troll somewhere else.