Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2
I kind of doubt this. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and he did so without using a gun. You look at how he planned his attack and it certainly doesn't seem like an unrepeatable strategy.
I really don't think it's fair to assume that if you take guns away mass shootings would not turn into something far worse. Bombs can be made by through conventional materials that can't reasonably be banned.
|
Building and detonating a bomb takes vastly more planning, preparation, and coordination than grabbing an easily available gun and killing a bunch of people which is what most shootings are.
Here's a partial list of mass shootings in the US over the last 2 years. How many of these would've likely occurred if the perpetrator had to successfully build, conceal, and detonate a bomb instead of using an easily accessible firearm? All but one of these crimes was done with a legally obtained gun:
Hialeah Apartment shooting: A man kills 6 people in his apartment complex.
Santa Monica shooting: A man kills his brother and father, car jacks someone, and then shoots up a college.
Pinewood Village Apartment shooting: A man kills his girlfriend and then 3 witnesses.
Mohawk Valley shootings: A man goes on a rampage killing 6 people in three different towns.
Accent Signage Systems shooting: A fired employee kills his boss, three co-workers, and a UPS driver
Seattle cafe shooting: A man kills 4 people in a cafe and then another person in a carjacking.
Oikos University shooting: A former student kills 7 people in a nursing classroom.
Seal Beach shooting: A man kills 8 people inside a hair salon.
IHOP shooting: A man kills 4 and wounds 7 at an IHOP.
Yeah, some people will find another way, but the easy access to guns plays a huge role in both the number and severity of mass attacks in the United States.