Support NeoGAF

[Mahonay]

Devil's advocate. I'm here saying we should address this from a mental health aspect and you're so wrapped up in the polarity of the gun debate that you see me playing devil's advocate. Not much I can say to a person in a cemented mental state like that.

I like the barrels of acid proposal, because it is a bit light-hearted and unrealistic, however, it also reinforces the line of thinking that the mentally afflicted will go to great lengths to do what they want to do.

Yeah, you're super sincere.

 

[Turbo Killer]

Devil's advocate. I'm here saying we should address this from a mental health aspect and you're so wrapped up in the polarity of the gun debate that you see me playing devil's advocate. Not much I can say to a person in a cemented mental state like that.

I like the barrels of acid proposal, because it is a bit light-hearted and unrealistic, however, it also reinforces the line of thinking that the mentally afflicted will go to great lengths to do what they want to do.

And for the 51st time, better gun regulation will reduce these deaths, but it is far from a cure

First person that needs to be checked for mental health issues is you.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Devil's advocate. I'm here saying we should address this from a mental health aspect and you're so wrapped up in the polarity of the gun debate that you see me playing devil's advocate. Not much I can say to a person in a cemented mental state like that.

I like the barrels of acid proposal, because it is a bit light-hearted and unrealistic, however, it also reinforces the line of thinking that the mentally afflicted will go to great lengths to do what they want to do.

Looking at mental health issues is far more complex and harder to solve than simply not allowing weapons to be as easily bought.

You keep people with mental issues away from things that can cause them harm, why the fuck would you allow people with said issues to get guns?

Also the cure part is rich coming from someone who says people with mental issues can just become McGyver at will, surely they can't use their toothbrushes to escape treatment and commit mass homicide with that logic.

 

[Famassu]

Devil's advocate. I'm here saying we should address this from a mental health aspect and you're so wrapped up in the polarity of the gun debate that you see me playing devil's advocate. Not much I can say to a person in a cemented mental state like that.

You are obsessing about mental health when it's not even shown to be the "root cause", whereas if we had taken away the ability to buy such guns, none of this would have happened or at least the possibility to cause harm at this scale would've been greatly reduced.

I like the barrels of acid proposal, because it is a bit light-hearted and unrealistic, however, it also reinforces the line of thinking that the mentally afflicted will go to great lengths to do what they want to do.

It was guns that killed people. Not mental health issues. Not acid. Guns. As such, the easiest way to prevent or at least make it far more challenging for shit like this to happen with such commonality is to ban some guns & stricter control for others, because no matter how good of a mental healthcare system a country has, we can't identify every lunatic who harbors & acts on thoughts of mass murder.

 

[op_ivy]

We're reducing the conversation? You have snapped back with "OK YEAH I GUESS JUST BAN ALL GUNS THEN HUH" several times now.

Also no, carrying out the same kind of attack is not possible with acid instead of guns no matter what crazy ass scenario you conjure up in your mind.

Getting 50 barrels of acid into a hotel room may only be slightly easier than throwing them all off the balcony.

 

[GreatestHits]

Looking at mental health issues is far more complex and harder to solve than simply not allowing weapons to be as easily bought.

Which is why banning guns has been the knee-jerk reaction that has turned into the main effort in the aftermath. Prople don't want long, drawn-out solutions. They want them in two words, so they can feel a sense of resolving the issue without even engaging it.

 

[minor effort]

Perhaps, but that's not my point. Point was how could someone kill so many without guns. I gave an example. That's it.

Fair enough. But just because it's possible that so many deaths in one attack could be done by other means doesn't mean it's probable that such attacks would be as lethal or as frequent as gun deaths. Guns remain the easiest way to commit mass murder in the United States

 

[Stone Ocean]

Which is why banning guns has been the knee-jerk reaction that has turned into the main effort in the aftermath. Prople don't want long, drawn-out solutions. They want them in two words, so they can feel a sense of resolving the issue without even engaging it.

Its almost like these shootings being this common makes people want solutions now, not years from now as its always peddled.

Its never the time to talk about gun control, guns are never the cause, thoughts and prayers and etcetera.

 

[minor effort]

You are obsessing about mental health when it's not even shown to be the "root cause", whereas if we had taken away the ability to buy such guns, none of this would have happened or at least the possibility to cause harm at this scale would've been greatly reduced.

It was guns that killed people. Not mental health issues. Not acid. Guns. As such, the easiest way to prevent or at least make it far more challenging for shit like this to happen with such commonality is to ban some guns & stricter control for others, because no matter how good of a mental healthcare system a country has, we can't identify every lunatic who harbors & acts on thoughts of mass murder.

Exactly. The attacker apparently showed no signs of mental illness to friends or family (correct me if I'm using outdated info here), so I don't know how medical intervention on his mental health state could have prevented this attack.

If he didn't have access to guns he may still have been determined to find a way to commit mass murder, but it might not have been so deadly.

 

[GreatestHits]

Exactly. The attacker apparently showed no signs of mental illness to friends or family (correct me if I'm using outdated info here), so I don't know how medical intervention on his mental health state could have prevented this attack.

If he didn't have access to guns he may still have been determined to find a way to commit mass murder, but it might not have been so deadly.

And this is not a solution, but it is an improvement. If you are the mother of any of these victims, an improvement such as better gun control gives you little comfort. Yet in this thread, it is as sublime as the second coming of Jesus Christ

You're getting it!

You're skimming my posts!

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

Devil's advocate. I'm here saying we should address this from a mental health aspect and you're so wrapped up in the polarity of the gun debate that you see me playing devil's advocate. Not much I can say to a person in a cemented mental state like that.

I like the barrels of acid proposal, because it is a bit light-hearted and unrealistic, however, it also reinforces the line of thinking that the mentally afflicted will go to great lengths to do what they want to do.

And for the 51st time, better gun regulation will reduce these deaths, but it is far from a cure

You're getting it!

 

[Commander Jameson]

How about banning some guns? Say, assault rifles. Could that be done in parallel with talking about how America handles mental health issues?

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Exactly. Ban guns and it will be 50 barrels of corrosive acid thrown out the window. It's amazing people think the fix for this is simply banning guns. I wish we did ban guns so we could move onto actually working on these issues

This might be one of the stupidest posts I've ever read here. Do you understand how heavy a barrel of acid would be? What, would he have built a fucking trebuchet in his room?

Less available guns mean less gun deaths. You literally cannot argue with the math.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

And this is not a solution, but it is an improvement. If you are the mother of any of these victims, an improvement such as better gun control gives you little comfort. Yet in this thread, it is as sublime as the second coming of Jesus Christ



You're skimming my posts!

I've read all these posts. All you need to say is extremely strict gun regulation and banning of certain types of guns are needed in this country. It won't eliminate all gun violence, but it will save many lives.

 

[Stone Ocean]

And this is not a solution, but it is an improvement. If you are the mother of any of these victims, an improvement such as better gun control gives you little comfort. Yet in this thread, it is as sublime as the second coming of Jesus Christ

Considering nothing is being done, I'd say an improvement would be well, an improvement.

 

[minor effort]

And this is not a solution, but it is an improvement. If you are the mother of any of these victims, an improvement such as better gun control gives you little comfort. Yet in this thread, it is as sublime as the second coming of Jesus Christ

Then why are you arguing against it? Because you are arguing against it by constantly telling people they're misguided for advocating for gun control. You're not as subtle about it as you think.

Nobody has ever claimed gun control will stop all gun deaths. There's too many guns already out there. But it would improve the situation, as you said. But even laser focus on mental health would also not prevent all gun deaths. And nearly everyone in here agrees that improved access to mental health care (and all health care) would benefit the country, including in the area of gun violence, so what even is your point?

The reason we're talking about gun control primarily is because the field of gun control advocacy is specific about the goal of reducing gun violence. The overall focus of mental health care advocacy is not simply reducing mass murder. It is only one small component of a very broad field.

 

[Famassu]

Which is why banning guns has been the knee-jerk reaction that has turned into the main effort in the aftermath. Prople don't want long, drawn-out solutions. They want them in two words, so they can feel a sense of resolving the issue without even engaging it.

Well, yeah, because this was a GUN ATTACK where a person bought GUNS, brought those GUNS to the hotel room, broke a window, picked up a GUN and started firing with that GUN, leading to many people dying & being injured by the GUN FIRE that came from those GUNS.

People are also championing for universal healthcare for many reasons, including better mental healthcare. Doesn't mean stricter gun control & ban of certain types of weapons isn't also of immediate concern. It's the first respons for many with any common sense because it would be so easy to do and the results would be fairly quick, if enough people with the political will to do so actually decided to do so.

Even if we could get better mental healthcare and even in your utopia where these people would be caught by this improved, better healthcare system, people getting into therapy doesn't necessarily mean they won't carry out these kinds of acts. Just because someone goes to therapy doesn't mean that will magically remove these ideas from their head and stop these people on acting on them.

Banning automatic rifles would make it near impossible for this to happen or at least severely limit possibilities unless someone has/finds connections that enable it, but someone searching for & using such connections to amass a vast arsenal of weapons might be detected by law enforcement agencies that are on the lookout for such things and prevent it from ever getting to the point where those weapons are used.

 

[GreatestHits]

Yes improvements are good. We're starting to get on the same page. Now here's where we seem to differ. We have a mass killing problem. Is it because guns are easily available? Or because mental health in the US is in a serious negative condition overall?

 

[MUnited83]

Exactly. Ban guns and it will be 50 barrels of corrosive acid thrown out the window. It's amazing people think the fix for this is simply banning guns. I wish we did ban guns so we could move onto actually working on these issues

Yeah, dude would totally be able to sneak 50 barrels of corrosive acid into the hotel room. He then would get some superhuman strenght to throw them to where the concert was. All of that sounds entirely plausible.

 

[DietRob]

I don't understand why these people on the other side of the gun debate make this idiotic argument that since we can't regulate every single gun death out then might as well not do shit.

Can you imagine this asinine argument with anything else? Well giving people DUI's isn't preventing everyone from dying so there is no sense in pulling people over, giving them tickets, and suspending their licence. I known people who have gotten food poisoning so why the fuck should the FDA exist. They are useless.

Can they not see how completely ignorant their argument is?

 

[Stone Ocean]

Yes improvements are good. We're starting to get on the same page. Now here's where we seem to differ. We have a mass killing problem. Is it because guns are easily available? Or because mental health in the US is in a serious negative condition overall?

Why does it have to be one or the other?

How many mass killings are done by people with mental issues without guns?

 

[WaterAstro]

And this is not a solution, but it is an improvement. If you are the mother of any of these victims, an improvement such as better gun control gives you little comfort. Yet in this thread, it is as sublime as the second coming of Jesus Christ

It is the second coming of Jesus.

Australia banned all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with only 3 months of legislation after their last mass shooting in 1996. They haven't had a mass shooting since.

 

[minor effort]

Yes improvements are good. We're starting to get on the same page. Now here's where we seem to differ. We have a mass killing problem. Is it because guns are easily available? Or because mental health in the US is in a serious negative condition overall?

Both. But the easy availability of guns is the larger effect. There's a reason GUNS are used in all of these mass murders involving GUNS which is why we're talking about GUNS here.

 

[Famassu]

Yes improvements are good. We're starting to get on the same page. Now here's where we seem to differ. We have a mass killing problem. Is it because guns are easily available? Or because mental health in the US is in a serious negative condition overall?

Mental health issues & lacking mental healthcare exist everywhere but not everywhere has such easy access to such destructive weapons and as such don't have nearly as many gun accidents and even the ones that happen have far fewer casualties.

 

[D4Danger]

Exactly. Ban guns and it will be 50 barrels of corrosive acid thrown out the window. It's amazing people think the fix for this is simply banning guns. I wish we did ban guns so we could move onto actually working on these issues

he ain't donkey kong what are you on about

 

[minor effort]

Mental health issues exist everywhere but not everywhere has such easy access to such destructive weapons and as such don't have nearly as many gun accidents and even the ones that happen have far fewer casualties.

Yeah. Health care is in a dismal state in the US, but even still every country has mental health issues in the population and yet they still have far fewer gun deaths.

Huh.

 

[Tall4Life]

I really doubt that with many of these people who commit these mass shootings, that they were diagnosed with some mental health issue before. We always look back after the fact and say "This person probably had some mental health problem" but there was no indication of something before.

 

[Famassu]

he ain't donkey kong what are you on about

It's just a fun example of what COULD happen if there were no guns involved! HAHA, now doesn't that just prove his point.

Wait?

What?

No, it doesn't prove his point?

Huh.

 

[GreatestHits]

I really doubt that with many of these people who commit these mass shootings, that they were diagnosed with some mental health issue before. We always look back after the fact and say "This person probably had some mental health problem" but there was no indication of something before.

You're looking at mental health through the eyes of systematic diagnosis. That is man-made (admittedly, so is the term 'mental health'). But let me operate above the academics and tell you, anyone who shoots 500 people is not 'mentally healthy'. Taking away their guns is not going to take away their desire to kill people. It certainly makes it harder though, which I advocate. If guns don't exist, mass murderers still do, and as a society, that's a problem that still has to be solved, no matter how difficult and convoluted it may be.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

This is the problem with the overall gun conversation, and I think centering on mass shootings, while still logical, doesn't help the issue. People seem to think there are categories of people. There are good, law abiding people. And then there are evil people who will stop at nothing to do damage to others. They'll break any law. How could they not? They're monsters.

Well, the overwhelming majority of gun violence and gun deaths isn't quite as black and white. People are law abiding until they're not. They're fine gun owners until there's a heated argument and then they're domestic abusers with access to a lethal weapon. They're fine gun owners until work has them down and then they grab a gun. They're fine gun owners until they're in the throes of depression and then that gun is a way out for themselves. That's the majority, and taking away the easiest, quickest access to the most damaging weapon mitigates that. I think you can see why a lot of these people might not "stop at nothing" to do what they're doing. People argued the same thing when it came to fixing the golden state bridge suicide issue. They thought people would just kill themselves another way, and reality said they didn't, not at the same rate. And if they did try they weren't as successful. That's what statistical mitigation of human psychology does. Realistically little things stop us on the way to everything all the time. It's human psychology. It's reality.

And that doesn't mean that mass shootings won't be helped by this. They will still be mitigated. Perhaps a few really might have been intent on doing damage, like you said, but we know through evidence that less of them will attempt it and that how they attempt it will be far less damaging than amassing 10+ firearms and shooting from a safe distance. The truly evil and hellbent will be mitigated, too. It won't be cut 100%, but instead of one of these massive events every year or two maybe it'll be one every 5-10 years. That's still a lot of lives just zeroing into mass shootings.

In addition, as David Frum says in his piece the other day (which I think others should read):



It isn't necessarily that we'll catch them doing the big bad, it's that with a culture that doesn't see guns as every day objects, with controls in place, we'll catch him doing something else at some other point. At that point maybe he'll be locked away. Maybe we'll have a psychologist that can see him. Maybe we'll just be more suspicious of him. Either way, that's how this works. It's about statistical mitigation.

Great post. It's all about mitigation. If there are less guns to fire, less guns are fired. Less guns, less bullets. Less bullets, less death.

People arguing against that fact are basically saying "doesn't fix everything, so why even try to reduce the amount of gun killings". It's pathetic and infuriating.

 

[Tall4Life]

You're looking at mental health through the eyes of systematic diagnosis. That is man-made (admittedly, so is the term 'mental health'). But let me operate above the academics and tell you, anyone who shoots 500 people is not 'mentally healthy'. Taking away their guns is not going to take away their desire to kill people. It certainly makes it harder though, which I advocate.

So are you arguing for banning guns altogether or heavily restricting guns for the mentally ill? If it's the former, that's fine, if it's the latter, then my argument stands -- if nothing was diagnosed or noticeable or indicated before, then that check won't do shit.

I do think they should be heavily restricted/banned for the mentally ill at the very least, but it's not an overall great solution by itself.

 

[GreatestHits]

So are you arguing for banning guns altogether or heavily restricting guns for the mentally ill? If it's the former, that's fine, if it's the latter, then my argument stands -- if nothing was diagnosed or noticeable or indicated before, then that check won't do shit.

I do think they should be heavily restricted/banned for the mentally ill at the very least, but it's not an overall great solution by itself.

I don't advocate banning or regulating only the mentally ill, but thanks for those choices. Honestly I don't think gun regulation will have a huge effect on mass murders, so I'm not entirely interested in that as the solution. Thus I've been flamed to hell lol

Remember, acid comes in many forms, and barrels are relatively cheap

Chemical warfare might be the likely medium if we banned guns, but I'm not interested in the gun debate, I'm interested in the mass murder prevention

 

[minor effort]

You're looking at mental health through the eyes of systematic diagnosis. That is man-made (admittedly, so is the term 'mental health'). But let me operate above the academics and tell you, anyone who shoots 500 people is not 'mentally healthy'. Taking away their guns is not going to take away their desire to kill people. It certainly makes it harder though, which I advocate.

So, again, why are you advocating against it?

And if these some like the Las Vegas shooter may not have been likely to be helped through medical intervention, what actual advice do you have for America to prevent this?

You're going in circles trying to tell people in this thread that they're misguided for advocating for gun control even though you concede it would help reduce gun deaths, but the best you can come up with is "this country is sick". What alternative, actionable advice do you have that most gun control advocates don't support?

 

[SoundofSilence]

There's a big gun show in Reno, Nevada today selling thousands of guns and bump stocks.

Gun dealer was interviewed by CNN outside.

"Do you support restrictions on the sale of bump stocks?"

"Absolutely not. We should arm all Americans with automatic weapons. This isn't a police issue. This is a 'We the People' issue. And the people will take care of it."

And there you have it.

 

[GreatestHits]

You're going in circles trying to tell people in this thread that they're misguided for advocating for gun control even though you concede it would help reduce gun deaths, but the best you can come up with is "this country is sick". What alternative, actionable advice do you have that most gun control advocates don't support?

You're paraphrasing me into an idiot, but that's OK. Gun control is fine, it is not the solution to mass murders. I have not been vague at all with my point. "This country is sick" is your own phrase. I have been saying that mental health is the underdog here and been getting flamed for it.

 

[Commander Jameson]

Remember, acid comes in many forms, and barrels are relatively cheap

Chemical warfare might be the likely medium if we banned guns, but I'm not interested in the gun debate, I'm interested in the mass murder prevention

Out of interest, how would you get the acid from the hotel room to the concert a quarter of a mile away?

By chemical warfare, do you mean acid attacks or actual chemical WMDs? I can't see how acid attacks (such as the ones we have seen here in London) are going to kill 50+ people and injure hundreds more. If it is the latter, I'm not sure where people are going to get these chemical WMDs from.

Could you elaborate please?

 

[GruntOfAction]

There's a big gun show in Reno, Nevada today selling thousands of guns and bump stocks.

Gun dealer was interviewed by CNN outside.

"Do you support restrictions on the sale of bump stocks?"

"Absolutely not. We should arm all Americans with automatic weapons. This isn't a police issue. This is a 'We the People' issue. And the people will take care of it."

And there you have it.

"If everyone has automatic weapons they can fight back!" is usually the argument I see, didn't help for shit at the concert, even the entertainment said they had guns in their bus they could've attempted to fight back with but didn;t because they figured police would confuse them with the person shooting.

In the heat of the moment, people who legally have guns in that kind of situation are more likely to run for their fucking lives than try to blindly shoot at someone. Plus if they did there'd likely be innocent people hit as their bullets would drop after a considerable distance and hit other windows of the hotel.

If it wasn't obvious I'm all for banning bumpstocks/automatic weapons.

 

[minor effort]

You're paraphrasing me into an idiot, but that's OK. Gun control is fine, it is not the solution to mass murders. I have not been vague at all with my point.

You keep saying "solution" like anyone in this thread thinks gun control is a panacea that will end all mass murder overnight. You've spent the past few pages putting up straw men in this thread, so forgive me if I got a bit reductive with your posts.

And you have been vague when it comes to offering any alternative advice beyond gun control.

 

[dabig2]

You're paraphrasing me into an idiot, but that's OK. Gun control is fine, it is not the solution to mass murders. I have not been vague at all with my point.

It's only fitting since you've been strawmanning everyone here as some sort of dolts who think gun control will be the "panacea" to all our problems. As has been explained to you over and over again, this is about reduction and not elimination. That's all we're after. Gun control is a fantastic way of reducing not only the amount of deaths that occur in a mass killing attempt, but it will work to reduce the incidences of mass killings in general. This has been seen in virtually all 1st world countries that have instituted it.

*fake edit: beaten above

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

You're paraphrasing me into an idiot, but that's OK. Gun control is fine, it is not the solution to mass murders. I have not been vague at all with my point.

It has proven to be a very effective detterent to mass gun murders. Let's say we ban assault rifles and those types of guns and we have another mass shooting. Ok? Wouldn't you feel better that we at least tried something? We already know that doing nothing isn't working.

 

[GreatestHits]

Out of interest, how would you get the acid from the hotel room to the concert a quarter of a mile away?

By chemical warfare, do you mean acid attacks or actual chemical WMDs? I can't see how acid attacks (such as the ones we have seen here in London) are going to kill 50+ people and injure hundreds more. If it is the latter, I'm not sure where people are going to get these chemical WMDs from.

Could you elaborate please?

You want me to elaborate on killing methods because you believe that without guns, it is not possible to kill 50+ people? My acid barrel thing is a joke, killing a lot of people with chemicals is not. I think if you are being rational, you understand that if someone has intent, even without guns, they can kill a lot of people. Guns are the most obvious form of potent weaponry, but after they're gone, I think you'll see that banning weapons does not remedy the situation

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

You want me to elaborate on killing methods because you believe that without guns, it is not possible to kill 50+ people? My acid barrel thing is a joke, killing a lot of people with chemicals is not. I think if you are being rational, you understand that if someone has intent, even without guns, they can kill a lot of people. Guns are the most obvious form of potent weaponry, but after they're gone, I think you'll see that banning weapons does not remedy the situation

Are you not reading any of these posts??

 

[SoundofSilence]

You want me to elaborate on killing methods because you believe that without guns, it is not possible to kill 50+ people? My acid barrel thing is a joke, killing a lot of people with chemicals is not. I think if you are being rational, you understand that if someone has intent, even without guns, they can kill a lot of people. Guns are the most obvious form of potent weaponry, but after they're gone, I think you'll see that banning weapons does not remedy the situation

Dude, it's ok. No need to continue. You've proven conclusively that doing nothing is the only answer. Millions of Americans will sleep peacefully tonight knowing the country is safe because nothing was done. And that's ok because freedom won.

 

[Famassu]

I don't advocate banning or regulating only the mentally ill, but thanks for those choices. Honestly I don't think gun regulation will have a huge effect on mass murders, so I'm not entirely interested in that as the solution. Thus I've been flamed to hell lol

Remember, acid comes in many forms, and barrels are relatively cheap

Chemical warfare might be the likely medium if we banned guns, but I'm not interested in the gun debate, I'm interested in the mass murder prevention

There are societies that do not have (easy) access to such heavy automatic weaponry and so far people who harbor mass murder thoughts haven't resorted to acid or other kind of chemical weaponry in such countries, or at least your everyday civilian hasn't been able to perform an acid attack so big that it harms 500+ people, killing dozens of them.

Again, do understand how big of a difference there is with the potential & complexity of killing people with acid and killing them with automatic rifles (or modded semi-automatic ones). You cannot kill & harm 500+ people with acid as efficiently as you can with automatic guns. Buying 50 barrels of acid and moving those around requires a ridiculous amount of effort, whereas a few bags of weaponry requires a couple of back & forth trips to the car & one's room. Attacking people with those 50 barrels of acid isn't as conveniently easy as pressing the trigger on an automatic rifle either. Acid simply isn't as deadly as a weapon as guns. Even in places like London where acid attacks have increased, people live through those attacks. They might get horrible scars/marks on their faces/bodies, but very few actually die from such attacks.

So stop with that stupid shit already.

Poison gas attacks simply do not happen with any level of frequency and your everyday civilian does not have access to the "heavy stuff" that would actually be able to cause mass casualties, not without putting themselves in danger of being found out while they are planning, purchasing and then moving ahead with & actually performing such acts.

 

[yanipheonu]

There's a big gun show in Reno, Nevada today selling thousands of guns and bump stocks.

Gun dealer was interviewed by CNN outside.

"Do you support restrictions on the sale of bump stocks?"

"Absolutely not. We should arm all Americans with automatic weapons. This isn't a police issue. This is a 'We the People' issue. And the people will take care of it."

And there you have it.

I always love the utter silence for the proof of the Good Guy with a Gun scenario.

Turns out random people without any training but happen to own a gun are really bad at stopping shootings, who knew?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I already explained why your acid barrel example is ridiculously stupid. No one is going to kill dozens of people & harm hundreds with acid in 10 minutes. No one is carrying or even fitting 50 barrels of acid into a hotel room and doing harm of similar scale in such short time. Even if someone got something as ludicrous done, what would they do? Pour it from the window? That would hit maybe a few people if timed with absolute luck & perfection and once people see that some liquid is falling from the side of a building that has caused people to scream in pain & what is happening to their skin when it comes into contact with the acid, no one is going near that pour of acid.

supersoakers, man.

supersoakers.

 

[Commander Jameson]

You want me to elaborate on killing methods because you believe that without guns, it is not possible to kill 50+ people? My acid barrel thing is a joke, killing a lot of people with chemicals is not. I think if you are being rational, you understand that if someone has intent, even without guns, they can kill a lot of people. Guns are the most obvious form of potent weaponry, but after they're gone, I think you'll see that banning weapons does not remedy the situation

I see that banning weapons, even just some weapons, will reduce the possible number of fatalities and injuries.

Is it not worth even trying that, alongside looking at dealing with mental health issues?

 

[Famassu]

supersoakers, man.

supersoakers.

So, theoretically, would he have two hundred supersoakers filled with the acid ready in the room or would he empty one, fill it again from a barrel and then resume pumping and spraying the acid around?

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

You want me to elaborate on killing methods because you believe that without guns, it is not possible to kill 50+ people? My acid barrel thing is a joke, killing a lot of people with chemicals is not. I think if you are being rational, you understand that if someone has intent, even without guns, they can kill a lot of people. Guns are the most obvious form of potent weaponry, but after they're gone, I think you'll see that banning weapons does not remedy the situation

Which one is the easiest to do, kill 50 people with firearm or with a bomb?

Acquiring explosives and or explosive chemicals is a lot more risky and trickier, then using what you have a constitutional right to purchase at exceedingly high numbers. It may explain why you don't see this as a form of mass murder, over something so readily available.

If everyone became a concealed firearm carriers, does that mean we no longer need the police.

Say a shooter enters a event where more than half of the attendees are licensed, and have them holstered on their hips. One person is shot and killed, once all those weapons are un-holstered, who is the shooter?

Everyone in this situation has to make a split decision about the person next to the dead.

 

[Jackpot]

Guys, you're being trolled.