| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/22/2012 05:54:15 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Given that a car bomb does count as a car, here's a single example (and I'm sure there are better worse ones) Car Bomb Kills 115 |
I would wager good money that you are cognizant enough to know that you are comparing apples and horse turds here right?
The days when one could readily acquire materials of this nature in the USA are for the most part no longer existing.
You still have not given me an example of an instance where a car cause similar carnage... remember, it was not me who brought up that scenario ....you did...so I am waiting.
Ray |
First, I did not bring it up. Spork did.
Secondly, you have heard that he has his apartment rigged with explosives of some sort right? While they do sound like low-order stuff (incendiary and black-powder type stuff) one expert quoted in an article said that the rigging and setup was unlike anything he'd seen, and showed a high degree of skill.
Third, your assumption that getting the precursors to explosive compounds is nearly impossible is highly flawed. In truth, given enough time and desire, one can easily create the hardest to get components (nitrates) from natural materials. And that is only one of a hundred options, clearly this fellow may well have been willing to steal the needed chemicals.
I apologize Ray, but your none of your assumptions there were very accurate. |
OK... show me one example where a car was used to kill 12 or more people, using it as was first proposed.
Secondly, acquiring materials to make explosives is not that simple, and assembling the ingredients to make it work successfully is also not that simple... witness the few morons that manage to blow themselves to oblivion.
Unlike guns... the primary objective of cars is not to kill but rather to transport people.\
In case you are interested, I am not for banning guns, but I seriously wonder why people need to acquire an AK-47, M-16 a grenade launcher or other similar devices... what possible use could one have for one of these... surely the critters you hunt are not that vengeful that they attack you when you wander off into the woods.
I truly wonder about the need for such items.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-07-22 17:57:32. |
|
|
|
07/22/2012 06:04:12 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Venser:
Personally, I think anyone blaming the availability of firearms is ignoring the many socio-economic problems the US faces. It's also country which glorifies violence and repudiates sex. This is entirely backwards. |
ding ding. |
Let us assume that guns were NOT available.... do you think he could possibly club 50 or so people into submission... I think NOT.
Ray |
So he waits until the movie is over and drives his car through the exiting crowd... |
Great plan... now, can you provide me with one single example where an individual took a vehicle and managed to kill 12 people and injure some 50 others.
The most blatant example I can recall was the vehicle running over people in Cairo and in that instance I do not believe that the number of persons killed was equal to or greater than what transpired in this instance.
Regardless of the methods used, it still is a senseless act that will impact specifically on several poor families, and society as a wholes.
Ray |
Just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it could not be done. No one conceived that a jetliner could be used as a missile against a building, yet look how many died. |
|
|
|
07/22/2012 06:09:46 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it could not be done. No one conceived that a jetliner could be used as a missile against a building, yet look how many died. |
... Maybe not, but I do seem to recall a group of men using their planes as a missile against aircraft carriers and the like many years ago.
Besides, there was an instance in Egypt where someone did plow through the crowds with their vehicle and the number of dead was not as high as what transpired in this instance.
Regardless of our differing views, I digress and can only hope that all affected will find the courage and strength to deal with this unbelievably horrendous occurrence.
My thoughts go out to all.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/22/2012 06:15:02 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Given that a car bomb does count as a car, here's a single example (and I'm sure there are better worse ones) Car Bomb Kills 115 |
I would wager good money that you are cognizant enough to know that you are comparing apples and horse turds here right?
The days when one could readily acquire materials of this nature in the USA are for the most part no longer existing.
You still have not given me an example of an instance where a car cause similar carnage... remember, it was not me who brought up that scenario ....you did...so I am waiting.
Ray |
First, I did not bring it up. Spork did.
Secondly, you have heard that he has his apartment rigged with explosives of some sort right? While they do sound like low-order stuff (incendiary and black-powder type stuff) one expert quoted in an article said that the rigging and setup was unlike anything he'd seen, and showed a high degree of skill.
Third, your assumption that getting the precursors to explosive compounds is nearly impossible is highly flawed. In truth, given enough time and desire, one can easily create the hardest to get components (nitrates) from natural materials. And that is only one of a hundred options, clearly this fellow may well have been willing to steal the needed chemicals.
I apologize Ray, but your none of your assumptions there were very accurate. |
OK... show me one example where a car was used to kill 12 or more people, using it as was first proposed.
Secondly, acquiring materials to make explosives is not that simple, and assembling the ingredients to make it work successfully is also not that simple... witness the few morons that manage to blow themselves to oblivion.
Unlike guns... the primary objective of cars is not to kill but rather to transport people.\
In case you are interested, I am not for banning guns, but I seriously wonder why people need to acquire an AK-47, M-16 a grenade launcher or other similar devices... what possible use could one have for one of these... surely the critters you hunt are not that vengeful that they attack you when you wander off into the woods.
I truly wonder about the need for such items.
Ray |
Cars are remarkably efficient at killing though. For that matter, so are tobacco and alcohol.
FYI - AK-47's and M-16's are "class III" weapons which are technically legal to own, but such ownership is extremely rare, due to stringent regulation of such weapons. Grenade launchers are "destructive devices" and not legal for civilian ownership. |
|
|
|
07/22/2012 06:15:43 PM · #130 |
The car thing has happened several times in Manchester and Birmingham England, 24 injured, New York, 3 down, Vegas, Egypt 20 down, several cars into a Palestinian mourners in Hebron.
The list just goes on and on.
Horrendous
|
|
|
|
07/22/2012 08:23:22 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Given that a car bomb does count as a car, here's a single example (and I'm sure there are better worse ones) Car Bomb Kills 115 |
I would wager good money that you are cognizant enough to know that you are comparing apples and horse turds here right?
The days when one could readily acquire materials of this nature in the USA are for the most part no longer existing.
You still have not given me an example of an instance where a car cause similar carnage... remember, it was not me who brought up that scenario ....you did...so I am waiting.
Ray |
First, I did not bring it up. Spork did.
Secondly, you have heard that he has his apartment rigged with explosives of some sort right? While they do sound like low-order stuff (incendiary and black-powder type stuff) one expert quoted in an article said that the rigging and setup was unlike anything he'd seen, and showed a high degree of skill.
Third, your assumption that getting the precursors to explosive compounds is nearly impossible is highly flawed. In truth, given enough time and desire, one can easily create the hardest to get components (nitrates) from natural materials. And that is only one of a hundred options, clearly this fellow may well have been willing to steal the needed chemicals.
I apologize Ray, but your none of your assumptions there were very accurate. |
OK... show me one example where a car was used to kill 12 or more people, using it as was first proposed.
Ray |
I already did. It was the post right after this. But, I'll quote myself just to help this along.. Certainly you don't object to the given example? I know it happened in motor sports, and wasn't an attack, but it certainly is a good demonstration of the principle.
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
You still have not given me an example of an instance where a car cause similar carnage... remember, it was not me who brought up that scenario ....you did...so I am waiting.
Ray |
Furthermore, most of the car-into crowd scenarios fail to take into account that speed is very important, as energy is 0.5*MASS*(speed^2).. And most of the news-reported incidents the cars were doing 30-50mph... Now if the car is doing 150mph, things change, and radically so.
"At 6.26 pm, June 11th 1955, the world of playboy racers and their exotic cars exploded in a devastating fireball. On the home straight early in the Le Mans 24-Hour race, future British world champion Mike Hawthorn made a rash mistake. Pierre Levegh's Mercedes 300 SLR smashed into the crowd, killing 83 people and injuring 120 more. It remains the worst disaster in motor sports history."
.... |
Message edited by author 2012-07-22 22:02:18. |
|
|
|
07/22/2012 09:56:10 PM · #132 |
This is not meant to make a point one way or the other, it was just to staisfy my curiosity. The numbers are interesting:
Number of cars in the US: 254 million (2009)
Number of car related fatalities: 33,808 (2009)
Number of guns in the US: 270 million (2007) and WOW!
Number of gun related fatalities: 31,224 (2007)
I think it's funny how coincidental the numbers are (especially since I had no idea what any of the numbers were before searching them out). Don't bother trying to claim I have a position based on these numbers. I don't. |
|
|
|
07/22/2012 10:00:46 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is not meant to make a point one way or the other, it was just to staisfy my curiosity. The numbers are interesting:
Number of cars in the US: 254 million (2009)
Number of car related fatalities: 33,808 (2009)
Number of guns in the US: 270 million (2007) and WOW!
Number of gun related fatalities: 31,224 (2007)
I think it's funny how coincidental the numbers are (especially since I had no idea what any of the numbers were before searching them out). Don't bother trying to claim I have a position based on these numbers. I don't. |
That is quite interesting. |
|
|
|
07/22/2012 10:07:26 PM · #134 |
I read an article the other day about car safety, and cars are now safe enough that in ten states you are now more likely to be killed by a gun than a car, those states include all of California's neighbors.
Message edited by author 2012-07-22 22:08:56. |
|
|
|
07/22/2012 10:15:05 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is not meant to make a point one way or the other, it was just to staisfy my curiosity. The numbers are interesting:
Number of cars in the US: 254 million (2009)
Number of car related fatalities: 33,808 (2009)
Number of guns in the US: 270 million (2007) and WOW!
Number of gun related fatalities: 31,224 (2007)
I think it's funny how coincidental the numbers are (especially since I had no idea what any of the numbers were before searching them out). Don't bother trying to claim I have a position based on these numbers. I don't. |
I am truly surprised that people have not jumped you for these stats.....I would figure that this crowd would assume that you got those stats on fox news
|
|
|
|
07/22/2012 10:33:11 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is not meant to make a point one way or the other, it was just to staisfy my curiosity. The numbers are interesting:
Number of cars in the US: 254 million (2009)
Number of car related fatalities: 33,808 (2009)
Number of guns in the US: 270 million (2007) and WOW!
Number of gun related fatalities: 31,224 (2007)
I think it's funny how coincidental the numbers are (especially since I had no idea what any of the numbers were before searching them out). Don't bother trying to claim I have a position based on these numbers. I don't. |
I am truly surprised that people have not jumped you for these stats.....I would figure that this crowd would assume that you got those stats on fox news |
The comparison is not dispositive, but the simple fact that there are that many deaths from guns, that is indicative of a problem. If we substitute the word "hammers" for "arms" in the 2nd amendment, a lot less deaths. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 09:44:18 AM · #137 |
You're not going to win any wars or defend your life and property with hammers.
Instead of arguing for or against the second amendment, maybe we should understand what has fundamentally changed about the mindset of people since the Bill of Rights was ratified? Back then, it was an obvious need in order to defend ones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It was such an obvious need back then that it was the second amendment, only after the right to freedom of speech, religion, press, and assemblage. What has changed since then? |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 09:50:43 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
What has changed since then? |
The red coats are long gone. Pretty sure the threat of invasion from them is over, which was the reason the second amendment was included. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 09:51:09 AM · #139 |
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. I am 100% certain that I would have been dead had I not been armed.
You can carry on all you want about outlawing guns and the fantasy that criminals will obey those laws while breaking so many others. It doesn't work. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:06:31 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. I am 100% certain that I would have been dead had I not been armed.
You can carry on all you want about outlawing guns and the fantasy that criminals will obey those laws while breaking so many others. It doesn't work. |
Ahhh, anecdotal evidence, the best kind to refute statistics and facts.
So the prevalence of automatic weapons in the US has nothing to do with the higher incidents of shootings with automatic weapons compared to any other first world country which doesn't permit said weapons from being purchased.
The US leads the world in gun related homicides for developed nations per capita. The next closest is the Czech republic at three times fewer homicides from guns. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:12:26 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. I am 100% certain that I would have been dead had I not been armed.
You can carry on all you want about outlawing guns and the fantasy that criminals will obey those laws while breaking so many others. It doesn't work. |
Ahhh, anecdotal evidence, the best kind to refute statistics and facts.
So the prevalence of automatic weapons in the US has nothing to do with the higher incidents of shootings with automatic weapons compared to any other first world country which doesn't permit said weapons from being purchased.
The US leads the world in gun related homicides for developed nations per capita. The next closest is the Czech republic at three times fewer homicides from guns. |
What automatic weapons?
Those are Class III firearms and very few are owned legally or otherwise in the US.
Tell me again how criminals obey laws. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:17:56 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. I am 100% certain that I would have been dead had I not been armed.
You can carry on all you want about outlawing guns and the fantasy that criminals will obey those laws while breaking so many others. It doesn't work. |
Ahhh, anecdotal evidence, the best kind to refute statistics and facts.
So the prevalence of automatic weapons in the US has nothing to do with the higher incidents of shootings with automatic weapons compared to any other first world country which doesn't permit said weapons from being purchased.
The US leads the world in gun related homicides for developed nations per capita. The next closest is the Czech republic at three times fewer homicides from guns. |
What automatic weapons?
Those are Class III firearms and very few are owned legally or otherwise in the US.
Tell me again how criminals obey laws. |
Sorry, semi-automatic weapons, that was erroneous on my part.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:25:15 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. I am 100% certain that I would have been dead had I not been armed.
You can carry on all you want about outlawing guns and the fantasy that criminals will obey those laws while breaking so many others. It doesn't work. |
Ahhh, anecdotal evidence, the best kind to refute statistics and facts.
So the prevalence of automatic weapons in the US has nothing to do with the higher incidents of shootings with automatic weapons compared to any other first world country which doesn't permit said weapons from being purchased.
The US leads the world in gun related homicides for developed nations per capita. The next closest is the Czech republic at three times fewer homicides from guns. |
What automatic weapons?
Those are Class III firearms and very few are owned legally or otherwise in the US.
Tell me again how criminals obey laws. |
Sorry, semi-automatic weapons, that was erroneous on my part. |
LOL, what a joke... How much do you know know about this subject?
Owning a FA firearm is not illegal, or even hard to do, as it only requires that you aren't a felon, have a license, and pay your tax (there are yearly fees for this type of ownership)... Also, owning a grenade launcher or RPG is also allowed, but again, you need to pay the taxes, and get a tax stamp for each high-explosive round, as they are individually licensed and taxed.
So, yes, I can own rocket launchers and other destructive devices, all I have to do is pass a simple background check, get permission from the local LEOs and pay my $$$. Frankly, that's the biggest barrier, money... I guess they figure people with enough cash-flow aren't really interested in causing mayhem.
Fully automatic weapons are a joke anyway guys, as performance, in terms of hits per round, is far better with a semi automatic weapon than with any fully automatic weapon, and the destructive devices themselves aren't exactly super destructive, frankly a large pipe-bomb will do more damage than a pineapple grenade, and you don't need to jump through many hoops to get those, nor do you need any specialized training, as it would seem any foolish monkey can make them.
Message edited by author 2012-07-23 10:27:12. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:25:26 AM · #144 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. I am 100% certain that I would have been dead had I not been armed.
You can carry on all you want about outlawing guns and the fantasy that criminals will obey those laws while breaking so many others. It doesn't work. |
That has to be the most ignorant thing I've heard for ages, take your eyes of your own bellybutton and look elsewhere, it works just fine, in fact it's an absouletly sure guarantee of a lower arms related death rate.
Your ranting just cannot make sence to somebody in one of the many countries with strict arms control. When it's talked about it over here, people shake their heads in disbelief, how in such an advanced nation can they not get that right.
What do you think the reaction was in Europe to these terrible shootings, what did everybody say to each other when they heard about them? I'll let you guess.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:28:19 AM · #145 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. I am 100% certain that I would have been dead had I not been armed.
You can carry on all you want about outlawing guns and the fantasy that criminals will obey those laws while breaking so many others. It doesn't work. |
That has to be the most ignorant thing I've heard for ages, take your eyes of your own bellybutton and look elsewhere, it works just fine, in fact it's an absouletly sure guarantee of a lower arms related death rate.
Your ranting just cannot make sence to somebody in one of the many countries with strict arms control. When it's talked about it over here, people shake their heads in disbelief, how in such an advanced nation can they not get that right.
What do you think the reaction was in Europe to these terrible shootings, what did everybody say to each other when they heard about them? I'll let you guess. |
Jager, you know I LOVE your work, and respect you, but what planet do you live on buddy?
Drugs are illegal, but the drug problems haven't evaporated. What makes you think guns should be any different? |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:28:20 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Number of cars in the US: 254 million (2009)
Number of car related fatalities: 33,808 (2009)
Number of guns in the US: 270 million (2007) and WOW!
Number of gun related fatalities: 31,224 (2007)
I think it's funny how coincidental the numbers are (especially since I had no idea what any of the numbers were before searching them out). Don't bother trying to claim I have a position based on these numbers. I don't. |
It would be more meaningful if there were stats which showed 'accidental' deaths. I'm sure the number of car related fatalities involving drivers intentionally killing people would be much lower. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:29:15 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. |
So did this guy. Police response times and available weaponry were a wee bit different in the colonial era. The idea of everyone having a gun for deterrence and self defense has been tried before... in the Old West. Not exactly a model of peace and security. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:30:40 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by Cory:
LOL, what a joke... How much do you know know about this subject? |
I know I have a non-restricted long guns license for the province of Ontario and own seven rifles. I hunt every fall when either my father or I get a tag to do so. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:34:24 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I will say this: I have used a firearm to defend myself. |
So did this guy. Police response times and available weaponry were a wee bit different in the colonial era. The idea of everyone having a gun for deterrence and self defense has been tried before... in the Old West. Not exactly a model of peace and security. |
So? The guy is an idiot, identify your target before firing, simply rule that every gun owner should follow like religiously. This is exactly why they make "SureFire" flashlights.. Frankly, the gun had nothing to do with this, and everything to do with carelessness.
Recently, and more disturbingly to me, I read about an incident where the cops went to the wrong house in the middle of the night, were beating on the door violently without announcing themselves, and when the homeowner opened the door holding a gun he was shot to death. That's probably about the best argument I've heard against guns, but funny enough, it was the police who were the idiots that night...
You see, it's not the guns, it's the idiots, that's our problem. |
|
|
|
07/23/2012 10:38:12 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Cory:
LOL, what a joke... How much do you know know about this subject? |
I know I have a non-restricted long guns license for the province of Ontario and own seven rifles. I hunt every fall when either my father or I get a tag to do so. |
So, basically nothing then huh?
I know a few people who own such arms, have used them extensively, and have considered joining the club myself.
Please, next time, realize, before offering information that is simply wrong, just because you drive a car and have a drivers license, doesn't mean you know what the apex of a turn is, or can advise someone about race cars.
I don't mean to bust you up Venser, but far too many people talk about issues that they just don't enough about, and this was just a rather egregious example. |
|
