Do you ever get ashamed of being so factually wrong, or do you just brush it off as unimportant?
The most deadly school mass murder in US history happened in Bath Township, Michigan. Andrew Kehoe killed 38 children and six adults, and wounded 58 other people.
The murder method was homemade explosives – bombs. Much quicker and much more deadly than firearms.
Have to make a bomb, don’t you, pretty much? Have to know how. Have to build a gun? Have to know how?
Whatever! I’ve seen that picture of you styling after his glorious mustachio!
Google “how to make a bomb,” and pages upon pages of helpful links appear. Available to everyone, even felons and those under 18.
You could also kill a bunch of people by cutting the brake lines on a bus. I don’t think that should really inform our gun policy.
As may the sound of approaching sirens.
No, thanks to the First Amendment, no sirens will approach just because you Google “How to make a bomb.” What charge could possibly arise from doing so?
N.R.A. Hysteria reaches new heights in Arizona. They now need to control municipal decisions.
Ain’t life funny.
As it turns out, life IS funny.
They’re starting to kill each other.
Of course, not funny in the least. Another dead body courtesy of the N.R.A.
I pity his family.
You forgot bananas. It’s possible to kill someone with those too, you know. Not 30,000 a year, mind you, but still, if just one person can be killed with a banana, that puts it on the same level as guns, right?
“Your ride’s here.”
Don’t you ever tire of citing things and being to fucking lazy to provide the cite?
Oh please. Allow me.
Yes Bricker. You are correct. That bombing cause more deaths than the shooting in Sandy Hook, CT. While this has absolutely nothing to do with murder committed with an assault rifle, and therefore is nothing more than threadshitting in a discussion centered on guns and murder committed using them, you are factually correct. More children died.
Now then, the quote above states that people died more quickly in a bombing than they did in Sandy Hook when multiple bullets tore their brains apart.
Cite please.
It also states that dying by bombing is more deadly than dying by gunshot.
Idiocy. Dead is dead.
Still, cite please.
I suppose I should be thanking you for resolving this and making the entire gun rights debate a moot point because you have provided us all with a fact that apparently renders it meaningless.
Well done, Counselor.
I’m not at all sure that the word “qucker” it his context is meant to imply some more merciful fact. Simply that one explosion is faster than any number of bullets being fired. I think you took out something he didn’t put in.
“More deadly” refers to the total number of deaths caused by the bombing as opposed to the shooting. As your own cite to Wikipedia confirms, more people died in the Bath Township school massacre than in the Sandy Hook school massacre.
So I guess my cite is your post.
Similarly, the child deaths in Bath occurred as the result of the single explosion, as opposed to multiple gunshots spaced over seconds or minutes. The deaths via explosion were thus accomplished much quicker than the deaths via gunfire.
As a reminder, here’s what you said:
My response was to show you are wrong: Kehoe’s bomb killed more people, quicker, without Kehoe having to touch the victim.
Has it ever occurred to you that you could win an argument and still be wrong?
Elucidator, you never answered my question whether you thought we should ban and/or confiscate all or any firearms that are currently legal. Do you think we should? If so, exactly what would you outlaw? Thanks.
This seems like a good illustration of the argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy.
Yes, of course: it’s possible to win an argument and still be wrong. But it’s also possible, and much easier, to win an argument and be right, and that’s what I have done here.
And think what a desperate grasp this is: yes, you are winning the argument, but that doesn’t mean anything!
No, what I mean is that simply because you score a point, proving someone wrong about a tangential issue, doesn’t mean you’ve added anything. A person doing that is arguing to win rather than arguing to enlighten. But hey, its your rubber ducky, play with it anyway you like.
Kable, I have expressed my view on that so many times its hard for me not to take your question as disingenuous. Giving you the benefit of a doubt, and at the risk of boring the shit out of anyone who’s already heard me say this a million fucking times: Keep the Goddam Things If They Mean That Much To You, and muzzle tov, much good may they do you.
Are we clear?
I loathe the violence and fear that infests our culture, but guns are a symptom, not a cause. And such regulations may be palliative, maybe not. If I sincerely believed that an absence of guns would cure that, I would be the gun-grabbinest sumbitch you ever saw. But I don’t. I’d much rather we evolve to a point where someone with a fetish for firearms is no less normal than someone with a fondness for tarantula. And I will be happy to meet them, shake their hand, and move briskly to the nearest exit.
I think what you’re missing, friend Bricker, is that you can be right, about a random tangential issue and still be wrong about a central issue.
As for the speed of bombing deaths, certainly bombing can be very quick, but bomb deaths are by no means always quick. I’ve seen video of a man blown in half and aware and being talked to.
In any case, bombs aren’t the issue here. Homemade explosives are illegal, and not the sort of thing the average person builds.
Undoubtedly the following are also tangential issues?
Bomb deaths are by no means always quick – and gunshot deaths are by no means always quick. Right?
And the average person doesn’t murder anyone, by homemade bomb or AR-15 rifle.
So it doesn’t make sense to offer up deaths inflicted by gunshots as some kind of horribly unique experience, does it? Horrible, to be sure – unique, no.