Why gun control and not flamethrower control?

[DarthTrader]

Serious question - because it's always perplexed me how it is "the gun" that is the weapon of choice for these mass murderers?

Scenario - stage some gasoline cans full of gas and styrofoam outside of a crowded theater exterior door on opening night. Then walk into said theater with more gas cans - and go to the interior entrance. Set the theater on fire and burn up 300+ people.

Get my drift?

Mass shootings are IRRATIONAL.

Any rational person who was out to cause mass damage would come up with someting better. Drive your semitruck through a highschool football game.

Hell - crash your rental plane (a few hundred bucks) into a school.

1,000 ways to die in the west?

There's 1,000 ways to mass murder people, all of them a LOT more effective than shooting at them. But mass murders ARE NOT RATIONAL.

Yet - they always choose the gun.....seems almost....staged. Or encouraged. As if someone puts them up to it. How is it that in a world with 1,000+ better ways to kill people, they keep choosing the ONE way that requires the most skill and has the least liklihood of success.

Rational people don't kill people, so we are left with these crazies. And trying to make public policy based on it?

Or has the point all along been rational, to take away our guns?

 

[Ralph Norton]

Serious question - because it's always perplexed me how it is "the gun" that is the weapon of choice for these mass murderers?

Scenario - stage some gasoline cans full of gas and styrofoam outside of a crowded theater exterior door on opening night. Then walk into said theater with more gas cans - and go to the interior entrance. Set the theater on fire and burn up 300+ people.

Get my drift?

Mass shootings are IRRATIONAL.

Any rational person who was out to cause mass damage would come up with someting better. Drive your semitruck through a highschool football game.

Hell - crash your rental plane (a few hundred bucks) into a school.

1,000 ways to die in the west?

There's 1,000 ways to mass murder people, all of them a LOT more effective than shooting at them.

Yet - they always choose the gun.....seems almost....staged. Or encouraged.

How many "rational" people want to commit mass murder?

 

[DarthTrader]

How many "rational" people want to commit mass murder?

I mention that rational people do not. If rational people were to mass murder people they'd do it a lot differently. Therefore WHY THE GUN? And WHY are we trying to make policy based on the actions of insane people?

 

[flan327]

Serious question - because it's always perplexed me how it is "the gun" that is the weapon of choice for these mass murderers?

Scenario - stage some gasoline cans full of gas and styrofoam outside of a crowded theater exterior door on opening night. Then walk into said theater with more gas cans - and go to the interior entrance. Set the theater on fire and burn up 300+ people.

Get my drift?

Mass shootings are IRRATIONAL.

Any rational person who was out to cause mass damage would come up with someting better. Drive your semitruck through a highschool football game.

Hell - crash your rental plane (a few hundred bucks) into a school.

1,000 ways to die in the west?

There's 1,000 ways to mass murder people, all of them a LOT more effective than shooting at them. But mass murders ARE NOT RATIONAL.

Yet - they always choose the gun.....seems almost....staged. Or encouraged. As if someone puts them up to it. How is it that in a world with 1,000+ better ways to kill people, they keep choosing the ONE way that requires the most skill and has the least liklihood of success.

Rational people don't kill people, so we are left with these crazies. And trying to make public policy based on it?

Or has the point all along been rational, to take away our guns?

You need HELP

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You need HELP

You need ignoring.