On 4/18/2013 1:13 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:10:25 -0500, Leon wrote:
Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
that regardless if guns are readily available or not.

I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make.
For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there
doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.

IMHO that would all depend on the expense and or ease of acquisition.

You have to believe that those seeking Allah are not thinking straight
or have so much hate/loss of need to exist and that have explosives
strapped their bodies are of a similar mind set as those spraying bullets.



There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And,
that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.

Their mind set is not strictly to kill numbers of people only if they
can do it with a hand gun, the gun is simply the most readily available
weapon. A bomb would require a few hours of preparation to do the same
act and seldom do these people just snap, most all have planned the
event in great detail.

I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably
will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.

Different until one weapon of choice is unavailable and then like in the
middle east less expensive and just as deadly weapons are used.


Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have worked.
There have been countless restrictions put in place in the last 40
years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not better. So
trying to fix what is not broken is not going to solve the problem of
people not being held accountable for their actions or for how they have
let their children be raised.