The Tsarnaevs' unlicensed guns

[SMR 368]

Why go through the trouble of making a bomb when you can kill so many more people with something that's far easier to get?

What an interesting question. If Dzhokhar survives, maybe you can ask him. Clearly there are reasons.

Potentially:

--While you can shoot a lot of people with a gun, it's typically hard to get away. There are few instances (none that I can think of) of a mass public shooter leaving the scene of his crime alive and not in cuffs. While bombers often get caught later, they typically don't get caught at the scene.

--Anonymity can potentially make it more terrifying.

--Done right, a bomb kills more people. Look at Oklahoma city. No shooter has come close to 168. The Boston marathon bombing didn't kill that many people, but there were quite a few wounded and I'm surprised the deaths total was so low, to be honest.

--All things considered, I would actually say that a bomb like those used in Boston is easier (and cheaper) to acquire than a gun. This is coming from the perspective of someone who has never pursued either. But I know that if I want a gun I either need a contact that will sell me one with no questions (I don't have such a contact), or I have to go through classes and a waiting period. If I want a bomb, I need a pressure cooker, some nails or BBs, gun powder, a 555 timer, and a starter cap of some sort. Given the motivation, I could literally have it done today for under $100. You really think the gun is easier?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Gunpowder? Not in Mass.

Yeah, I see that. Components are considered ammunition, and requires a FID or an LTC card. You mean he may have to cross over to another state?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yeah, I see that. Components are considered ammunition, and requires a FID or an LTC card. You mean he may have to cross over to another state?

Unfortunately, it is that easy. Which is why we need nation wide laws, not state to state.

[Teddy B 17,252]

What an interesting question. If Dzhokhar survives, maybe you can ask him. Clearly there are reasons.

Potentially:

--While you can shoot a lot of people with a gun, it's typically hard to get away. There are few instances (none that I can think of) of a mass public shooter leaving the scene of his crime alive and not in cuffs. While bombers often get caught later, they typically don't get caught at the scene.

--Anonymity can potentially make it more terrifying.

--Done right, a bomb kills more people. Look at Oklahoma city. No shooter has come close to 168. The Boston marathon bombing didn't kill that many people, but there were quite a few wounded and I'm surprised the deaths total was so low, to be honest.

--All things considered, I would actually say that a bomb like those used in Boston is easier (and cheaper) to acquire than a gun. This is coming from the perspective of someone who has never pursued either. But I know that if I want a gun I either need a contact that will sell me one with no questions (I don't have such a contact), or I have to go through classes and a waiting period. If I want a bomb, I need a pressure cooker, some nails or BBs, gun powder, a 555 timer, and a starter cap of some sort. Given the motivation, I could literally have it done today for under $100. You really think the gun is easier?

Let's not overlook the fact that the two bombers did have guns and used them to kill one police officer and severely injure another. I think it would be rare to find someone associated with illegal explosives that doesn't also posess guns.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

What an interesting question. If Dzhokhar survives, maybe you can ask him. Clearly there are reasons.

Potentially:

--While you can shoot a lot of people with a gun, it's typically hard to get away. There are few instances (none that I can think of) of a mass public shooter leaving the scene of his crime alive and not in cuffs. While bombers often get caught later, they typically don't get caught at the scene.

--Anonymity can potentially make it more terrifying.

--Done right, a bomb kills more people. Look at Oklahoma city. No shooter has come close to 168. The Boston marathon bombing didn't kill that many people, but there were quite a few wounded and I'm surprised the deaths total was so low, to be honest.

--All things considered, I would actually say that a bomb like those used in Boston is easier (and cheaper) to acquire than a gun. This is coming from the perspective of someone who has never pursued either. But I know that if I want a gun I either need a contact that will sell me one with no questions (I don't have such a contact), or I have to go through classes and a waiting period. If I want a bomb, I need a pressure cooker, some nails or BBs, gun powder, a 555 timer, and a starter cap of some sort. Given the motivation, I could literally have it done today for under $100. You really think the gun is easier?

If guns are so difficult to get (or at least more difficult than making a bomb yourself) ... then why do the mass killings in this country generally involve guns and not bombs?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If guns are so difficult to get (or at least more difficult than making a bomb yourself) ... then why do the mass killings in this country generally involve guns and not bombs?

Bombs are scary.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

We should limit the size also....Say 1.5 quarts.....After all who needs more than that to cook a meal

you don't need to feed more than 7 people.....

[Penny Lane 8,159]

As someone else said - they are generally mixed including recent attacks.

What are generally mixed? Bombs and guns? Before Boston, when was the last bombing that killed numerous people in the US?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

The last bomb was James Holmes. Luckily people didn't react to his music and set it off.

Yes, he killed people with guns instead. I repeat my question. When was the last time a bombing in the US killed numerous people?

I am not denying that bombs are made and used. I'm responding to the argument that bombs are easier to get/make/use than guns. If that's true, why are they not used more successfully and more often?

Edited April 22, 2013 by Evylin

[Teddy B 17,252]

What are generally mixed? Bombs and guns? Before Boston, when was the last bombing that killed numerous people in the US?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What are generally mixed? Bombs and guns? Before Boston, when was the last bombing that killed numerous people in the US?

1995 April 19: Oklahoma City bombing: A truck bomb shattered the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, killing 168 people-including children playing in the building's day care center. Right-wing terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were convicted in the bombing.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Happens all the time!

We all remember the last time someone got in a vehicle for the sole purpose of using it as a murder weapon and killed a bunch of people. Don't we?

2006 March 5: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar injured 6 when he drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world".[43]

[Penny Lane 8,159]

1995 April 19: Oklahoma City bombing: A truck bomb shattered the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, killing 168 people-including children playing in the building's day care center. Right-wing terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were convicted in the bombing.

According to the lists I've found, Oklahoma City wasn't the last. There were a couple in 96 and 98 that killed a few people. One of them was an abortion clinic. Lovely.

But after that, up until Boston, nothing.

Now if these lists are accurate, why do these seem to happen so few and far between as opposed to mass shootings? If bombs truly ARE easier to get and make than a gun, and easier to USE and get away with using ... why don't more people choose this route when they're determined to take out as many people as possible?

2006 March 5: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar injured 6 when he drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world".[43]

So 7 years ago is the last time you were able to find? And nobody died?

Yes. Vehicles as murder weapons are definitely a problem.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Evylin

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

According to the lists I've found, Oklahoma City wasn't the last. There were a couple in 96 and 98 that killed a few people.

But after that, up until Boston, nothing.

Now if these lists are accurate, why do these seem to happen so few and far between as opposed to mass shootings? If bombs truly ARE easier to get and make than a gun, and easier to USE and get away with using ... why don't more people choose this route when they're determined to take out as many people as possible?

Like I said, bombs are scary to make, not always reliable, and guns are so easy to get. But if you look to someplace like Northern Ireland, when guns are not that easy to obtain, bombs seem to be more popular. Irish have a long tradition, of being the best bomb makers in the world.

Edited April 22, 2013 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah like a car! Cause yanno, it's real easy to just drive a car into a bunch of people hangin on the street corner. Cars kill lots of people! Take that you liberal.

In light of this, I would demand that cars be registered and all sales of cars be recorded. Of course, if they were registered, then it would only be a question of time until the government would come to confiscate them. Oh, wait...