The Tsarnaevs' unlicensed guns

[Teddy B 17,252]

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

People using explosives to kill and also posessing guns, yes. People using guns to kill and also posessing explosives, not so much.

Guns are, for the most part, much more easily obtainable and much more easy to use than explosives when it comes to the common criminal. It's the not so common criminal that goes for the explosives.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

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 to easy to obtain, bombs seem to be more popular. Irish have a long tradition, of being the best bomb makers in the world.

That's my point.

I was responding to the poster who attempted to tell me that bombs are easier to make and use (and you can get away with using one more easily) than a gun is to get. In the US, of course.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That is common sense, but the gun nutters want you to believe that it's a free for all out there and the Boogeyman sleeps under your bed.

The boogeyman does sleep under my bed. He has a pistol grip and holds 7 3" 00 buck shells.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The boogeyman does sleep under my bed. He has a pistol grip and holds 7 3" 00 buck shells.

I believe that you believe that.

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...

You will have to pry my 1997 Ford Ranger from my cold dead hands!

[SMR 368]

That's my point.

I was responding to the poster who attempted to tell me that bombs are easier to make and use (and you can get away with using one more easily) than a gun is to get. In the US, of course.

First, I was presenting hypothetical explanations as to why one might choose a bomb instead of a gun, in light of the fact that obviously some people choose bombs. I also said I have no definitive proof or first hand experience as to which would be easier to use. But I still think that I would go for a bomb if I was trying to mess a lot of people up.

Edited April 22, 2013 by SMR

[Penny Lane 8,159]

First, I was presenting hypothetical explanations as to why one might choose a bomb instead of a gun, in light of the fact that obviously some people choose bombs. I also said I have no definitive proof or first hand experience as to which would be easier to use. But I still think that I would go for a bomb if I was trying to mess a lot of people up.

Of course some people choose bombs. The majority, however, do not. Not as their main weapon anyway. And there's a reason for that - guns are easy and fast.

[GandD 5,966]

First, I was presenting hypothetical explanations as to why one might choose a bomb instead of a gun, in light of the fact that obviously some people choose bombs. I also said I have no definitive proof or first hand experience as to which would be easier to use. But I still think that I would go for a bomb if I was trying to mess a lot of people up.

This is a good point but I bet more people would have died if they opened up with assault rifles into the crowd. But the police would have instantly known where they were.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

This is a good point but I bet more people would have died if they opened up with assault rifles into the crowd. But the police would have instantly known where they were.

Definitely. I mean, a bomb SEEMS like an easier choice. You can place it, get the #### out of there, and set it off. Unlike having to stand in the middle of the chaos while you shoot at everyone around you. There's generally no way out of that situation other than suicide or being taken into custody.

And yet, guns are still the go-to choice for cowardly criminals who want to take out as many innocent people as they can.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Definitely. I mean, a bomb SEEMS like an easier choice. You can place it, get the #### out of there, and set it off. Unlike having to stand in the middle of the chaos while you shoot at everyone around you. There's generally no way out of that situation other than suicide or being taken into custody.

And yet, guns are still the go-to choice for cowardly criminals who want to take out as many innocent people as they can.

It's the Tony Montana moment of truth.

[himher 634]

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...

Mobile citizens are not a threat to government power. Armed citizens are. Mobile citizens are not constitutionally protected, armed citizens are. No amount of lazy, idle talk from lazy, idle libs is going to change that. The way to change it is to change the constitution and there was never a lib born on this planet who would work that hard.

Periodically however the libs in government do take short, halting, pointless steps to disarm the people then take it in the midsection and back away to catch their breath when people backlash. I am split as to which is more funny - the chest-beating and blustering before the haymaker or the whining and crying and complaining after. What do you think? Which is more funny?

Edited April 22, 2013 by himher

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Mobile citizens are not a threat to government power. Armed citizens are. Mobile citizens are not constitutionally protected, armed citizens are. No amount of lazy, idle talk from lazy, idle libs is going to change that. The way to change it is to change the constitution and there was never a lib born on this planet who would work that hard.

Periodically however the libs in government do take short, halting, pointless steps to disarm the people then take it in the midsection and back away to catch their breath when people backlash. I am split as to which is more funny - the chest-beating and blustering before the haymaker or the whining and crying and complaining after. What do you think? Which is more funny?

The funniest is the "armed citizens" who think they are a threat to government power.

[himher 634]

That's my point.

I was responding to the poster who attempted to tell me that bombs are easier to make and use (and you can get away with using one more easily) than a gun is to get. In the US, of course.

They are easier to make however the consequences are vastly different. If Chicago got shut down every time a shooter killed someone - in a house to house search if necessary - that did not stop until the shooter got caught or shot there would be fewer shooters. This is what happens to bombers.

Bombers get harsh sentences and harsh treatment. Shooters get recycled right back out if anybody even bothers to track them down. So shooters are incentivized. Got it?

[Teddy B 17,252]

The funniest is the "armed citizens" who think they are a threat to government power.

Now THAT is funny! Could you imagine some of the keyboard heroes from this board going up against the type of weaponry and manpower that was displayed last week in Boston? The laundrymats would be overflowing with people trying to wash the stains off their soiled undies.

And that was just law enforcement. They didn't even bother to bring out the big guns!

Edited April 22, 2013 by Teddy B

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Bombers get harsh sentences and harsh treatment. Shooters get recycled right back out if anybody even bothers to track them down. So shooters are incentivized. Got it?

People choose guns over bombs because the punishment isn't as harsh? I don't remember a mass shooting where the suspect was "recycled right back out" ...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The funniest is the "armed citizens" who think they are a threat to government power.

Yes, the truly delusional. They are a hilarious bunch.