This event had no gun. these attacks are going to keep happening. Yes no gun meant less died. Also no bomb meant less died. Also cop getting there fast meant less died.
I'm having some trouble following your logical progression here. I agree with all five of these unrelated thoughts. I guess we're in agreement here.
These kinds of shooters aren't really the types to build bombs. Too complex, too costly, too time-consuming, too much chance of getting caught for what you're googling and purchasing and storing (Denver theater guy is a notable exception because I guess his mom never looked in his crazy bomb-construction bedroom). This whole argument isn't relevant though because we have already criminalized or controlled the purchase and possession of bomb ingredients.
point is you guys buzz right past the obvious and instead of stopping the attacker from getting into his car and mowing people over and stabbing people you want a pat on the back that more people didn't die?
You guys? Liberals? Gun control supporters? Good guys with guns -- at least the ones I know -- are some of the biggest proponents of gun control. They don't want bad guys getting ahold of them either.
Again, I'm lost -- you've presented a false dichotomy here. I agree that there is something ideological going on, and that bad guys will find a way to hurt people even if we take away guns and knives and cars. I just think we should make it as difficult for them as possible by making the most dangerous and deadly weapons more difficult to obtain.
it's crazy.
