Show Navigation
Conversation
Notices
-
Gun control isn't America's problem. A culture that feeds on violence and outrage is America's problem.
-
@maiyannah Ultimately, yes. A gun is a force multiplier, it allows you to do more damage in less time. Rifles, especially with big magazines, even more so. Guns change the magnitude of impact, not whether there is impact. However by the same logic making the force multiplier unavailable will reduce the number of casualties given the same number of incidents so I understand the sentiment even if it doesn't tackle the root cause.
-
@verius Banning the tools isn't even going to reduce the number of casulties. The most prolific serial killers in US history didn't even use guns. Denis Rader strangled his victims to death. Ted Bundy deliberately avoided firearms because of the forensic evidence they leave. If there's one thing forensic psychology understands quite well, it is that these people will kill regardless of the availability of certain weapons.
-
Sorry but logically it doesn't follow that if something doesn't stop serial killers it won't reduce the damage parallel killers (e.g. school shooters) cause. When it comes to mass killing there are really only a few realistic options: rifles, explosives, poison and well wielded medieval weaponry like swords. Right now by far the easiest option is guns. Explosives require some skill to make and risk drawing anti-terror attention. Poisons are probably hard to pull off effectively since people can often taste them. Swords of course require serious skill and thus investment of time and aren't exactly conspicouos ouos.
Annah
Verius
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the