Jmpace52
Gold
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2019
- Posts
- 906
- Reputation
- 877
I personally disagree with it, but both sides are right on different points. Let me start:
>Bombs are easy to trace and shutdown, whereas guns are more widespread.
The only bombs you could make would be pressure cooker bombs, pipe bombs or bottle bombs even. I don't know much about propane bombs other than they're extremely difficult to detonate. Those Columbines retards tried it and it failed to go off. Same with the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt when some sandnigger put a bunch of combustible things in the trunk of a car expecting something Hollywood-style to happen (which it failed to even go off even after he set fire to it).
>Knives would require a lot of skill whereas anyone can get trained to use a gun (see Bataclan concert).
>poisonous gases like the Sarin that the Aum Shinrikyo cult made only managed to kill 12 people with, even when theoretically it could've killed thousands
>Cars are not ideal weapons either.
Guns are the most deadly and oft used weapon in mass murders, bar none. However, conservatives are right on a number of issues:
>gun free zones are most targeted by cowardly brutes in mass shootings
>an AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" because it is semi-auto, not fully auto
>the Constitution grants us that right
>AR-15s (and rifles in general) are not used nearly as much in annual homicides than handguns
But that's about all I've gotten from it.
Whose side do you agree with more?
>Bombs are easy to trace and shutdown, whereas guns are more widespread.
The only bombs you could make would be pressure cooker bombs, pipe bombs or bottle bombs even. I don't know much about propane bombs other than they're extremely difficult to detonate. Those Columbines retards tried it and it failed to go off. Same with the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt when some sandnigger put a bunch of combustible things in the trunk of a car expecting something Hollywood-style to happen (which it failed to even go off even after he set fire to it).
>Knives would require a lot of skill whereas anyone can get trained to use a gun (see Bataclan concert).
>poisonous gases like the Sarin that the Aum Shinrikyo cult made only managed to kill 12 people with, even when theoretically it could've killed thousands
>Cars are not ideal weapons either.
Guns are the most deadly and oft used weapon in mass murders, bar none. However, conservatives are right on a number of issues:
>gun free zones are most targeted by cowardly brutes in mass shootings
>an AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" because it is semi-auto, not fully auto
>the Constitution grants us that right
>AR-15s (and rifles in general) are not used nearly as much in annual homicides than handguns
But that's about all I've gotten from it.
Whose side do you agree with more?
