Mass shootings in America

[buck 11]

I've never heard any news stories about a person killing multiple people in one go with with any other weapon other than a gun.....There may be one or two instances where a person has deliberately crashed a car or something crazy like that, but they're rare occurrences.

There was quite a big one on September 11, 2001, which did not use guns.

[Bonzo77 13]

There was quite a big one on September 11, 2001, which did not use guns.

 

I did say that on rare occasions you hear about other methods. It's usually guns and bombs though. You can misuse any object to kill a person. Guns are built to kill.

[ronthenekred 10]

Do you think that he wouldn't have killed them if he didn't have a gun.

 

He did have a gun and he did kill them with a gun. What he would possibly have killed them with if he didn't have a gun is irrelevant, as he killed them with a gun

[aliceBB 10]

If you can't draw the line between entertainment and reality, there's something wrong with you!

 

On the contrary. I have spent my career helping people to draw that very line and also (more importantly) to analyse how the line can be blurred (especially in high-quality fiction/drama), and how that can affect the audience. I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your anti-gun stance, given your ambiguous choice of avatar.

 

It is naive to assume there is no connection between 'entertainment' and 'reality', although it is often a subtle phenomenon, beyond the grasp of people who think there is a big thick dividing line between the two. Thick being the operative word...

 

Please explain where the line between reality and entertainment is to be drawn in 'The Godfather', or 'King Lear', for example.

[ronthenekred 10]

There was quite a big one on September 11, 2001, which did not use guns.

 

That's because throwing a gun at the trade center would have had a very minor effect.

[mjw47 10]

If there was no connection between entertainment and peoples actions advertisements would be of no practical use.

 

TV adverts depict scenarios and situations which influence peoples decisions on spending or voting.

 

General Motors spent $4.2 Billion and Ford spent $3.9 Billion on advertising last year.

 

It works or it wouldn't be done.

 

To then say that that has an influence but Films and TV programs depicting violence have no impact doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

Americas attitude to gun ownership is crazy.

 

They have taken a line from the constitution about the 'right to bear arms' which referred to a time when they were worried about the British or Spanish invading and single shot flintlocks were the weapon of choice and they are continuing to apply it in the age of automatic weapons and drugged up gang wars.

 

Great country in many ways, but they have a major problem with the easy availability of firearms.

 

It is estimated that there are a minimum of 270,000,000 guns in the hands of private citizens in the USA.

 

Don't see how that is a situation which can be brought under control.

[firemanbob 10]

the point is guns make it very very very easy to kill a lot more people in one go, thats why these killings in america seem to be featuring 5 or more deaths per rampage

 

Explosives make it even easier and they are easy to make, imagine how many people you could easily kill with a car, 4x4 or a lorry.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2014 at 20:44 ----------

 

and right wing idiots like yourself ALWAYS have a tendency to like guns and weaponary

 

And left winger always resort to insults when they are shown to be wrong.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2014 at 20:51 ----------

 

I did say that on rare occasions you hear about other methods. It's usually guns and bombs though. You can misuse any object to kill a person. Guns are built to kill.

 

And if guns were not available the murderer would use other weapons to kill the people they want to kill, banning guns won't stop people being killed, it will only stop them being killed by a gun, but the end result will be the same, people will still be killed.

 

The OP is about A Florida man that killed his six grandchildren, his daughter and himself, he could have killed them by fire, by knife, and any number of other ways.

What makes you think he wouldn't have killed them if he didn't have a gun?

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2014 at 20:59 ----------

 

He did have a gun and he did kill them with a gun. What he would possibly have killed them with if he didn't have a gun is irrelevant, as he killed them with a gun

 

No it isn't irrelevant, he wanted to kill them and there is no reason at all to assume that he wouldn't have killed them if guns were unavailable. You lot appear to be under the impression that people only started being killed after the invention of the gun.

Edited September 19, 2014 by firemanbob

[aliceBB 10]

If there was no connection between entertainment and peoples actions advertisements would be of no practical use.

 

TV adverts depict scenarios and situations which influence peoples decisions on spending or voting.

 

General Motors spent $4.2 Billion and Ford spent $3.9 Billion on advertising last year.

 

It works or it wouldn't be done.

 

To then say that that has an influence but Films and TV programs depicting violence have no impact doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

 

Completely agree.

[ronthenekred 10]

 

No it isn't irrelevant, he wanted to kill them and there is no reason at all to assume that he wouldn't have killed them if guns were unavailable. You lot appear to be under the impression that people only started being killed after the invention of the gun.

 

Yes it is irrelevant, he killed them with a gun..any other supposition or outcome is hearsay and pure guesswork on your part. He had access to cars, knives, his hands, neck ties, rope, cordless drills, bananas, Justine Bieber CD's..all lethal weapons, did he use them? No..he used a gun. Any other conclusion is in your head..which in itself is a dangerous place.

[firemanbob 10]

Yes it is irrelevant, he killed them with a gun..any other supposition or outcome is hearsay and pure guesswork on your part. He had access to cars, knives, his hands, neck ties, rope, cordless drills, bananas, Justine Bieber CD's..all lethal weapons, did he use them? No..he used a gun. Any other conclusion is in your head..which in itself is a dangerous place.

 

I agree, so there is no reason at all to assume he wouldn't have killed them if he didn't have a gun, which is something you appear to be assuming. You really should stop making wild assumptions.

[ronthenekred 10]

I agree, so there is no reason at all to assume he wouldn't have killed them if he didn't have a gun, which is something you appear to be assuming.

 

I'm assuming nothing, I'm giving you the facts. The family was murdered by a man with a gun, not a man with a tree trunk.

 

Any credibility to your supposition would be based on you knowing the person intimately...by which i mean he confided in you that if his plan failed through gun access he would use a tree trunk...which I doubt.

[firemanbob 10]

I'm assuming nothing, I'm giving you the facts. The family was murdered by a man with a gun, not a man with a tree trunk.

 

Any credibility to your supposition would be based on you knowing the person intimately...by which i mean he confided in you that if his plan failed through gun access he would use a tree trunk...which I doubt.

 

The facts are that a man wanted to kill his family so he did, you are assuming that the gun caused him to do it and that he wouldn't have killed them if the gun hadn't been there at the time.