[quote pid='1702572' dateline='1518795036']
"Nobody would've been hurt" is distinctly overoptimistic. People get hurt in vehicle/building collisions. You're also assuming that he would not have expressed his murderous rage elsewhere. Of course guns are more efficient killing machines. My point is that too many people see further gun restrictions as a cure-all (see the 1234 guy above).
[/quote]
I skipped this one sorry. It's not about a cure for all , this is a topic about SHOOTINGS , the best way to reduce SHOOTINGS is to gave stricter gun laws.
It's not my fault that you and more guys on this topic went off topic to human condition and violence , wich are things that are beeing taclked for a long long time but somehow you will solve the problem in a few days , but please teach me master.
(February 16, 2018 at 10:00 am)Aegon Wrote: The answer actually is: he would have slammed into brick or a concrete and nobody would've been hurt. Its easier to get a car rather than a gun (at least a tad) but he chose to use a gun. Guns are deadlier, easier, to kill, work better for the goals.
"Nobody would've been hurt" is distinctly overoptimistic. People get hurt in vehicle/building collisions. You're also assuming that he would not have expressed his murderous rage elsewhere. Of course guns are more efficient killing machines. My point is that too many people see further gun restrictions as a cure-all (see the 1234 guy above).
[/quote]
I skipped this one sorry. It's not about a cure for all , this is a topic about SHOOTINGS , the best way to reduce SHOOTINGS is to gave stricter gun laws.
It's not my fault that you and more guys on this topic went off topic to human condition and violence , wich are things that are beeing taclked for a long long time but somehow you will solve the problem in a few days , but please teach me master.
