3 ms·

I guess the thing is that gasoline has many non-killing uses, whereas guns don't. I live in a country where access to guns is much more tightly controlled than

I guess the thing is that gasoline has many non-killing uses, whereas guns don't. I live in a country where access to guns is much more tightly controlled than in the US, and I'm glad of it. Sure, under some circumstances a can of gasoline can be more lethal than a gun, but the prospect someone chasing me down the street at 3AM with a can of gasoline doesn't scare me nearly as much as someone chasing me with a gun. Think of all the lethal scenarios that a gun can be used, replace with "can of gasoline" and see your straw man go up in flames.

CamperBob2 14y ago
It would only be a straw man if arson weren't a good way to kill a lot of people at once. Events have proven otherwise. This particular assclown had the smarts to do a lot more damage than he did. If he couldn't have put his hands on firearms, who's to say what he might have done instead? Turn himself in peacefully? I'm guessing not. He might have gone full Aum Shinrikyo on the theater full of people.
- josephcooney 14y ago
  Under a certain set of circumstances almost anything is capable of killing a lot of people (ice build-up on some piece of hydraulic equipment, corrosion, a screw-driver, some inconclusive scientific data). However for killing in a broad number of scenarios the thing that is going to be most effective is a device that is designed for killing. If, as you claim gasoline is, in general, more lethal than guns (and thus in need of regulation) why don't we start issuing police and soldiers with cans of gasoline?
  - harshreality 14y ago
    Because guns are better for self defense. That is why police need guns. Their task is to investigate crimes and apprehend suspects. It's not to shoot people. What does it matter how many fewer ways there are to kill a lot of people with a can of gasoline? A mass murderer only needs one way.

CamperBob2 14y ago

It would only be a straw man if arson weren't a good way to kill a lot of people at once. Events have proven otherwise. This particular assclown had the smarts to do a lot more damage than he did. If he couldn't have put his hands on firearms, who's to say what he might have done instead? Turn himself in peacefully? I'm guessing not. He might have gone full Aum Shinrikyo on the theater full of people.

josephcooney 14y ago
Under a certain set of circumstances almost anything is capable of killing a lot of people (ice build-up on some piece of hydraulic equipment, corrosion, a screw-driver, some inconclusive scientific data). However for killing in a broad number of scenarios the thing that is going to be most effective is a device that is designed for killing. If, as you claim gasoline is, in general, more lethal than guns (and thus in need of regulation) why don't we start issuing police and soldiers with cans of gasoline?
- harshreality 14y ago
  Because guns are better for self defense. That is why police need guns. Their task is to investigate crimes and apprehend suspects. It's not to shoot people. What does it matter how many fewer ways there are to kill a lot of people with a can of gasoline? A mass murderer only needs one way.