Why use guns for killing

Post Reply New Topic

This is one thing I don't understand those killing sprees. A bomb can kill many people in one go. There is no way to run away from the blast. With a few kilos of cyanide in an enclosed space like a theater that would be even more killing...

So why use a gun after all?

Guns are more precise and deliberate
Not as much as bladed weapons, but more so than bombs

A bomb is good for (usually) relatively close proximity but not everyone knows how to build a decent one that will work like it's supposed to. If it's on a timer there's a chance of it being found before detonation.

As for guns being precise they can't be any more precise than the capabilities of the user.

@ roronoa79
Killing sprees don't really care who they kill anyway

@ Raptor
Killing sprees happen in places packed with people. So lack of range is not a major problem. If anything it is probably easier to learn how to build a semi-decent bomb than to use a gun alone.

As for the bomb being found only in a few places like airports and major train stations people look for suspected bombs. It only takes a minute or two for the bomber to walk to safety. With modern WiFi remote denotation is extremely easy. Your point of the bomb being found is very ideal.

Since a killing spree is typically the deed of an irrational madman, I don't think efficiency is a prime concern.

I disagree. The cold hard fact no one wants to admit is, regardless of their rationale for their actions, most of them had a solid grasp of what they were doing.

Could we please not give lunatics dangerous ideas on the internet?

Give lunatics some credit. I don't think they'll be coming to a autism site to look for ideas or whatever.
I'm a lunatic so I know....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFO2iepmtjU[/youtube]Biological warfare is the best way to go cheap, efficient and a good way to nearly cause a human extinction.

An LPG or LNG tanker detonation would be pretty damn devastating

With a gun he gets to experience the fear and shock of his victims up close. It's not abstract.

Also, an effective mass casualty bomb seems to require a team. McVeigh had a two man team and AQ usually has a team. Whether that is true or not, that's the impression that history might give to people looking for methods.

Actually, they can easily be just as precise as bladed weapons and better yet, they do not require close range to make a kill. Bombs are messy and pose a serious danger to the user.

I keep waiting for laser weapons to become small and powerful enough to replace guns, but that may never happen.

You're wrong. Biological warfare has actually been tested during WWII by the Japanese Military on China and it proved to be ineffective. Medical science has advanced to the point where rapidly fatal airborne virus epidemics can be successfully contained. The most lethally effective weapons are NUCLEAR weapons specifically designed to produce massive amounts of fallout.

I'd say killing with a gun is more personal than explosives, chemicals or patogens, while being safer and faster and having a much greater range than a melee weapon.

Killing with a gun or a knife is making a personal connection. You see the person and then you commit an act that effects them. I think this connection is what a killer is desirous of.
Having said that, there are way better ways to connect with people. And sometimes, after a long wait, they connect back with you. It's worth waiting for.

I think it has something to do with the whole "blaze of glory" idea; you don't really get that with a bomb or poison. I've always thought that poison is underrated in general, it's so much more ambiguous than overt violence and you can be really far away when it takes effect.