How to prevent killing sprees

Your definition of spree is wrong.

If someone goes online and buys $300 wotrth of shoes today, then $500 worth tomorrow, then $100 worth monday, another $400 on wednesday... it would be called a spending spree.

If someone strangles three people (seperate incidents) today, five tomorrow, one on monday, another four on wednesday... that's a 13 murder spree.

The only difference is that the stranglers tend to be called "serial killers" and the gun control folks are perfectly happy to count them seperately from the single-day serial killers even though their victim counts are often a LOT higher.

You won't be able to prevent killing sprees

Mass killings have been even committed with Kool Aid.

Define what you want, but when you are wrong (and many of your statements in his thread have been) expect correction.

You have accepted false premises, misdefined terms arbitrarily, and overall tried to shape the debate in a way that simply doesn't fly. Why?

Why?

Click to expand...

You know the answer to that

The very first post made the statement that guns were a critical factor in "killing sprees" yet that's been proven false. Plenty of killing sprees happen without guns.

Positioning the question this way is a guaranteed method of skewing the results.

I'm not saying the OP is pro gun or anti, doesn't really matter. Point is that it's VERY difficult to do questions like this that don't tend to push the responses one way or another.

Ed, you have a point, but so doesn't Blackbeard.

A serial killer, normally only kills 1 person at a time, and normally has quite a delay between killings.

A spree killer, once they've started killing, normally doesn't stop and resume a 'normal' life before killing again. They normally kill until they are stopped, often killing themselves if overwhelming opposition and possible capture present themselves.

The physiology is different, thus different measures, solutions are necessary.

Sure, a serial killing might 'go on a killing spree', but would remain a serial killer, not a spree killer.

I remember 'spree killer' being coined sometime after columbine, because they are a distinct version of multiple killer.

Blackbird, I said more obedience, you don't have to believe. prayers are optional.

You know it is quite easy to make bombs, all you need is fertilizer components. I am not sure if anyone yet has mentioned Timothy McVeigh? The guy just used Ammonium Nitrate, a common fertilizer component to cause one of the most brual mass killings in American history in Oklahoma City.

Bombs are actually quite easy to make and can really wreak havoc on society. Just look at Iraq and India. A majority of the killings are being done by explosives, not guns. Explosives are a much easier and efficient means to cause mass destruction than a gun. A gun is better for precision killing of an enemy combatant who would not be such easy picking for an explosive. But as far as massacring innocent unexpecting civilians, bombs are easily a better choice for these cold-blooded maniacs. THat is probably why 9 out of 10 terrorists, decided devoting their time to making bombs was a better way to go.

If they ban guns, more and more criminals will start making bombs and home made bombs will start being easily available on the black market. These homicidal maniacs who want to do mass killings run to guns, because they are easily available, but if taken away, they will search other means. Bombs, in this day and age, are becoming more and more easily available and easy to construct. Unless they will ban all farming, construciton and electronic components form the public, people will have very destructive weapons at their disposal.

Not long ago, a person in Woodburn, Oregon set off a home made bomb in a bank that killed the police of chief and some others in WOodburn, Oregon.

I agree that no proposed solution is better than the problem.

Click to expand...

And once that statement was made, this thread was done.