Gun Control

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Crator

They do? For what reason? Harder to obtain/operate?

Question. How often are bombs used in muggings, domestic disputes, suicides (that includes leaving the gas on), etc.? Would one honestly want to suggest bombs would be used in spontaneous/emotional attacks like knives, guns and rifles are?

How often are hand grenades used? How easy is it to acquire professional handgrenades?



And yeah, how many people would know how to construct and operate a bomb aside from the extremely dedicated? And again, if you think bombs would kill to the same extend at guns if you remove guns, I present you with the cases of Europe, Chili, etc.

Bombs are not a replacement for guns in every day use. If bombs were so easy, why do you think they'd not be used more instead of guns and rifles, right now? If you remove rifles and guns, the amount of bombs being placed is not going to be affected at all.

Bombs are used in terror attacks and assasinations and the occasional suicide, not in regular or non-premeditated murders. Guns and rifles are used for any type of killing, because they're far more flexible and require less skill, knowledge and planning.



And yeah Baneblade, just because you in theory could, doesn't mean people would. Otherwise we'd see a lot more bombings outside maffia strikes and the occasional random terrorist attacks. And if they were really that easy to pull off and that many people willing to use them, we'd see a lot more of those bombings. A lot of terrorist attacks use suicide bombers because they have no functional delivery system that can get it in place. Hence also why car-bombings are used in a lot of bombings, because they somehow have to deliver it. On top of that, it's no guarantee that the target is taken out or isn't intercepted (bomb letters/packages often kill the messenger rather than the target), plus a lot of these mass killers want to see and control the results due to their personality traits.




About use of force against a government without outside support: consider that ETA has fought 40 years using bombings and shootings as their primary means of operation, often resorting to blackmail, kidnappings and bank robberies to obtain funding. They killed 829 people (343 civilians).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ETA_attacks

What did that actually achieve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA#Political_support

Primarily that the support for their movement and independence DECLINED. Not just internationally, but also domestically.

The Euskobarometro, the survey carried out by the Universidad del País Vasco (University of the Basque Country), asking about the views of ETA within the Basque population, has obtained these results in May 2009:[43] 64% rejected ETA totally, 13% identified themselves as former ETA sympathisers (mainly during the Franco dictatorship) who no longer support the group. Another 10% agreed with ETA's ends, but not their means. 3% said that their attitude towards ETA was mainly one of fear, 3% expressed indifference and 3% were undecided or did not answer. About 3% gave ETA "justified, with criticism" support (supporting the group but criticising some of their actions) and only 1% gave ETA total support. Even within Batasuna voters, at least 48% rejected ETA's violence.

Compare that to how quickly Kosovo was able to obtain independence.