12-13-13, School Shooting, Colorado

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Because, and this actually is the point and reason, a gun is super easy and takes little to no preparation. The perp picks it up, loads it, pulls the trigger and people die.

It is also the most effective defensive weapon. But you seemed to skip over how this criminal also brought fire bombs with him.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You mean like when a kid gets cut from a debate team?

Well it seems he might of been planning this for a while.... You know since he bought the weapon a week in advance and more ammo the night before.... So that is not exactly an *Impulse* shooting.

Neither was VT, Columnine, Sandy Hook, the Navy Yard, Giffords shooter..... Well, you should get the point.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Right, which can all be done rather quickly and easily. More easily than building a bomb with a detonation device etc.

FALSE. I could build a bomb with the stuff most people have in their homes faster than you could go buy a gun.... And you can thank the US Military for that, but the information is on the internet and any fool with the power of Google can find it.

[sfzombie13 307]

building a bomb is too easy, knowing where to place said bomb in order to do the most damage is a little more tricky. for example, i have a book (a real one) from the army showing where to place explosives in order to bring down bridges, blow up dams, and destroy pretty much anything like roads, airstrips and even different size steel columns and beams. it even has the mathematical formulas and tells you how to figure out placement for almost any explosive (i think it left out homemade types). this information is restricted by the govt, but is probably available to anyone. i don't want to look for it, i downloaded the anarchists cookbook last week to look at.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[DaVinci 0]

sfzombie13

building a bomb is too easy, knowing where to place said bomb in order to do the most damage is a little more tricky. for example, i have a book (a real one) from the army showing where to place explosives in order to bring down bridges, blow up dams, and destroy pretty much anything like roads, airstrips and even different size steel columns and beams. it even has the mathematical formulas and tells you how to figure out placement for almost any explosive (i think it left out homemade types). this information is restricted by the govt, but is probably available to anyone. i don't want to look for it, i downloaded the anarchists cookbook last week to look at.

The bomb placed at the Boston Bombing finish line was not too difficult to figure out.

As for the information being 'restricted', I very much doubt that engineers are not allowed to learn the mathematical formulas in school. I know plenty of construction guys that could point out the weak points in buildings even without doing the math.

[kelpdiver 2]

sfzombie13

building a bomb is too easy, knowing where to place said bomb in order to do the most damage is a little more tricky. for example, i have a book (a real one) from the army showing where to place explosives in order to bring down bridges, blow up dams, and destroy pretty much anything like roads, airstrips and even different size steel columns and beams. it even has the mathematical formulas and tells you how to figure out placement for almost any explosive (i think it left out homemade types). this information is restricted by the govt, but is probably available to anyone. i don't want to look for it, i downloaded the anarchists cookbook last week to look at.

optimal placement isn't necessary to do substantial impact, as we saw at Boston and at Atlanta. Any sort of shrapnel bomb in a crowded area will achieve the aim of terror.

Columbine is the interesting/creepy hypothetical as the two punks tried to bomb the cafeteria (library?) and when they failed to work, went straight to their guns. If they didn't have guns and instead fixed the bombs, would it have been worse? Or nearly ineffective due to bad placement per your post?

[SkyDekker 1,119]

Quote

Columbine is the interesting/creepy hypothetical as the two punks tried to bomb the cafeteria (library?) and when they failed to work, went straight to their guns. If they didn't have guns and instead fixed the bombs, would it have been worse? Or nearly ineffective due to bad placement per your post?

I am sorry?

I thought building bombs was just as easy as, or even easier than buying and shooting guns.

The bombs not going off is a relatively clear indication that position may not be as strong as you would like.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

I am sorry?

I thought building bombs was just as easy as, or even easier than buying and shooting guns.

The bombs not going off is a relatively clear indication that position may not be as strong as you would like.

probably should reexamine your strawman.

[sfzombie13 307]

without going into too much detail, optimal placement is crucial in taking down bridges, dams, etc. and as for learning mathematical formulas in school, i have taken math courses from general math all the way to college level calculus and not once has a formula for figuring the amount of c4 and where to place it on a trestle bridge in order to bring it down. sure, the theories are there, but without specific formulas for deciding the destructive power of the explosive you are working with, or the specific stress points on specific types of structures, all the math in the world won't help you use the minimal amount of explosives to destroy something.

and with hollywood increasingly involved in teaching the public how to blow things up and what the explosions should look like (if everything was packed with gasoline), one can only hope that people continue to do their homework by watching movies, not reading relative books.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes