Gun sales spike in Colorado after shooting, just like they did in Arizona

There was an initiative done in Boston about a decade ago that allowed people to turn in there guns for cash, no questions asked.

While the program was in effect, no minors died from gun shot wounds for 2 years. There almost certainly has to be a correlation between the two. How could it just be coincidence, given Boston never experienced a 2 year period like that before or ever again.
 
I think the key word is "maybe." Maybe not. It's pure speculation. Bombs are not something people in the US use often to cause destruction. But we DO know that, given all his options, the one he found most appealing was the gun.

Are there places where increased gun control happened and then suddenly there was a flurry of people trying to making bombs to compensate? I don't think so.

It's also pure speculation to assume there is causation between gun control laws and murder rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone
There was an initiative done in Boston about a decade ago that allowed people to turn in there guns for cash, no questions asked.

While the program was in effect, no minors died from gun shot wounds for 2 years. There almost certainly has to be a correlation between the two. How could it just be coincidence, given Boston never experienced a 2 year period like that before or ever again.

Maybe, maybe not. Any statistical data available?
 
There was an initiative done in Boston about a decade ago that allowed people to turn in there guns for cash, no questions asked.

While the program was in effect, no minors died from gun shot wounds for 2 years. There almost certainly has to be a correlation between the two. How could it just be coincidence, given Boston never experienced a 2 year period like that before or ever again.
That's interesting. Do you have a link?
 
Yeah, I'm still amused at how gun rights advocates (and the Supreme Court in 2008) choose to completely disregard the entire preface to the second amendment, as though it's not even there.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The preface says that the country needs an army. Check. It also says that the *people* have a right to bear arms. Not the standing army, it is obvious that they can keep and bear arms.
 
What's strange is that this guy did have the ability to make bombs (his appartment was booby trapped with them), so if he wanted to create that type of mayhem he could have. I think he wanted to live...and a bomb always has the chance of exploding in your face.

Then who did he get to set up the ones in his apartment?

I think the key word is "maybe." Maybe not. It's pure speculation. Bombs are not something people in the US use often to cause destruction. But we DO know that, given all his options, the one he found most appealing was the gun.

So how would you keep him from getting one?

Are there places where increased gun control happened and then suddenly there was a flurry of people trying to making bombs to compensate? I don't think so.

lol. I'm not even sure what to make of this. Are you trying to say everyday people with guns may not have an insatiable need to kill? Did someone survey all the local murderers and ask if they could still be bothered now that they'd need to improvise or use illegal weapons? It's as though this is meant to indicate something, but somehow it just... doesn't...