Bombing requires specialized skill. Many of the "mass killings" involve kids. Take the two little sniper boys (the little 3rd graders or whatever they were, that shot from the bushes). Were they going to build a bomb? I don't think so. Bombs require knowledge, a lot more effort, and a certain amount of intelligence- plus it requires the bomb builders mind set, to want to explode bodies as opposed to "shooting" people. I would suggest to you that the dismemberment and destruction of bombing is somewhat different in the mind of a child than killing "cleanly" with a gun. Because I think (and it's just my opinion) that the neat surgical killing kids can do on video games with guns, and the surgical use of guns they see in the movies, make them think guns are much neater and efficient than they actually are. I would also argue that it is much simpler to pick up a gun and some ammo (something they have seen a zillion times if they've been watching TV) then to build a bomb and rig a detonator. Remember the boy who killed his parents at home? First killed one with a gun then killed the other? I don't think he would have blown his parents up. A bomb is not really a weapon of impulse. While some of these children plotted, most of them don't really have the skills and umph to be bomb builders (imo).
I think some mass killings would be avoided ( and if ANY would be, that's all she wrote- and blows the study writers statement that "Mass killings would NOT be avoided.." only takes one case to make that statement false). I fail to see how there would be more, since bomb materials are readily available now, and if people wanted to blow people up the means is, and has been, at hand. I really doubt they are letting off steam with killing people by guns, and that they would have used bombs if guns were not available.
So I totally disagree with you. |
