[Marcia Karp]

Originally Posted by E. Shaun Russell

A man with a bomb belt can massacre scores. A man with a rocket launcher can massacre hundreds. A man with a warhead can massacre thousands. A man with a nuke can massacre millions.

These are orders of magnitude, but the lowest common denominator of all of them is the intent to kill people. Do you truly think that all, or even many of the massacres, slaughters, genocides that have been perpetrated throughout history would not have happened in the absence of guns? Again, I agree that the easy accessibility of a firearm in the U.S. more easily enables such atrocities, but it still comes down to the basic premise that if someone wants to harm countless people, he will find a way to do it.

I find it difficult to find a line of reason in what you say, but I'll try. In the absence of guns, bombs, rockets, nuclear weapons [I leave out warheads, since they are the explosive in various weapons, not weapons themselves] far fewer people die. I don't understand why you dismiss orders of magnitude, but since you conflate other things, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. A person with a rock can't kill nearly as many as one with a knife and so on. Why isn't it important to factor that into your thinking?

You'll see that I did not all at dismiss intention, but neither do I think think your simple-minded insistence on it takes into account what it means to have a weapon ready instead of time to think and feel -- not everyone in a rage or long simmering resentment or delusion stays stuck with the intention -- , or a weapon that does less harm. And, all the weapons you so easily think have no part in harming others have done so by accident, too.

it still comes down to the basic premise that if someone wants to harm countless people, he will find a way to do it

Just like you can be anything you want to be, just cross your fingers and make a wish.

Marcia