Question about gasoline and guns.

[no1_vern]

IF the shooter had decided to prep the doors with ~5(or 10, etc) gallons of gasoline, instead of using guns, (ensuring people could not escape and many people were killed), would people call for restriction of gasoline?

[Steve R Jones]

SERIOUSLY

[no1_vern]

Well, I had thought it was a decent/reasonable question.

[Theophylact]

Well, you were wrong.

[pickel]

IF the shooter had decided to prep the doors with ~5(or 10, etc) gallons of gasoline, instead of using guns, (ensuring people could not escape and many people were killed), would people call for restriction of gasoline?

Just in movie theaters......

You'd have to check you gas can at the door.......

[tony_j15]

lolwut.

[GroundZero3]

IF the shooter had decided to prep the doors with ~5(or 10, etc) gallons of gasoline, instead of using guns, (ensuring people could not escape and many people were killed), would people call for restriction of gasoline?

Uh last I check you dont have to be 18 or older to buy gas. What was the point of this thread again?

[pickel]

Uh last I check you dont have to be 18 or older to buy gas. What was the point of this thread again?

But, if you're under 16, you'd have to be accompanied by a gas carrying adult to get in.....

[surreal]

I think this might be one of vern's worst threads...

[no1_vern]

The conversation went like this:

access the back door(already noted he had access), sneak plastic containers of gas in(in darkened theater no one knows), Light plastic cans at door(the plastic will melt, making a large, growing pool of fire), walk to emergency exit(if fire noted, call out that its "PART OF THE ACT FOLKS", before you get to emergency exit), light plastic gasoline cans at emergency exit - close door, walk away after "accidentally" parking a stolen car against door(if not possible to use car, put brace against door).

What do you think? Would people get upset over the sale of gasoline IF this type of scenario happened?

[Gomer]

The conversation went like this:

access the back door(already noted he had access), sneak plastic containers of gas in(in darkened theater no one knows), Light plastic cans at door(the plastic will melt, making a large, growing pool of fire), walk to emergency exit(if fire noted, call out that its "PART OF THE ACT FOLKS", before you get to emergency exit), light plastic gasoline cans at emergency exit - close door, walk away after "accidentally" parking a stolen car against door(if not possible to use car, put brace against door).

What do you think? Would people get upset over the sale of gasoline IF this type of scenario happened?

You've been swallowing too much toothpaste.

[Theophylact]

My house has natural gas heat. All I have to do to blow up a sizable part of the neighborhood is to leave the stove on without lighting it; any spark will make it blow.

So?

[ShyguyXPC]

I think the point vern is trying to make, is what if he had used some other form or method of violence instead of guns, would people be trying to put restrictions on the sale of those tools used to incite or create the violence, be it Gasoline, Knives, Chemicals for making home made explosives, etc etc?

[no1_vern]

I think the point vern is trying to make, is what if he had used some other form or method of violence instead of guns, would people be trying to put restrictions on the sale of those tools used to incite or create the violence, be it Gasoline, Knives, Chemicals for making home made explosives, etc etc?

YES! Someone has figured it out.

I know that my language skills aren't that good, but, I thought I had worded the question well enough to be understood.

[tony_j15]

Read this.
Specifically #3.

[ShyguyXPC]

YES! Someone has figured it out.

I know that my language skills aren't that good, but, I thought I had worded the question well enough to be understood.

I actually understood what you were saying earlier this morning when Steve first posted, but didn't bother posting anything, after seeing everyone else's posts, figured I'd try to clarify it some what.





I can see what Tony is saying via the semi questionable source...

A match has many uses completely unrelated to causing death. A match is not manufactured or intended for death. And the same goes for drugs (unless of course you're talking about the death of the walls confining us to our limited understanding of perception, man). In fact, the same goes for basically anything other than a firearm. Tools are misused to kill people, it's true. But tools are meant for something else entirely. Tools build and fix and aid and improve. Firearms do not. If used correctly, a firearm is meant to, in an instant, kill or destroy something. If a gun is used incorrectly, it would actually mean that something doesn't get shot.

...but, Apparently Cracked.com is a bit uneducated when it comes to the definition of tools... Some of the First Tools by man were nothing more than weapons to hunt and kill with.

Military considers its Weapons, tools. Yes a Weapon, like a Firearm has one main purpose, but can be used in other ways not intended (use your imagination).

Just like a Match has the ability to be used not only to light things like a stove or candle or cigarette, but can be used to light a fuse on an explosive, or light some other flammables to do harm. (in which case its both the Match and the Explosive or Flammables that are in question)

Again, I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. But the conversation can't progress if people keep using arguments that ignore what guns actually are, and what they are used for. Likening a gun to a match or recreational drugs or an icicle or [anything else that can cause death] is an attempt to lighten the weight of a firearm's actual purpose. Guns and [anything else] are not the same. They should not be discussed as though they are.

actually they are, it doesn't matter WTF the object is, or what its initial intent of use is, it matters on HOW it is being used with in Context of the situation.

Now IF, some one had used a match to light a building on fire, it CAN be and SHOULD be considered as if a Firearm Was used to do harm.



Since Cracked.com seems to think they have a solid handle on understanding the principle of the thing here, and they claim that Tools, can not be considered the same as a firearm (in case you people forgot, is a weapon)...



A Knife is a Tool, And, a Weapon.


Since it is both, and can be used to Kill, or Used for cutting a slice of an apple to snack on, or even to shave with...

Lets use that as an example instead, in vern's query.


had the Shooter been using a KNIFE in the Theater slicing and dicing and slashing people, should there be a restriction on Knife Sales?



Or here's another one, What if the Shooter got creative and made their own Paintball's (yes its possible), filled with some sort of toxic chemicals or poisons? Should there be a restriction on sales of Paintball Markers? (Paintball guns)

Paintball Markers are not intended to kill, or do excessive harm, their a form of Training and Entertainment. Its entirely possible to do harm if using Frozen Paintballs, or firing some other sort of projectile out of them, but their initial use is neither Lethal or do excessive Harm.




Or another similar related one, what if he used some sort of toxic liquid, killing or seriously injuring people with it, using a Super Soaker Squirt Gun? Should sales of Super Soakers Be Restricted?



Hopefully as you can see, it doesn't matter what the Object or Item is, what its Intent may have originally been, Used as a Simple Tool, Weapon to Kill or Harm, or for purely entertainment purposes, but in the context in which it was used.


I believe this is the point Vern was trying to make. Or at least something along those lines.

[sharder8]

They get it Shy . . . and they understand what Vern was alluding to, right from the very beginning.

They just refuse to admit it, as it would ruin their hatred of one particular tool and shift the fault/cause back onto the killer himself.

As far as some here are concerned, the human is never the fault/cause, it is always the "gun".


Harder

[Steve R Jones]

What do you think? Would people get upset over the sale of gasoline IF this type of scenario happened?

What is YOUR best guess?
How do YOU feel on the subject?

[GroundZero3]

They get it Shy . . . and they understand what Vern was alluding to, right from the very beginning.

They just refuse to admit it, as it would ruin their hatred of one particular tool and shift the fault/cause back onto the killer himself.

As far as some here are concerned, the human is never the fault/cause, it is always the "gun".


Harder

<--- gun owner and I still think it's a silly question

[pickel]

The conversation went like this:

access the back door(already noted he had access), sneak plastic containers of gas in(in darkened theater no one knows), Light plastic cans at door(the plastic will melt, making a large, growing pool of fire), walk to emergency exit(if fire noted, call out that its "PART OF THE ACT FOLKS", before you get to emergency exit), light plastic gasoline cans at emergency exit - close door, walk away after "accidentally" parking a stolen car against door(if not possible to use car, put brace against door).

What do you think? Would people get upset over the sale of gasoline IF this type of scenario happened?

IMO, No Offense, Vern, but this scenario is really getting deep. There are MULTIPLE exits to most movie houses ,many, where there is a walkway that it would be impossible to park a car to block the door.
You'd have to one hell of a fire to melt the "Plastic" gas can, maybe using Phosphorus to ignite the can to get a sustained burn ????
Too many holes in your story.