Guns are more dangerous than bombs

Guns are more dangerous than bombs.
The narrative has been set.

Well in this case it's the truth.

Someone send him carpet bombing aftermath photos. "Thank god"

Who cares?

The terrorist was a failure, he tried to shoot a cop and failed. No more attacks in America for a while.

>No mention of the Minnesota stabbings that also happened this weekend

Funny, I think I remember someone using a gun during that attack as well, except it didn't fit their narrative.

attackers?
plural?

*shitty diy bombs

lets see how successful he would be with a shitty diy gun

> guns more dangerous than bombs
I guess that would depend on the competence of the bomber

And naive 'liberal' idiots are more dangerous than both.

MSNBC needs to be bombed.

Jeses... this is getting so tired.

Well, yeah, I mean if it is a fucking white male...

The gun was used by a civilian (or an off-duty cop, conflicting reports) against the attacker.

Inb4 BLM starts complaining that if he was black he wouldn't have been taken alive.

Can someone with a troll account start linking him to IED attacks in the middle East? I'd say do send him attacks that happened in the West, but I doubt he'll care unless the victims are the right color.

>1995
>it's currently 2016

The stabbing guy in the mall was brought down because of an off duty cop with a gun. But we aren't gonna hear shit about that.

Where is vbrevik when u need him

>Fantastic news that he was taken alive

>We're also very very lucky that the attackers tried to use explosives rather than guns

>very very
>Fantastic news

...

I don't understand how a terrorist could do such a shitty job unless he intentionally didn't want to kill anyone.

But the worst mass killing by a single individual in US history used dynamite?

True, but these were "terror attacks"

It's true though
In Israel when terrorism was super common terrorist would use AKs to commit their acts
Fast forward to the population becoming armed and having soldiers on the streets, the terrorists saw a drop in the number of people they'd take out.
They then move on to using bombs since once you use it you can't really be killed since they allahu akhbar that shit up.
So his post is valid but I'm sure they'll conveniently leave out the part about guns stopping mass shootings if they decide to attack gun ownership like this

Let's just ignore the fact that the terrorist who went on a stabbing rampage in MN was killed by a Good Samaritan with a gun.
Literally haven't heard jack shit about that in the media. If this were France the attacker probably would have massacred the entire mall.

100% of mass shootings are committed with guns drumpftard

More like we're lucky he was too retarded to actually use the bombs effectively

>Chris Hayes

he is the spitting image of cuckery

But he did use guns.

He wounded two cops before being captured.

cool, so can i use IEDs for self defense now?

The men who were arrested were "heavily armed." Probably planning a Paris-style attack with combined shooting/bomb attacks

im glad ive surpassed the anger / outrage phase of this shit.
its just fucking funny at this point.

>Guns are more dangerous than bombs.
You're also very very lucky that the attackers tried to use explosives rather than a truck. Trucks are more dangerous than guns.

...

>Hayes
>Have the similar last name but without the "e"
IMPOSTER GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEE

"