Are guns as destructive as bombs

[tiny elvis]

in relation to manpower?
Two men, two bombs, more than one hundred badly hurt.
One man, one gun, up to 70 shot.
One device requires assembly in secret, the other is bought at the grocery store.

also
ABC news 'asked' if a gun ruining 4/20 made marijuana look bad.
The Colorado scare had a basic resemblance to the Boston terrorism.
The gunfire in Colorado surely came from a stupid person.
The Boston terror had no known strategic value, so stupid.
Both unreasonable in any context.
Will ABC news ask if bombs make marathon running look bad?

[exboyfil]

1. What is out there for personal armaments is astonding

Here is a link to something that could have fit into a smaller backpack than the Boston bombers. It has a 23 round capacity of 12 Gauge shells. Assume buckshot in a crowd and you have over 200 very lethal projectiles delivered chest height in about 10 seconds. Total cost about $5K. You can make a bomb for a lot less though. You can make a much more lethal bomb than what was used in Boston in the same size package.

http://www.alliancearmament.com/acceleratordemovideo1.aspx

[tiny elvis]

2. no doubt dynamite is stonger and does not need a heavy container

but it is hard to get
any unauthorized explosive device is illegal

in relation to manpower,
was the 2-3 man team that built and deployed the OKC bomb potentially more destructive than 2-3 men
with the guns that you describe?

[exboyfil]

3. I am thinking package size

as horrible as OKC was, it was targeting primarily a building and a symbol. You can imagine scenarios where a Ryder trick can be optimized for maximum lethality in a crowd.

[tiny elvis]

4. portability does figure into manpower

the murrah building casualties are high for any kind of target

anders breivik used both bombs and a gun with different results