PeterD Wrote:When anti-gun activists tell us that we simply have to give up our Second Amendment rights to stop rampage killings...

Tex Nomex Wrote:In the video, it looks like the attacker had a pistol or at least acts as if he's threatening a police officer with something in his hand. He even shouted "Shoot me!" or "Kill me!" a number of times.

Tex Nomex Wrote:But who needs a pistol to murder people when you've got a rental van?

If police were late to the scene, he might have opened fire on others.

stanc Wrote:Erroneous statement. Their stated goal is to stop rampage killings with guns. They've never claimed that gun bans would stop murders committed with other means.

JASmith Wrote:And the heart of the propaganda is trying to make us think that guns are the source of most violence.

So, while a precise parsing might suggest the writer erred, the spirit is on the mark.

PeterD Wrote:When anti-gun activists tell us that we simply have to give up our Second Amendment rights to stop rampage killings, many of us point out that without guns, violent maniacs will simply use other weapons. Meanwhile, you will have denied countless people their right to keep and bear arms to stop something that doesn’t stop...

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/04/24/toronto-van-attack-kills-10-wounds-15-no-gun/

montana Wrote:The same argument was given during prohibition which resulted in crime and mayhem being directed into a different spectrum. Human behavior will never change no matter what tools are prohibited. Banning firearms, will only channel the means of killing into different dimensions most normal people could never imagine. If the point is to only stop mass shootings instead of mass killings, then what is the point? Being murdered by a truck, van, explosive, poison, knife, etc is some how preferable to being murdered by a firearm? This is why Peter D brought this to our attention, "to show the futility and hypocrisy" of gun control, "in my opinion".

montana Wrote:Banning firearms, will only channel the means of killing into different dimensions most normal people could never imagine. If the point is to only stop mass shootings instead of mass killings, then what is the point?

StoneHendge Wrote:+1. Murderers will find a way to murder. Restricting firearms will only leave law abiding citizens less capable of defending themselves. Even in this case, a responsible law abiding Canadian with a grenade launcher might have reduced the death toll

stanc Wrote:Unless you want mass shootings to continue?

montana Wrote:

stanc Wrote:

montana Wrote:Banning firearms, will only channel the means of killing into different dimensions most normal people could never imagine. If the point is to only stop mass shootings instead of mass killings, then what is the point?

Stopping mass shootings is a pretty damned good point. Unless you want mass shootings to continue?

You got me Stan, just like I support alcoholism by not supporting prohibition.

JASmith Wrote:The point is that the instrument used to commit mass murder is not the important issue.

JASmith Wrote:Calling them mass shootings is only a ploy to demonize firearms.

JASmith Wrote:One more time, Stan, singling out firearms with the false implication that they are solely reaponsible for the killing is a propaganda ploy.

JASmith Wrote:One seriously unfortunate side effect is that we see very little effort devoted to addressing the human factors leading to the violence.

JASmith Wrote:In other words, we need to better protect the 2nd Amendment by pushing to understand the causes and indicators of murder by ANY INSTRUMENT — not just guns.

JASmith Wrote:Anyone who professes to not know that human factors (beliefs, socioeconmoic status, mental stability,etc.) are important indicators of potential should refrain from lecturing others about the 2A.

Poorly thought out arguments lead folks to perceive a bias against firearms possession by ordinary citizens.