Toronto Van Attack Kills 10, Wounds 15 With No Gun

[PeterD]

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...15-no-gun/

[Tex Nomex]

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.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/950...news-video

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.
As the 1st world insists on importing the 3rd world, it's important to keep our rights to personal protection.

[stanc]

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

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.

[stanc]

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.

Yup. A pretty obvious attempt at "suicide by cop."

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.

:confused: Opened fire with what?

[JASmith]

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.

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.

[stanc]

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.

There's no "suggestion" of error. His statement is clearly and factually incorrect.

As for its spirit, it appears to be intentionally false and misleading.

[Double Naught Spy]

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...15-no-gun/

I don't see too many such arguments being made that giving up the 2A rights will stop rampage killings, mass killings, etc., but I do see plenty where they want to stop mass shootings, gun violence, etc.

[montana]

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".

[Bigs28]

You cannot stop a person from doing a bad thing the first time. You can stop them from doing it over and over. Unfortunately our completely flawed system allows career criminals with extensive arrest records including violent crimes free to walk the streets.

[StoneHendge]

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".

+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]

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?

Some folks seem to think that stopping mass shootings would be a good thing.

[stanc]

+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

ROFL. Now, that's funny! Completely unrealistic, of course, but still hilarious.

[montana]

Unless you want mass shootings to continue?

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

[stanc]

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.

Does not your previous comment indicate that you object to a proposal intended only to stop mass shootings?

[JASmith]

Some folks would not recognize sarcasm if it hit them in the face.

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

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

[stanc]

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

It is to some people.

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

Calling them mass shootings is an accurate description of what they are. The victims at Las Vegas and Parkland were not smothered with marshmallows.

[JASmith]

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

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

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.

[stanc]

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

One more time, Joe, I don't know of anyone who has said that guns are solely responsible for the killing.

It is indisputable, however, that widespread availability of guns is what enables them to be used for the killing.

There is a reason why we don't have mass murders committed with hand grenades or Claymore mines. (Hint: They're not available to the public.)

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

I don't know what you mean by "addressing the human factors," so I can't comment.

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.

:confused: The causes of murder (greed, jealousy, anger, etc.) have been known and understood for thousands of years, as have the indicators (i.e., dead bodies).

To protect your ability to legally own guns, you need a better counter to the anti-gun argument than the "We need them to fight a tyrannical government" silliness.

Again, the issue is not murder "by any instrument" -- it is murder by firearms. Now, you can certainly attempt to change the debate, but I doubt you'll have much success.

[JASmith]

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.

[stanc]

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.

LOL. Okay, Joe. Whatever you say.