• helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    10 million were tortured and shoved into ovens and gas chambers in Germany. That blood is on the hands of gun control supporters.

    86 people were murdered and 434 injured with a rental truck in Nice, France. More than any other mass shooting in history. The tools are not the problem. Indiscriminate murder is incredibly easy and will remain so regardless of what laws you pass. The only thing you take away is the ability for individuals to defend themselves.

    Guns have been an American pastime for as long as America has been around and yet only in the last ~30 years did we begin to see a rise in crimes of this type.

    This guy was former military and it sounds like he was hallucinating. Better mental healthcare could have prevented this tragedy. Along with I’m sure a myriad of other, more difficult solutions.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A truck is not designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. Most firearms are. This type of firearm certainly is.

      You can’t sit in a hotel room in Las Vegas, hundreds of yards from a crowd, and kill 60 people and wound more than 400 with a truck or a knife. Very different tools.

      And I really don’t care about your gun “pastime” or “rights.” I care about getting my kids safely home from school and how having 5-year-olds do active shooter drills. Insanity.

      • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t sit in a hotel room in Las Vegas, hundreds of yards from a crowd, and kill 60 people and wound more than 400 with a truck

        Car bomb detonated by remote control, IRA style

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A truck is not designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. Most firearms are. This type of firearm certainly is.

        And yet it does the job all the same. That’s the whole point.

        And I really don’t care about your gun “pastime” or “rights.”

        I’m sure it was intentional but you missed the point.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you even read my comment? Try throwing that truck from a hotel room in Vegas and see how many people it kills. It does not do the same job and it’s not designed to do the same job.

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t agree with Helen, but their point stands. The truck did complete the intended action of executing the 84 people all the same. That being said, there are more stop gaps for a reckless driver (bollards are everywhere in the US). Stopping someone with a loaded trigger is a lot harder. I think the France situation was exceptional and not a standard road rage incident/attack. What would need to happen to have a fair assessment is compare the per capita fatality from road rage incidents to armed attacks.

            • boomzilla@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It happened in Berlin at the Breitscheidplatz in 2016 on a christmas fair too where 12 people were murdered by an islamist with a truck. Since these events I feel I’ve seen a lot more concrete roadblocks capable to stop trucks here in populated areas in european cities.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            LOL your comment is completely ridiculous. You obviously don’t need to throw it from a hotel room, you can simply drive it down a road full of people.

            I have literally no idea what your point is.

    • TheFonz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      A couple points.

      One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory. Don’t bring up Vietnam. Don’t bring up Afghanistan. If you think gravy seals navy is anything compared to the Viet Cong you are deluded.

      Two: using the France terrorist road vehicle attack as a counter is disingenuous use of stats/numbers. You can’t compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US. What you would do -if you really cared to compare them- is take the average per capita road rage incident or vehicle based murders and compare them to the gun related mass shootings / deaths. You can control for many factors too (time frames, region, age, etc). Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used. We have millions of people driving and only so many intentional terrorist attacks using vehicles.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory.

        It’s a tired argument I’m not interested in taking up again, but the answer is yes, they can. The military didn’t drop bombs on Waco.

        You can’t compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US.

        I didn’t. I compared it to every mass shooting in the history of the country. The moral of the story (since you missed it) is that you can ban guns and it won’t stop people from just using something else when they want to hurt large groups of random people.

        Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used.

        Which is precisely why “gun deaths” and “gun violence” is a terrible metric. Even if you could theoretically take them all away, they’d just use something else (like a rental truck). Notice a theme here?

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes. The theme is your inability to understand stats. If cars, which are more readily available than guns are able to cause more damage every shooter would go for that but reality is guns are easier. Sure, if they’re determined they will find a way, but people tend to go for the easiest path. Deterrents tend to slow the process as studies have shown. That’s why looking at stats is so useful for understanding circumstances and deterrents. That’s if you really wanted to have an unbiased honest conversation.

          Waco is not serving your argument. Firstly, the military was not involved. Second, we’re talking 4 ATF agents lost compared to 76 adults. Soooo…I don’t see the relevance. The Xbox gravy seals is not going to live up to it’s expectations. Shit, is proud boys the best example of the 2a crowd because they look like they can’t run a mile either (that’s must my opinion though, maybe the photos are deceiving).

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I believe the point they are making is that “sure guns are the easiest path until you ban guns, then something else (seemingly cars is suggested) would become the easiest path and therefore would be ‘switched to’ by those wishing to cause violence, as their violent ideation was not dealt with merely the tool was, so now the tool has changed.”

            I.e, most people hammer in nails with a hammer becuse it’s the easiest path, but if you ban hammers and I need this nail in this wood, I guess I’ll use the back of my wrench. Sure, it isn’t as good but it’ll work just fine. I wouldn’t say “oh well nothing can be built, guess I won’t build shit,” if I’m significantly determined to get that nail in I’ll do everything in my power to do so including using tools not exactly meant for the job but that’ll work.

            One could make the argument that “at least it takes me longer to build the thing,” or “you’ll be able to build less things,” but that is only true assuming I downgrade to a wrench. I could make my own hammer easily, or I could upgrade to a nail gun (in this analogy I guess that’d be a pressure cooker and some nails Boston Marathon style.)

            They do not seem to be saying “cars are more effective than guns,” imo, though it seems to be taken that way by (possibly you and) others in this thread.

            • TheFonz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The research shows that deterrents work. The more there are in place, the less likely the acts are going to be committed. That’s why gun owners have such a high success rate with suicide. It’s much easier. You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead? Reality shows that mass killings in developed countries happen predominantly in the US. Why is that?

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  True. That’s why we shouldn’t compare US suicidality to cultures that are quite different and use similar cultures for control when evaluating stats. For instance, I wouldn’t look at the success rates of building a Starbucks in Mogadishu to long island. They are too different.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, suicide is easier with guns, but Japan demonstrates quite well that they are hardly a prerequisite. Guns are banned in Japan and so, to the other commenter’s point, they find another way to achieve their goals. Guns aren’t even statistically the most effective, drinking on train tracks is (or doing fentanyl on the train tracks, hit ya with the 2x.)

                You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead?

                Sure if you don’t account for any other differences between countries like mental health or other social services, or culture, or anything. Unfortunately in reality it is rarely that black and white, there are other differences.

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Ελληνικά
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Suicide is definitely faster with guns. I wouldn’t call it easier. You can take yourself out quietly, cleanly and peacefully with stuff you can buy over the counter at any pharmacy on the planet.

                  No, before you ask, I won’t post specifics here on how to do it. If you are considering ending your life, please get help. If you are in a country that allows for medical euthanasia, please work with them rather than take your life on your own.

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The studies I refer to use local groups for control and not other nations. It is worthwhile looking up the studies.

                  Absolutely there is more nuance, I was responding to the person that brought up the Paris truck attack. All things combined, the deterrents are what seem to have the most effect.

                  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sure, but deterrents also have to be effective. Simply banning assault rifles for instance will just transfer it to the already-more-often-used handguns. Background checks are already a thing, unfortunately the Gov won’t give gun owners access to NICs for private sales (though they’ve been begging for decades, and that would help), but the people who pull these shootings are always some shit like this where they should have kept him IVC’d (which federally, legally, disqualifies him from firearms ownership and he should have had them confiscated and the IVC reported to NICs, already all laws people just didn’t do their job), or steal the guns from someone, or just are able to squeak through with a clean background. And some things like mental health checks are already a thing with the IVC but tbh I think things like “no guns for people with PTSD” sounds pretty fucked up even if that would help, people with PTSD have rights too.

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees

                Yes, because every other country is otherwise identical…

                Reality shows that mass killings in developed countries happen predominantly in the US.

                No. It doesn’t.

                However, I can think of a certain group of unarmed people right now being murdered by the hundreds/day by an invading force.

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s cute. Hamas is armed to the teeth and well organized. How’s it going for them? It’s not even the US military but the IDF. I’d really like to see Derrick put down his Xbox controller and get to it.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The theme is your inability to understand stats.

            …what stats? You mean stats of the most successful mass murders? I think that belongs to trucks and planes.

            If cars, which are more readily available than guns are able to cause more damage every shooter would go for that but reality is guns are easier.

            Guns are just what they see on TV. Lots of people use cars, bombs or whatever else. In the case of France they didn’t have guns, but it obviously didn’t stop them.

            Waco is not serving your argument. Firstly, the military was not involved.

            Uuuuhhh but that WAS my argument…

            Second, we’re talking 4 ATF agents lost compared to 76 adults

            It doesn’t matter. No one is keeping score. The point is they stood up for themselves and gave the ATF a fuckin’ helluva time. Wanna take a poll on how many armed citizens there are vs. ATF agents? Or even the entirety of the US military?

            • TheFonz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea the military was never involved. So it has nothing to do with my initial point. Buck and Chuck are not taking down the US army. I don’t know why we got sidetracked with it.

              • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re the one who brought it up?

                The point is the military won’t be dropping bombs on its own people.

                • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Ελληνικά
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The phone is ringing, it’s for you. Sounds like some miners in West Virginia from 1921 would like to talk to you.

                • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  WACO negotiations took 53 days, but MOVE was given a day to leave before two bombs were dropped in the middle of rowhouses in Philadelphia 😂 arming yourself to discourage the government works way better when the government is already favorable to your cause.

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re so confident. Why? Even after I showed you ATF agents alone can suppress an insurrection before we even bring in armed guards.

                  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You’re so confident. Why?

                    Why wouldn’t I be?

                    Even after I showed you ATF agents alone can suppress an insurrection

                    LOL you’re talking about a handful of looney cultists. I’m talking about a revolution.

                    You’re still so confident despite having 0 counter-arguments

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      gas chambers in Germany. That blood is on the hands of gun control supporters.

      The “nazi gun control supported the holocaust” argument has been debunked for a very long time. Argument debunk Nazi gun control laws

      Frtuermore, gun control supporters of today are not the same as NAZI gun control supporters - who disarmed Jews.

      This misinformation disappoints me, but the nature of your comment is overwhelmingly correct.

      The tools are not the problem. Indiscriminate murder is incredibly easy and will remain so regardless of what laws you pass.

      Horrifying words that ring true. Gun control is in my opinion moot for many reasons. This guy deserved more healthcare.

      Your arguments about vans are OK but your fascist talking points tell me you’re not worth listening to.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “nazi gun control supported the holocaust” argument has been debunked

        No, it hasn’t. Several people have provided their opinions on the matter. Certainly biased opinions. It can’t be “debunked” with anything less than a time machine and a militia the size that would make the NRA blush.

        Frtuermore, gun control supporters of today are not the same as NAZI gun control supporters - who disarmed Jews.

        Doesn’t matter if they’re the same or not. Only thing that matters is whether the people are disarmed. Regimes change.

        • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The fucking 1% of Germans who were jewish, who were forcefully disarmed were not going to avoid getting genocided by remaining armed or trying to purchase more arms.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes. They would. And they killed more than the jews, you know? About 40% we’re non-Jewish.

            • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              “… It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population.” - Alan E. Steinweis, NYT Source

              Your arguments so far are that people saying this are obviously biased. If we assume those persecuted could have gained firearms, armed themselves and formed a highly organized militia - all while facing road blocks at each and every turn - do you really think this militia could have kept a genocide from occurring?