• 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
      9
      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
        ·
        11 months 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
            11 months 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
              ·
              11 months 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?

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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
          ·
          11 months 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
            ·
            11 months 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
              ·
              11 months 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?