Gun Deaths Versus Intentional Deaths Caused by Vehicles. [F1 383]
The April 23, 2018 deaths and injuries in Toronto
In Toronto Canada a 25 year old male killed 10 people and injured 15 people. He used a rented van, and he was captured alive by a Toronto policeman. This would have never happened in California. The taking of the suspect alive after he brandished something that could have been anything even a gun. He shouted to the police to kill him.
At this time, the Toronto government says there is no threat to national security, but 10 people are still dead.
And that is the point of this article.
If this was a gun shooting, it would qualify as a mass shooting. And the gun control people would continue their mantra about more and more gun control. Yet, here we have a vehicle and not a gun, but that doesn't change the result people are dead and injured by the vehicle. And there will be no calls by anyone submitting a solution, and certainly not "vehicle control"/
If we look at the crime scene, does it matter what was the instrument of death used by the person? If a shooting death more important than a death cause by the intentional use of a vehicle?
In California, on the same day, a homeless person knifed to death a man in a restaurant. Even with the five year old daughter of that man sitting on his lap.
If this was a gun, they would call for gun control, but because the primary use of a vehicle and the knife is other than for killing, they ignore any solutions for reducing these kinds of deaths. The common denominator for killing by vehicle, knife or gun is the person that is doing the killing.
And why would treating guns differently be a solution. It wouldn't change these other instruments that were used to kill.
We already have regulations on vehicles, and even knives as well as existing regulations on guns. Why would more regulations stop the people that commit murder?
Does Hogg represent your opinion? Or is it really just another excuse to find something bad to hang on president Trump.
Gun Control Talking Points that make it seem like the arguments from their opposition doesn’t make any sense.
While is is not so much a talking point, but more of an opinion by those that really don’t want any interference with their quest to take away the constitutional rights of gun owners.
People that have opposed the rampant increase of gun control laws, try to point out the guns shouldn’t be treated any differently than other instruments of death. They claim that their opposition wants to ban cars and vehicles.
- They say that gun activists point out that car ownership is not illegal but cars can be weapons. They agree that is a problem but they don’t see the comparison with guns.
The gun control people twist what is really the point from gun activists.
When a gun is used to kill or injure they say that is different than when a car kills someone. The majority of deaths and injuries caused by vehicles is from accidents. There are also gun deaths and injuries from guns that are also accidents.
But accidents are not the point.
It is the intentional use of a vehicle to kill or injure that is what the gun activists are trying to show is no different than when a person shoots a gun. In both cases, the vehicle, and the gun shared a common goal.
- The results of these actions results in people being killed and or injured. Can you make an argument to the family of those victims that will make them feel better that their loved one was not killed by a gun?
The gun control people say that the reason for cars being invented was for the purpose of transportation, and not as weapons. This is a convoluted argument that tries to lead the audience astray from the premise of the real root cause of what is a weapon and what is claimed not to be a weapon.
Gun control people simply don’t want anyone to believe that the reason for the shooting and the reason for the death or injury were not from the people actually pulling the trigger that results in the kill or injury. They want you to believe their story that. People don’t kill people, guns kill people.
In the scenario just presented about the car versus the gun, how does that saying not also apply to the vehicle? The common denominator in both the vehicle and the gun death is that without a person to set the event into action, there wouldn’t be any death, or injury from either the vehicle or the gun.
Point of making the comparison between the deaths and or injuries caused by vehicles and guns.
Then the gun control morphs what is the point of this scenario. The gun activists are not saying based on that scenario that we should also ban vehicles as the gun control people ban guns. The point is that this shows that guns are not the real problem. It is the person that misuses either the vehicle or the gun to kill or injure that is the root of the problems for both.
When the gun control people say that point is flawed because vehicles are regulated both in use and ownership is a red herring a distraction just to make their point.
- Today, guns are regulated on both their use and their ownership.
- Guns cannot be used to commit a crime and killing or shooting anything in public is also a crime.
- What then is the difference? There is no difference,.
Banning guns, and confiscating guns.
When the gun control gets to the point when they want to start the multi level process of making guns themselves illegal, and they want to confiscate them. That is the difference. Yes, I know that the gun control people say that is not their goal, but their actions betray them.
We already have existing gun control at the same level as we have for vehicles. Adding more and more on gun ownership is only needed if they do want to make gun ownership illegal. That is why they also attack the basic right of gun ownership as protected in the 2nd amendment.
If they were just interested in controlling guns, then there would not be any need to attack the 2nd amendment.
Guns and Vehicles are inanimate objects
Without people animating them, they will be the same as a the dog, let sleeping dogs lie
Once again, listening to the gun control advocates, you would think that the US didn’t have any gun control. They want the country to believe that because we don’t have gun control these shooting will not only continue, but they will be increasing in the future.
- In fact, what has happened is that gun control is not an effective solution to stop people from using guns to kill or injure. No more so than vehicle regulations prevents the intentional use of the vehicle as a weapon.
- The gun control activist say In the end, the analogy suggests that gun control should be managed in a manner that is similar to the response to drunk driving.
Once again, the gun control people intentionally miss the point.
- The real point is that neither the way that drunk driving, or using a car intentionally as a weapon is much better than that of gun control regulations.
- The other point is that vehicles are not taken away from the person before they misuse it.
- While the gun control wants to prevent people from owning guns, while the vehicles are allowed.
- The exception to the post crime activity of the vehicles is that vehicles can be taken over by the government when they are part of the crime.
- Also, an alcoholic with a bad driving record can lose their license and be prevented from driving. But, it s done judicially and not administratively.
Gun Laws, Vehicle Laws and Alcohol Laws
The gun, vehicle and alcohol laws only come into to play when a crime has been committed or there is probable cause to believe that one is imminent.