4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack 87 deaths from a truck ramming attack. The existing l

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack 87 deaths from a truck ramming attack. The existing licensing system was obviously insufficient to prevent this attack. What do you suggest be done to prevent attacks like this in the future?

Frondo 7y ago
Bringing up one truck-based mass murder from 3 years ago in reply to a comment about US gun violence seems like whataboutism. If that's not your intent, can you clarify what your intent is? I'm probably not the only one who read it that way.
- sbierwagen 7y ago
  What causes mass shootings? If it's motivated purely by the desire to shoot people with cool badass assault rifles, then banning things that look like assault rifles would solve it. If it's just the desire to shoot people, then you would have to ban all firearms. However, if it's caused by the desire to kill, with no regard for the mechanism, then banning guns would have no or little effect: they would move to the next-easiest node in the attack tree.[1] If you ban all trucks, then attackers would try to burn down high rises, or poison water mains, or release sarin gas in subway stations, etc etc. The observation that these other attacks are exotic and weird is only weak evidence for to the question if mass shootings are for the shooting, or the killing. --- 1: https://www.schneier.com/academic/archives/1999/12/attack_trees.html https://www.schneier.com/academic/archives/1999/12/attack_tr...
yifanl 7y ago
I'm not sure how this is at all a relevant response?
- Spivak 7y ago
  Because if your goal is to prevent mass killings then you have to take into account that a vehicle is a viable substitute for a gun. I'm in favor of gun control but I don't think it's clear whether it would actually make it meaningfully harder for people who want to kill lots of people indiscriminately-ish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of_terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of...
  - yifanl 7y ago
    The question (as I read it) is "does human life have more value than the freedoms afforded to us by constitutional decree?" I'm personally struggling to find an answer either way, but I'd at least disagree that we can't weigh the text of a constitution against modern research. That said, there's certainly another conversation over whether we should consider how valuable human life is compared to the conveniences modern tools like firearms and private vehicles give us. Or I guess we've already collectively decided that the answer is no.
    - filoleg 7y ago
      >The question (as I read it) is "does human life have more value than the freedoms afforded to us by constitutional decree?" I disagree with this formulation of the question. It isn't either or. For a lot of people, that "freedom afforded to us by constitutional degree" is what allows to protect the value of their own human life in the case of an immediate danger, as well as that of people close to them.
yongjik 7y ago
Now imagine what will happen if access to trucks is a constitutional freedom and anybody can buy and operate one in any way they are pleased with...
TheArcane 7y ago
This argument reeks of a cocktail of logical fallacies.

Frondo 7y ago

Bringing up one truck-based mass murder from 3 years ago in reply to a comment about US gun violence seems like whataboutism. If that's not your intent, can you clarify what your intent is? I'm probably not the only one who read it that way.

sbierwagen 7y ago
What causes mass shootings? If it's motivated purely by the desire to shoot people with cool badass assault rifles, then banning things that look like assault rifles would solve it. If it's just the desire to shoot people, then you would have to ban all firearms. However, if it's caused by the desire to kill, with no regard for the mechanism, then banning guns would have no or little effect: they would move to the next-easiest node in the attack tree.[1] If you ban all trucks, then attackers would try to burn down high rises, or poison water mains, or release sarin gas in subway stations, etc etc. The observation that these other attacks are exotic and weird is only weak evidence for to the question if mass shootings are for the shooting, or the killing. --- 1: https://www.schneier.com/academic/archives/1999/12/attack_trees.html https://www.schneier.com/academic/archives/1999/12/attack_tr...

yifanl 7y ago

I'm not sure how this is at all a relevant response?

Spivak 7y ago
Because if your goal is to prevent mass killings then you have to take into account that a vehicle is a viable substitute for a gun. I'm in favor of gun control but I don't think it's clear whether it would actually make it meaningfully harder for people who want to kill lots of people indiscriminately-ish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of_terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of...
- yifanl 7y ago
  The question (as I read it) is "does human life have more value than the freedoms afforded to us by constitutional decree?" I'm personally struggling to find an answer either way, but I'd at least disagree that we can't weigh the text of a constitution against modern research. That said, there's certainly another conversation over whether we should consider how valuable human life is compared to the conveniences modern tools like firearms and private vehicles give us. Or I guess we've already collectively decided that the answer is no.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    >The question (as I read it) is "does human life have more value than the freedoms afforded to us by constitutional decree?" I disagree with this formulation of the question. It isn't either or. For a lot of people, that "freedom afforded to us by constitutional degree" is what allows to protect the value of their own human life in the case of an immediate danger, as well as that of people close to them.

yongjik 7y ago

Now imagine what will happen if access to trucks is a constitutional freedom and anybody can buy and operate one in any way they are pleased with...

TheArcane 7y ago

This argument reeks of a cocktail of logical fallacies.