3 ms·
Look up vehicle ramming attacks. Easy to commit, hard to prevent, very effective from the mass murderer's perspective. For example, in 2016, an attack with a tr
by karaterobot 4y ago
Look up vehicle ramming attacks. Easy to commit, hard to prevent, very effective from the mass murderer's perspective. For example, in 2016, an attack with a truck killed 86 people and wounded 458 in Nice. You can't stop people from mass murder if they have their mind set on it.
The best prevention would be figure out why they want to kill and solve the underlying issue, but that's too hard I guess. Strategies like "ban X" are an admission that we're not interested in root causes. Instead we pretend that removing the instruments or making the penalties worse will work. Predictably, all that will happen is people who want to commit mass murder will find other ways to do it.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoNot true. Such ramming attacks are actually quite rare. And even when they do occur, they usually cause far fewer accidents. It takes quite a bit of planning or even luck to pull off a significant victim count. In "practical terms" a lot can go "wrong", like people running or jumping away or obstacles stopping the vehicle. And even if not, the victims are rather random, which is often not what amok runners want. Restricting access to guns has worked remarkably well pretty much everywhere. Turns out, the easier you make it to kill people, the more people get killed. And it's not like firearms have remotely as much legitimate use for average people like cars.
- amalgamated_inc 4y agoFalse. One guy in Nice, France killed 86 and injured over 400 in a single attack. That's more deaths than every school shooting in the US since at least 2000, and 10x more injuries. France also saw 128 dead in one night in nightclub shootings, so all their gun laws didn't do jack. It is simply false that outlawing guns has reduced these deaths.