Mistakes involving firearms wouldn't happen if the firearms weren't there to begin with. So that's the goal. Pragmatically, the discussion should be about how best to achieve this goal. Everything else is just noise.

Mistakes involving firearms wouldn't happen if the firearms weren't there to begin with. — Sapientia

Indeed. That's why it's time to ban assault trucks.

Indeed. That's why it's time to ban assault trucks. — Thorongil

There's no such thing as assault trucks.

Yes there is.

Indeed. That's why it's time to ban assault trucks. — Thorongil

I'm going to steal an answer from Quora:

"Since trucks are hugely useful and valuable parts of our everyday life, and aren’t typically bought or designed to kill people, that would seem to be an overreaction, with costs much higher than the benefits.

"To that extent, they are very different from guns (which is the facile and childish analogy that is being attempted to be drawn, and which fails).

"I would, however, be supportive of prohibiting civilians from driving motorised weapons (or 'assault trucks') like this on public roads:



"Since there is no social merit to permitting anyone to drive an armed Abrams tank down a street in Nice, and they are designed explicitly as weapons, there is good reason to ban them. That analogy with guns is a good one."

aren’t typically bought or designed to kill people — Michael

Neither are guns.

I don't know which claim is more ludicrous: that there's such a thing as assault trucks or that guns aren't typically designed to kill people. If there's such a thing as assault trucks, then there's such a thing as semiautomatic platypuses and double-barrelled frocks. And if guns aren't typically designed to kill people, then trucks aren't typically designed to transport cargo.

Neither are guns. — Thorongil

Right, guns are designed to shoot bullets that's all. They have no knowledge nor control of what people do with those bullets.

Out of the millions of guns in the USA, how many have actually been used for killing people? I really doubt that it is even 1%.

And no one even needs a truck to assault and kill people, any old car will do. Just look in the newspapers, it is happening more and more.

You're right. His sentence applies to any vehicle. In fact, it applies to anything at all: "Mistakes involving X wouldn't happen if the Xs weren't there to begin with." This is just vacuous huff.

Sure, guns are designed to shoot bullets, swords are designed to cut, bombs are designed to explode. Let's just ignore the elephant in the room. :roll:

They're weapons. Why don't you look that one up in your dictionary?

No, Thorongil, you're just taking it out of context and misapplying it. See Michael's reply.

I still don't understand why people fail to notice that without a person holding it, a gun is as dangerous as a paperweight. Get rid of the people if you don't want them killing each other with guns, or paperweights for that matter.

Pure genius. Instead of banning guns, let's ban people. Just imagine: a world where guns can live in peace.

I have a dream...

Yeah. Ban people. :up: People are evil.

Yeah. Ban people. :up: People are evil. — Lone Wolf

Well at least we could start by banning evil people.

And then the guns could live in peace. :victory:

Sensible and practical solutions to the problem are welcome. Talk of banning people or "assault trucks" doesn't qualify, and is the noise I referred to earlier.

I have a dream,
that one day all people will be treated equally
that no one will be a racist, sexist, or even suffer from superiority complexes
that politicians will stop lying
that commercials will tell the truth
that people will stop using products that hurt the earth
that people will learn to read books again
etc, etc.

We all have dreams.
And nightmares.

All people are evil. :yikes:

Everyone in the USA that wants guns banned should start calling their political representatives right now. And don't stop until you get the answers you want.

All people are evil. :yikes: — Lone Wolf

That is what you said, not me. :smile:

I just want the evil ones banning.

I seriously think it would be easier to pick up a couple of thousand people than several million guns, And there would probably be fewer complaints about it as well.

It was meant in humor, nonetheless...
It is quite difficult to pick which people will go crazy, as many can portray a decency to the public. But I do agree that if authorities would be enabled to disable those with a record of criminal activities, then future crime would be reduced.

They're weapons. — Sapientia

A truck can be a weapon, too.

So...? Ban trucks? Ban everything? Ban nothing?

Now you're starting to see the absurdity of your original statement. :up:

No, I'm continuing to see the absurdity of your recent contributions. It's not all or nothing, and one doesn't have to commit to trucks being banned alongside assault rifles or firearms in general.

It was meant in humor, nonetheless... — Lone Wolf

It usually is when followed by a funny little face, that's a dead give away. :wink:

But I do agree that if authorities would be enabled to disable those with a record of criminal activities, then future crime would be reduced. — Lone Wolf

More research needs to be done to try and find out why people feel the need to kill each other, the findings would probably apply to more than just guns and be more beneficial in the long run.

It's not all or nothing, and one doesn't have to commit to trucks being banned alongside assault rifles or firearms in general. — Sapientia

Nor does one not have to not commit to this either. :confused:

More research needs to be done to try and find out why people feel the need to kill each other, the findings would probably apply to more than just guns and be more beneficial in the long run. — Sir2u

More practical than banning people, but still incredibly impractical considering human nature, the history of humanity, recent widely reported events, the frequency of such events, and the likelihood that such events will continue to take place until effective action is taken.

More practical than banning people, but still incredibly impractical considering human nature, the history of humanity, recent widely reported events, the frequency of such events, and the likelihood that such events will continue to take place until effective action is taken. — Sapientia

Banning guns is effective action? How so?

Nor does one not have to not commit to this either. :confused: — Thorongil

:brow: