Using Trucks to Thwart Gun Control

courtesy Bruce McKinnon and twitter.com

“The argument that if you take away guns, people will just vehicles is like saying if you take away bombs, people will just use guns. Nobody would agree that we should have no controls on explosives.” – A.J. Somerset in How The Gun Lobby Uses Van and Knife Attacks To Shut Down Gun Control [via vice.com]

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

    but it’s true. Lets not forget the guy in Nice killed more people than any mass shooter in US History.

    1. avatar ColdNorth says:

      It even applies in the US. A murderer using gasoline and matches killed 87 people in the Happy Land fire- more than any mass shooting:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        Funny that you mention this. I was just mentioning it a couple of days ago.

        Once, I tried to use it in a letter to the Patriot Ledger (in MA). The editor with whom I spoke wouldn’t print it because the “fire was arson”.

        Um, if people are know to be inside, it ain’t just arson. Idiot.

        1. avatar Armed Partisan says:

          He clearly was an idiot, because the literal word for a deliberately set fire as a method of mass murder is “HOLOCAUST”. Before it became shorthand for one of the numerous acts of democide (a much better word) committed by Socialists in the 20th century, that is what literate people meant when they said it. People have been locking other people in structures and setting them on fire as a means of execution and murder for millenia.

  2. avatar Blake G says:

    A.J. makes and ignores his own point: people intent on killing others will find a way. Guns, bombs, knives, rocks, fists…Until you “ban” fallen human nature, murderers gonna murder. It’s sadistic to deprive others the chance to defend themselves no matter the guise in which such high-minded idiocy is couched.

    1. avatar Todd says:

      Looks like we all hit the same conclusion at the same time. Too funny

      1. avatar Blake G says:

        +1 🙂

  3. avatar Todd says:

    He just invalidated his own argument. People use explosives all the time in mass attacks, they are heavily regulated. How did the regulation stop that attack? Do people even use their brain anymore?

    1. avatar F. I. Ownleehaddah says:

      Nope. They use cars, trucks, airplanes, boats, knives, swords, hammers, hatchets, axes, AND guns. Brains? Not so much.

  4. avatar El Bearsidente says:

    Well, it’s VICE, so don’t expect anything honest or intelligent.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      That tends to happen when companies like Vice get bought out by a corporation.

  5. avatar Rokurota says:

    I do agree that this line of reasoning falls into the Nirvana fallacy. Why have any laws, since people will break them? It’s also pointless to argue that we should ban trucks, knives, or acid like we do guns because they’ll counter with the equally fallacious “but those things have non-lethal uses.” The only argument that matters is the Second Amendment.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      If the Second Amendment is the only argument that matters, then the entire debate is but one more liberal Supreme Court justice away from being permanently won in disarmament’s favor. Had a Kasich or Jeb or similar Establishment RINO won the GOP nomination in 2016, conservatives would have stayed away in droves. He would have swiftly lost and President Hillary would have installed an anti-Gorsuch, in effect repealing the 2A by now.

      No, the only argument that counts is that people have the right to keep and bear arms. That right transcends and trumps court rulings, constitutional amendments, legislation, and public opinion. The 2A is a nice tool in the toolbox, but it is not the totality of the issue in itself.

      1. avatar Rokurota says:

        You are correct, and the Founding Fathers agreed with you. Hence the Second Amendment, which I offer as the most unassailable totem of the natural RKBA as free Americans. If the FFs had not codified it in the 2A, the shifting winds of political fashion would have swept this right from our minds generations ago.

        1. avatar Armed Partisan says:

          Let’s not forget that the RTKBA would also be protected by 7 of the remaining 9 Amendments as well, even if the 2A was utterly abolished, which Justice Stevens would understand if he wasn’t a senile, inompetent, partisan fraud.

    2. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      Laws aren’t crime deterrents unless they’re heavily enforced and even then they only work against people who have something to lose.

      Theft, assault, kidnapping, rape, murder, slavery, etc. are crimes in of themselves. These actions harm victims. Gun control laws prohibit actions that harm no one.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Spot on, and well expressed. I’ll have to remember that.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      Why have any laws, since people will break them?

      The laws are useful for removing those who commit crimes from society so they cannot commit further crimes. Laws are not a very good deterrent to crime. Even the death penalty isn’t a great deterrent. The best deterrent to crime is a well armed population, capable of immediate intervention.

      1. avatar Bob Watson says:

        The death penalty may not be a great deterrent to crime, but it sure cuts down the repeat offender rate.

      2. avatar Alex in Oregon says:

        There are actually studies that have been done that show the death penalty does in fact deter murder. It’s late and I’ve not the time to google the studies but a local district attorney (Democrat) is a big proponent of the death penalty.

        1. avatar Toni says:

          yep and even where it does not deter it most certainly prevents repeat offenders

  6. avatar Alex Waits says:

    I can’t believe they are getting money to type that drivel

    1. avatar Charles Scott says:

      There’s always good money to be made in telling people what they want to hear.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Or in this case trying to reprogram people to believe what someone with wealth and power wants them to believe.

  7. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    And if we just issue flowers for everyone to wear in their hair, Woodstock will return and the peace of Shangri-La will descend upon earth and we will have Utopia.

  8. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    From same reported story…the Brady Campaign states..

    AR-15 is modelled after a military grade M16 assault weapon. It’s designed to be able to shot at a long distance, with high-capacity magazine attachments that can spray many, many bullets in rapid fire, at a velocity that’s three times that of a regular pistol and can shoot the front and back through a helmet,” said Brown.

    So much that needs to be refuted at a national media level.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      well they got it at least part right….. 3 times the velocity of most pistols is correct however that is true of most modern rifle cartridges, but they are comparing apples to oranges in that statement. fire the .223 or 5.56×45 out of a pistol and you wont get the same velocity out of it that you will out of a rifle though it will still be faster than many pistols due to cartridge design. it is a bottle neck design which means more propellant behind a smaller projectile while most pistol cartridges are of a straight wall design. all this just shows that these people (even the ones with PHD’s) are too stupid to understand the barest basics of the science of ballistics

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        That part abour smaller projectile – coincidently about 3x lighter than regular .40 SW pistol bullet – didn’t fit the narrative.

  9. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Given the choice (yeah- right!), I would gladly attempt to defend myself in a theater or shopping mall against a shooter- even if I was not carrying my EDC- than be run over on a sidewalk or blown to bits by a bomb in some Ryder truck sitting innocuously along side the same theater or shopping mall. Call me crazy, but unless I was one of the very first shooting victims, I feel I’m in good enough physical shape and of sound enough mind to either run like hell and get out of the zone or be able to put up a decent defense with whatever is at hand if absolutely cornered. I believe the foremost asset in shooter situations, aside from your EDC is the mindset and reality that you absolutely must kill the bad person regardless of feelings or issues that might make one hesitate. You have none of those options with bombs, sometimes ditto with a vehicle coming down an alley or narrow sidewalk.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Spot on!

    2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Too many (most?) people are like those in the Pulse Nightclub shooting, not fighting back, not attacking. They ran into dead end rooms and then waited to get shot. People lay on the floor waiting to get shot.

      Schools brain wash people in absolute “non violence” to the point they don’t even think about self defense. True snowflakes.

      Then there are the thugs and gangs in the cities that live in violence. They will be the ones that make things interesting when SHTF.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        My elementary school (public) teachers in the early ’70s instructed us to never resist and that fighting back would always make it worse. Fighting back was also “taking the law into your own hands” (as if that was a bad thing). I imagine this sort of teaching has only gotten worse.

        1. avatar Toni says:

          yeah we got the same sort of shit however while i was never one of the bullies i did on occasion stand up to them and made them regret their actions. i was also a thorn in my parents and teachers sides as i never simply believed what any of them said but questioned F’ing everything. my parents though country conservative were also very anti violence even in self defence. they took jesus words about turn the other cheek to the extreme same as many churches. yes there is a time for that but there is also a time to take up the sword as well

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          My brother and I, in the ’60s, each individually and, once, both together, bloodied the noses of some bullies and were duly called on the carpet because “we don’t allow fighting in this school”. In the ’80s, my son was stalked, threatened, then finally trapped and attacked by a pair of thugs who instantly regretted it as he broke the first one’s nose and knocked him unconscious with a single punch. The second had had enough fun at that point and withdrew to complain to school administrators, leaving his bud bleeding on the floor. My son was instantly in big trouble, since the fight was unfair (he was competent, they were not-thank you karate), despite the fact that his prior appeals to the same administration for help against these same two aspiring criminals had gone *completely* ignored, except for his being informed that “we don’t allow fighting in this school”. And it sounds like nothing has changed in the decades since.

        3. avatar Toni says:

          yep school anti violence policies only play in favor of the bullies. some teachers are just as bad as the bullies…… maybe that is why there are so many budding criminals in schools….. along with budding communist thugs like Emma Gonzalez. those ones tend to get the less intelligent to do their dirty work for them though so are harder to catch

        4. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Funny- I was a senior in a large, mixed race HS in 1969. The school district and admin personnel were very good about keeping things in order on school grounds- it was rare to have a fight of any type occur there. At 3:40, however, across the street to the north just about every day there would be some scores settled and a fair number of the 2500 kids knew about it ahead of time and lent support. It was rare, however, to have someone jump in and “help out” and I never remember any weapons of any sort being employed.

          Seems strange today, after I spent 40 years in similar type buildings as a teacher. By the end of my teaching career violence was occurring almost daily inside regular classrooms and hallways, usually after one of the gangstas had done a group text to clue everyone in on the event a couple minutes ahead of time. We had a fulltime cop in the building but it mae little difference since no one ever seemed to be expelled despite the wanton and premeditated assaults. The cavalry arrived nearly every day and the local police must’ve hated our guts- the district would keep these punks in school, even defend them after assaulting teachers and staff; the cops would come drag them out in cuffs, next day they were back like nothing had happened with an even larger chip on the shoulder, so to speak.

          I’ve always hated bullies- I was not a big kid. As a teacher I’d often level with parents of a smart kid being bullied and not supported by the school by telling them they needed to get the kid out and move him/her to another building or district where they could actually receive their education. I also told those who had some chance of defending themselves to do so, remembering the words and advice of our senior year band instructor: “I only believe in violence when it’s necessary, and it’s often necessary.” He a was great role model.

    3. avatar Onyx's Valet says:

      There are times in life where you just have to shout “Hoka Hey” and charge. I am old with lots of nerve damage and other problems. I may not be able to get to the bad guy, but I may be able to create an opening so that someone else can.

    4. avatar Martin B says:

      And you have just exposed two of the most common devices in TV programs and movies – people fleeing a chasing car by trying to outrun it (duh!), and people rescuing a hostage by bopping the villain on the noggin and expecting to get away without the said villain waking up and a further struggle ensuing. Situational awareness, folks. If you want to stop a villain, Mozambique his ass. Do it right. And if some vehicle is chasing you, go some other way, his car is faster than you. Jump off the bridge if you have to.

  10. avatar tdiinva says:

    Someone has acquainted Mr. Somerset with the fact that since terrorists have started using vehicles to kill people more people have been killed in vehicle attacks than mass shootings. He is in a defensive crouch. We should consider that a win and continue to pound that point.

    I think we may be on the verge of nonpolitical types switching from guns to vehicles because it is much easier to run people down than shoot them.

  11. avatar MarkPA says:

    This is a very interesting straw-man; one which I think we might exploit. Bear in mind that we do NOT have “No” regulation. There are laws Prohibiting-Persons; laws imposing minimum ages for possession and buying long guns and handguns. Laws governing dealers, distributors and manufacturers. The debate is over what regulation reach the point of prohibited “infringement” vs. regulation that must be conceded as Constitutional (e.g., Prohibiting expatriates who have renounced their citizenship.)

    I remember, in my mis-spent childhood, selling dynamite in my father’s hardware store. It wasn’t a remarkable event. Dad stocked and sold dynamite until about 1970. Then, the .gov imposed enough requirements that it wasn’t worth carrying that product for a volume of a dozen sticks/yr.

    From the ATF web-site it looks like a qualified applicant could get a user-limited permit for $75 in about 90 days. (Admittedly, I haven’t gone through the process myself, nor do I know anyone who has.) So, it appears that a farmer or rancher who needs to remove a bunch of stumps or build a road to the upper pasture could – realistically – get an explosives license. Maybe an applicant would need a plausible pretext (e.g., ownership of land and a plausible project).

    This makes sense to me. Congress would have been unlikely to go from essentially no regulation on retail sales to a regulatory regime that would preclude common agriculture or construction use by ordinary qualified applicants.

    Admittedly, liberty to pursue happiness comes with some greater/lesser degree of risk to public security. This was no surprise to the founding generation. The Declaration and Constitution resolved the answer to the dilemma. Congress had some Power to regulate; the States had more Power to regulate. But the Power to regulate did not extend so far as to preclude any citizen from the pursuit of happiness out of a fallacious appeal to “public safety”.

    So, e.g., larger stocks of black powder were kept in the communal magazine until needed for use; but this was purely for fire safety. Withdrawals could be made by owners without any regulation.

    Explosives are not explicitly protected by the Constitution. A plausible argument can be made that explosives are a form of “arm”; but, this argument isn’t as clear-cut as the argument that a gun, sword or stun-gun is an “arm”. If explosives are – in fact – accessible to ANY qualified (peaceable) adult American then how can we reason that guns could be rationed? I.e., rationed to only men-of-means and those of their employees charged with guarding their persons and property.

    By analogy, aircraft are also dangerous. Aircraft have been used as IEDs and could be used to drop bombs. And yet, a pilot’s license is available to anyone who can pass the objective written and performance examinations. We do not ration pilots’ licenses to only men-of-means and those of their employees charged with transporting their persons and property.

    And so with trucks, vans and cars; machetes, tire-irons, archery equipment, etc.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Only restrictions on the government, in terms of its constitutional authorities, are explicit and enumerated. The rights of the people, meaning individuals, are too numerous to list in their entirety and naturally default to a maximum of freedom. It’s right there in the 10th amendment.

      Some Framers didn’t even want to include a bill of rights, as to them it seemed redundant and unnecessary. If anything, subsequent generations might incorrectly conclude that the rights of the people and the states are narrowly defined and confined only to those expressly listed in the Constitution.

  12. avatar ColdNorth says:

    AJ Somerset is Canada’s resident fudd. When anti gunners up here need a voice to justify their stupid new rules, they turn to him. He is Fuddimus Prime.

    Right now in Canada we’re seeing a blitz of these anti-gun articles, trying to convince the Liberal Members of Parliament that it’s perfectly safe to vote for bill C-71. That bill is yet another attempt to screw over licensed gun owners. Meanwhile, another new bill (C-75) reduces the punishments on actual criminals. The most law-abiding and peaceable segment of Canadian society is licensed gun owners. Really says it all.

    As a reminder to the American readers here- don’t let this happen to you!

    1. avatar Toni says:

      yep similar here in australia. criminals get off with a slap on the wrist while a licensed gun owner who is in the middle of cleaning their firearm if they leave it unattended in the gun room can get 20 years for not having it stored properly.

  13. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

    Guns are only a threat to anyone in front of the muzzle. They’re directional weapons that can be pointed in a safe direction, like the ground. Explosives are a threat to everyone in their shrapnel radius, which can extend hundreds or thousands of yards. Explosives are not banned in the US. Most of the laws surrounding explosives mandate that they be stored in such a way that they aren’t a threat to others.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    Dumbest shite I’ve heard today…SO FAR😧😩😖

  15. avatar strych9 says:

    This argument is stupid for the following major (and numerous other more minor) reason:

    I note that terrorists broadly fall into two groups. There’s the untrained morons who get radicalized on the internet or locally or whatever and then there are trained fighters who operate in cells with organization and financial backing.

    Group two doesn’t care about gun control because they have the resources and the smarts to smuggle or build what they want. They can make explosives if they want or they can smuggle in firearms. It depends on their plans but these guys have patience, intelligence and money on their side. They pull attacks like the Baticlan; organized, methodical and deadly. Gun control doesn’t affect them because they can get whatever they want. If they really want RPK MGs, RPGs and TM-46 mines they can and will acquire them anywhere on the planet. They will take their time, get their gear, plan their attack and execute it against large scale targets unless they are taken down by intelligence/counter-terror operations.

    The first group, generally operating alone, are completely different. They are not trained, disciplined, financed, or directed. They have little to no training or, really, idea WTF they’re doing. They’re opportunistic and impatient. They’re radicalized today and they want to get some shit done by the weekend. As such they will take whatever weapons come to hand easily. If it’s a bomb then so be it but a gun works as does a truck or a car. The question with these guys isn’t “What is the most effective tool?” but rather “What can I get my hands on in the next couple of days with the least effort/suspicion and what I have access to today?”. If that happens to by a Ryder truck then that’s what they’re going to pick. Again, they’re opportunistic and impatient. They’ll take whatever comes to hand with the most speed and ease from their current point of view. Whatever they think is easiest and attracts the least attention is what they’ll use. So if they believe that there’s some sort of “heat” on buying a rifle or they get denied by a gun store because they’re sketchy as fuck they’ll take their credit card down to the U-Haul place and rent a truck that same day. They’re unlikely to try multiple gun stores because they want to get shit done now and as I said, really are not the brightest bulbs. Their actions are far more colored by their own perception of reality than are those of the people in group 1. They’re also more likely to take cheap options because, unlike group 1, they have no financial backing for their “operation”.

    Just my observations on these fucktards.

  16. avatar W says:

    “The argument that if you take away guns, people will just vehicles is like saying if you take away bombs, people will just use guns. Nobody would agree that we should have no controls on explosives.”

    And yet who implies that we have “no” controls on guns? Stoned and/or disingenuous Vice journalists?

  17. avatar Mark N. says:

    “The argument that if you take away guns, people will just vehicles is like saying if you take away bombs, people will just use guns. Nobody would agree that we should have no controls on explosives.”

    The argument is a false equivalence. Our argument is if you take away controlled items (like guns or bombs), then terrorists and crazies will use vehicles, i.e., any tool available to do the job. And the point is that we do NOT control vehicles, knives, hammers, crowbars…Just because you take away bombs does NOT mean that terrorists will NOT use vehicles. ‘Cause in fact they do. Any argument that eliminating guns will reduce violence necessarily ignores human nature. True, there would be no “gun violence” in this “utopia”, but the Romans and Greeks didn’t have guns, but it didn’t keep them from eliminating their enemies to the last man, woman and child. Duh.

  18. avatar Joe R. says:

    They should use van and car attacks to shut down gun control.

    And then they should back over the MFrs a few times.

    /sarc, and FU if you ‘needed’ the sarc

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Did you accidentally misspell “evil POS (D) MFrs”?

  19. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    ‘meh…. just another variation of “Criminals don’t follow laws so why have them?”

    Only idiots and fools try to make this argument and Vice is full of both.

  20. avatar CZJay says:

    Meanwhile in Communist China…

    If they are going to use knives because there is gun and bomb control, there has to be knife control. If they start using screwdrivers, there needs to be screwdriver control. If they start using hammers… Obviously, we are going to have to register every martial artists and give them licenses to train because they could use their bodies too effectively to kill than the average person; we can’t have unregulated human assault weapons running around…

    Or we could make murder illegal and have an armed society instead of a million laws that only punish people after they commit murder. People are proactive when it comes to catching an early expiration date via cancer. Since you can’t ban cars, hammers, martial arts, knives, etc, you can’t ban the best treatment for preventing an early expiration date via violence. It’s better to prevent societal cancer than to attempt to treat it after it spreads enough that it becomes obvious your system is failing.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email