Toronto Madmen Mows Down Innocent Civilians

[ravenmaniac4life]

In the 22 years before UK, Aussies, and Germany outlawed guns = 98 mass shooting fatalities combined.

In the last 3 years in the EU, 143 people killed by being rammed by vehicles.



I guess people are gonna want to make vehicles illegal, right? Right?

This seems to be a much bigger problem than people think. I don't recall the use of a vehicle being protected in the Bill of Rights. This should be an easy fix. Right?

Where are the protesters? Where is the "cars are bad" version of David Hogg? I know he's out there.

[CincyCat]

In the 22 years before UK, Aussies, and Germany outlawed guns = 98 mass shooting fatalities combined.

In the last 3 years in the EU, 143 people killed by being rammed by vehicles.



I guess people are gonna want to make vehicles illegal, right? Right?

This seems to be a much bigger problem than people think. I don't recall the use of a vehicle being protected in the Bill of Rights. This should be an easy fix. Right?

Where are the protesters? Where is the "cars are bad" version of David Hogg? I know he's out there.

Cars are ok, it's vans. We must ban vans. Oh, and knives. Forks are dangerous too. I heard a man assaulted his boyfriend with a Big Mouth Billy Bass yesterday. Ban those too.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...battery-184509

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[ravenmaniac4life]

Cars are ok, it's vans. We must ban vans. Oh, and knives. Forks are dangerous too. I heard a man assaulted his boyfriend with a Big Mouth Billy Bass yesterday. Ban those too.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documen...battery-184509

There were four mass killing attempts in December 2012. Only one made the US MSM newsfeed at the time because it helped the agreed upon media narrative. Guess which one?

1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

Take away guns...they use vans

Take away guns...they use knives

Take away guns...they use singing fish

The real take away is that evil people who want to kill...will kill...no matter what. Statistics, logic, and common sense prove this...but, all of that is ignored because "they" want to disarm the populous and take away our rights.

Look at the UK as the ultimate example of what NOT to become. Their citizens cannot own firearms anymore and look what's happened in the last 10 years alone. Their government is fining people for posting insensitive youtube videos. Their government is arresting people for flipping off traffic cameras. Meanwhile, their borders are over-run with refugees and reported rapings have increased 20% within a year.

The Brits have less rights than we do and look what's happened to their country. Why are people content with this happening in the US?

[wickedsolo]

In the 22 years before UK, Aussies, and Germany outlawed guns = 98 mass shooting fatalities combined.

In the last 3 years in the EU, 143 people killed by being rammed by vehicles.



I guess people are gonna want to make vehicles illegal, right? Right?

This seems to be a much bigger problem than people think. I don't recall the use of a vehicle being protected in the Bill of Rights. This should be an easy fix. Right?

Where are the protesters? Where is the "cars are bad" version of David Hogg? I know he's out there.

If anyone is going to take cars away, it would be the Canadians.

[sawraven1]

In the 22 years before UK, Aussies, and Germany outlawed guns = 98 mass shooting fatalities combined.

In the last 3 years in the EU, 143 people killed by being rammed by vehicles.



I guess people are gonna want to make vehicles illegal, right? Right?

This seems to be a much bigger problem than people think. I don't recall the use of a vehicle being protected in the Bill of Rights. This should be an easy fix. Right?

Where are the protesters? Where is the "cars are bad" version of David Hogg? I know he's out there.

Exactly,

its too much common sense for these morons to understand its a HATE or mental health problem.

[OhThePossibilities]

Why is the comparison between UK, Germany and Australia for gun deaths, but the entire EU is included for death by ramming? If the purpose is to compare gun deaths prior to gun regulation in these 3 countries to vehicle deaths by ramming, it should be to vehicular deaths in those same countries. I would guess that whoever did the count really wanted to use the 86 dead in Nice to boost the numbers.

Also, the UK didn't take away all guns. People are still allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns. Anyone who's seen Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels might remember that being a significant plot point (the movie came out 2 years post regulations).

If we look at mass shootings in the US where there were 10 or more fatalities, in the 22 years preceding the UK's gun regulations in 1996, there were 118 deaths. In the last 3 years alone there have been 179.



Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[ravenmaniac4life]

Why is the comparison between UK, Germany and Australia for gun deaths, but the entire EU is included for death by ramming? If the purpose is to compare gun deaths prior to gun regulation in these 3 countries to vehicle deaths by ramming, it should be to vehicular deaths in those same countries. I would guess that whoever did the count really wanted to use the 86 dead in Nice to boost the numbers.

Also, the UK didn't take away all guns. People are still allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns. Anyone who's seen Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels might remember that being a significant plot point (the movie came out 2 years post regulations).

If we look at mass shootings in the US where there were 10 or more fatalities, in the 22 years preceding the UK's gun regulations in 1996, there were 118 deaths. In the last 3 years alone there have been 179.

The point is that people who want to kill other people will do so whether or not they have a firearm, a knife, a van, a bomb, or anything else that can inflict maximum damage.

My comparison to the UK was made to show what could happen in the US if we implement their policies...which are more restrictive.

Since that is basic logic, it goes against the conventional wisdom of "gun grabbers" who are in favor of disarming the populous.

People who kill other people are the problem...not their weapon of choice.

Do you disagree?

[NCRAVEN]

The point is that people who want to kill other people will do so whether or not they have a firearm, a knife, a van, a bomb, or anything else that can inflict maximum damage.

My comparison to the UK was made to show what could happen in the US if we implement their policies...which are more restrictive.

Since that is basic logic, it goes against the conventional wisdom of "gun grabbers" who are in favor of disarming the populous.

People who kill other people are the problem...not their weapon of choice.

Do you disagree?

Right, lets not get caught up in the details of the comparison but look at the point of it. And the point the tool that is used is not the issue.

[OhThePossibilities]

The point is that people who want to kill other people will do so whether or not they have a firearm, a knife, a van, a bomb, or anything else that can inflict maximum damage.

My comparison to the UK was made to show what could happen in the US if we implement their policies...which are more restrictive.

Since that is basic logic, it goes against the conventional wisdom of "gun grabbers" who are in favor of disarming the populous.

People who kill other people are the problem...not their weapon of choice.

Do you disagree?

First, I'm not personally for gun control. I don't personally enjoy hunting or shooting, but I'm not opposed to others doing so.

And I do think that people who want to kill others will do so by finding a way.

However, I also think we have to honestly look at whether certain legal guns make it easier for someone who wants to kill mass amounts of people to achieve their goals.

Fudging numbers to try and bolster your point is dishonest, regardless of your larger point.

Maybe they weren't your numbers to begin and you were reporting something you saw somewhere else. I don't know. But we should all be aware of how statistics can be twisted.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[ravenmaniac4life]

First, I'm not personally for gun control. I don't personally enjoy hunting or shooting, but I'm not opposed to others doing so.

And I do think that people who want to kill others will do so by finding a way.

However, I also think we have to honestly look at whether certain legal guns make it easier for someone who wants to kill mass amounts of people to achieve their goals.

Fudging numbers to try and bolster your point is dishonest, regardless of your larger point.

Maybe they weren't your numbers to begin and you were reporting something you saw somewhere else. I don't know. But we should all be aware of how statistics can be twisted.

Explain how the numbers are fudged?

By including a terrorist attack in Nice is "fudging the numbers" in your pov? I'm confused.

Maybe your definition of "fudging numbers" and mine are different. If it happened, it's fair game to be used to prove the point that..................people who want to kill people will do so no matter what...even without a gun

If I make an argument on US mass shootings and I exclude the Vegas massacre (58 people killed), does that make the argument better or worse because the casualty count is so high? Would I be fudging the numbers?

[NCRAVEN]

Explain how the numbers are fudged?

By including a terrorist attack in Nice is "fudging the numbers" in your pov? I'm confused.

Maybe your definition of "fudging numbers" and mine are different. If it happened, it's fair game to be used to prove the point that..................people who want to kill people will do so no matter what...even without a gun

If I make an argument on US mass shootings and I exclude the Vegas massacre (58 people killed), does that make the argument better or worse because the casualty count is so high? Would I be fudging the numbers?

I think he's saying that because it wasn't a country to country comparison but a country to Union comparison it's dishonest.

I still don't see what that matters, all that was used were places (whether separate or combine) either banned or have VERY strict regulations on guns, so people used other tools.

THAT is the point to debate. It's not even debatable really.

[OhThePossibilities]

Explain how the numbers are fudged?

By including a terrorist attack in Nice is "fudging the numbers" in your pov? I'm confused.

Maybe your definition of "fudging numbers" and mine are different. If it happened, it's fair game to be used to prove the point that..................people who want to kill people will do so no matter what.

It's fudging the numbers if you're comparing deaths in one area to deaths in a larger area in order to ascribe greater numbers to the side that supports your point.

As the argument stems from "gun laws haven't prevented deaths because people are hitting people with vehicles" it would be logical to compare deaths before gun laws to deaths by car post restrictive gun laws as they occurred in the countries where gun laws have been enacted. Adding in other countries where the same gun laws have not been enacted does not logically support the argument.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk