Driver kills 50 and injures 50+ (hyperbole)

Disclaimer: This thread is 100% hyperbole and conjecture. I thought about putting it in the Gray area because of that but thought here would be better, if not the mods will take care of it.

So let's say there's a guy who snaps and decides he's going to drive his car through a huge line of people, let's say at a movie premiere, Black Friday shopping, or whatever. He decides laws against murder aren't going to stop him; he has a deep seated desire to cause pain and mayhem.

After a certain amount of time, people start speaking their opinions about the issue. Some say we need more time to process the event and others feel the need to do something to prevent future events. Some think it's still too early to make rash decisions and others want to use the momentum to get laws changed/bills passed. Both sides have their merits/downfalls.

The type of car used in the crime is brought up as a "vehicle of mass destruction" or an "assault vehicle". Some agree that types of cars, top speeds, and acceleration need to be regulated to prevent accidents in the future. Others believe that people should be allowed to buy whatever car they want because only a tiny percentage of cars are used in crimes. They also say top speed, acceleration, and type of car isn't a deciding factor in how deadly a car can be in the right hands.

So what do we do? Millions of cars on the roads and every single one of them is a deadly projectile in the hands of a lunatic. Every single one of them is also a paycheck in the hands of a family. Is it really justifiable to deny somebody food on the table because a tiny percentage of others may use their car to do harm to others?

The only right applicable in the Constitution is the right to free travel, nothing about driving. Without an enumerated right or the people's support, the right to own any car you like for whatever reason is up for debate. Even with a Constitutional amendment and people's support, apparently the right to own whatever gun you want for whatever reason is up for debate.

Estimates suggest there are ~300 million guns in this country. That's roughly 1 gun for every adult US citizen. That's about 300 million guns not used in crimes every single day. In terms of murders, more people are killed by hammers than rifles in the US, even including "mass shootings". The tool used to murder people shouldn't matter, but if it does to you: handguns are the real culprit, not rifles.

I don't make a lot of threads but after hearing propaganda BS on the radio the other day, I just had to put my thoughts out there. The news guy described the AR the Orlando shooter used as a "high-power artillery rifle". I heard that and was like WTF? I have no idea where he got "artillery" from but even worse is equating a .223/5.56 round as high-powered. I mean the projectile is 0.003 inches larger than a .22 bullet, just with more powder. Worse than a poke in the eye but not even legal for hunting an animal the size of a deer in many places because of it's lack of knockdown power. Minnesota only allows deer hunting with shotguns or bows and the only thing I've ever hunted with .223 is coyotes. I'm assuming the shooter's AR was 5.56 but I could very well be wrong there; AR's are infinitely customizable. No matter, being an AR does not make the gun deadlier or more accurate. Guns DO NOT shoot themselves unless there is a mechanical failure in the mechanism itself.

If somebody is passionate about a subject, I expect them to be at least a little knowledgeable. If someone is just reporting on a topic, I expect them to at least know the basics. Spewing regurgitated talking points helps nobody and making # up just confuses the topic. I guess if anything is to be taken from this OP it's: Don't talk about things you have no interest/information about. Everybody else will be better off.

Hope you put on your asbestos undies...

I happen to agree with everything you posted, just wanted to tag this for later reading.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Thanks for the support. I expect to get lots of hate for this OP, some justified, some not. It is what it is.

so in other words, youre pro guns and you think its absurd to simply ban them...

why sugar coat it.

this hypothetical country wouldnt happen to have been built on guns, and hard labor, and slavery? would it

so in essence guns are part of this society or ingrained in this strange place where cars[guns] kill tens of people.

there are hypothetical places where banning of 'cars' work, there are others where it wouldnt work. i think we both live in that hypothetical country where it wouldnt work.


#mic...

Mateen had,

A Sig Sauer MCX [.223] caliber assault rifle bought at a firearms shop near his Florida home, St. Lucie Gun Sales, on June 4 and then a Glock 17 bought at the same shop the next day!

a reply to: odzeandennz

I do think it's absurd to ban something because that just increases the black market profit off of that product.

I think you agree with me, but then again sarcasm is hard to recognize over the internet, so I don't know for sure.

I don't necessarily believe that guns are inherent to US society but independence and rebellion from authority are. I also don't think a tiny percentage of criminals should dictate the rights of law-abiding citizens.

a reply to: smurfy

Thank you for that info. I wonder if he tried buying the same rifle at the other shop that denied him?

a reply to: smurfy


Both legally purchased with a background check.

I wonder if they use the same background check on rufugees?

I think this is a well done OP but unfortunately, you just can't get through to the people on ATS that refuse to look at the facts available. Ignorance is too often embraced and people are proud of it. Odd culture.

a reply to: Bluntone22

And how exactly was he able to pass that background check after having been investigated by the FBI? Twice.

a reply to: VivreLibre

I try to bridge divides as much as I can, hopefully my OP didn't come off too hostile to the other side. I really do want honest discussion but that has to take place from a bedrock of facts. Everybody is more than welcome to their own opinions but facts are less dodgy.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Bluntone22

And how exactly was he able to pass that background check after having been investigated by the FBI? Twice.

Ask hillary maybe?
The FBI hasn't stopped her presidential run.

Background checks will not stop this kind of event. Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun to kill more people than mateen.

a reply to: thov420

Okay...I understand your post and its premise.

That being said I feel it is absurd to think people could or would bother to classify a particular model of vehicle as a weapon.

I have never heard of or read such a ridiculous article in my entire life.

Anything can be used as a weapon. Is your next attack going to be on cutlery?

[snipped]

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm of the opinion that the FBI allows some of these things to go through to justify their jobs but that's unprovable at this time.

To add: The gun show loophole is not a loophole. All it is, is a private citizen selling their personal property to another private citizen. Other than property and vehicles, the government has no right or need to know what you do with your own property, and even then it could be argued against.

a reply to: georgeglass

I'm sorry to hear that, I starred you anyways.

The OP was more of a thought exercise than reality, but I think you still missed the point. The main point is blaming the gun for an unstable individual's actions is the same as blaming a car for the same unstable individual's actions. It's not a good argument.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Bluntone22

And how exactly was he able to pass that background check after having been investigated by the FBI? Twice.

Police pass "rigorous" psychological tests. It's no surprise it's not difficult to pass a gun background check when you're a citizen you have no felonies on record.

a reply to: dogstar23

I agree with you. Anybody without a criminal record can pass a background check. So how will universal background checks stop unstable people without criminal records from buying firearms? It won't.

[snipped]

The bottom line is something needs to change, I doubt many will argue.

I defend the rights of the second amendment but we are all on the U.S. government goon's radar.

People are passionate but if you take it back a notch or two you appear to be less like a nut.

Appearance is everything.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: dogstar23

I agree with you. Anybody without a criminal record can pass a background check. So how will universal background checks stop unstable people without criminal records from buying firearms? It won't.

So you are saying people will die regardless of any and all laws.

People will kill.

We may as well give up.

Is that what you suggest?

a reply to: georgeglass

I think you may have 'understood' too quickly and forgot to read the whole thing.
hyperbole is in the title for crying out loud.
Sheesh..