>Orlando
>Nut job brings gun to a club
>Begins shooting
>Kills lots of people
Liberal outcry:
"It's guns, ban guns! Guns are bad!"
"If we could prevent these horrible people from acquiring these types of weapons these attacks would stop"
"Why does anyone need that kind of power?"
>France/Nice
>Nutjob buys a truck
>Approaches festival
>Hits the gas and mows hundreds down.
"It's terrorism"
"How do we stop these types of attacks? We cant?!"
"Pray for Nice"
*aggressively posts on Facebook*
*French Flags on profile pictures, like that does anything*
Note, the same logic from guns COULD be applied to trucks, but the absurdity is that much more obvious. You COULD ban trucks outright so nobody could attack again like this, but is that pragmatic?
Liberals are completely BTFO by this attack because they have NOTHING to pin the blame on. (Less ISIS, when they confirm this guy was linked)
I don't get how liberals dont understand the logic here. It doesn't matter WHAT instrument for terrorism is used, terrorism is an idealogical cancer that manifests itself through many outlets and instruments of infliction.
Banning "THINGS" will not mean you'll stop terrorists from striking. We have to call it what it is and nip it in the bud. Mitigation and counter-offense is really the only way to stop these shitskins.
>>81250298
>Note, the same logic from guns COULD be applied to trucks
No you can't, it's a false equivalency. The primary function of a truck is for transportation, the primary function of a gun is to kill.
>>81250969
>>Note, the same logic from guns COULD be applied to trucks
>No you can't, it's a false equivalency. The primary function of a truck is for transportation, the primary function of a gun is to kill.
Technicality. What you can still apply is the fact that they're dangerous and banning them isn't practical.
Their original purpose notwithstanding, vehicles end up killing more people than firearms anyway.
>>81250298
#BANASSAULTTRUCKS
>>81250969
I don't agree with the idea that trucks are as dangerous as guns obviously, but the point he is trying to make is that liberals need something to blame instead of the actual terrorists and terrorism which is definitely true.
We need universal background checks to prevent lone wolves acquiring assault trucks.
>>81250969
Your opinion is that the primary function of a truck is to transport things, but prove it. It's an arbitrary term with no basis in reality and fact.
>>81250969
It isn't the purpose of either guns or trucks to kill unlawfully. If a domestic terrorist can't get a gun, he will simply rent a uhaul truck and likely do more damage
>>81250969
*is to shoot a bullet out of its barrel, fixed that for you
>>81250969
That's really narrowing down the various uses of a gun. Did you know astronauts pack heat?
>>81250969
Trucks and other motor vehicles kill more people every year than guns by a lot, omitting suicide.
>>81250298
>because they have NOTHING to pin the blame on.
don't underestimate their mental gymnastics.
>>81255650
They're already blaming "islamophobia", some went as far as blaming Trump
>>81250298
Check your privilege shitlord, #TruckHasNoReligion
>>81250969
Maybe your gun, Pol Pot. My gun's main function is cam whoring.
>>81251450
>>81255096
>vehicles end up killing more people than firearms anyway.
Yes, because they're widely used and a necessity for your standard of living. You don't need a gun to get to work on time or to transport goods halfway across the country. A vehicle's utility and role in everybody's standard of living has a vastly larger scope than a gun's.
>>81256518
Dirty dirty slut
>>81256797
There are vastly larger amounts of guns than cars. Piss off
>>81256082
literally this!
#I'mWithHer
you idiots actually think a truck was islam? you will reach for ANY excuse to be racist
>>81257034
And?
>>81257404
>>81250298
It's doublethink.
>>81250298
>>Nut job
Maybe better care for crazies?
>>81250969
okay, let's use a similar equivalency then.
the primary function of a nuclear weapon is to kill a large number of people. the primary function of a gun is to kill a (smaller) number of people.
how many times have nuclear weapons been used vs. how many nuclear devices do we have (in the world, not just america)? you could make the argument that the PRIMARY function of a nuclear weapon is to deter countries from a full-scale war.
likewise, you could make the argument that the PRIMARY function of a gun is to deter violent encounters and guarantee peace-of-mind. QED
>pic related, its a suggestion
>>81250298
All this PRO DEATH TRUCK RETORIC !
MAKES ME SICK
there is no excuse for these massive pedestrian flatteners to be in public hands
Boats , Trains , light self driving cars (strictly regulated), and scooters can be used without endangering the public
Your "Vehicle Rights" are killing children
>>81250969
> special pleading
Not even once.
>>81258346
It's really not. The "Ban motor vehicles because they're as dangerous as gun" parody is one of the most embarrassing arguments that conservatives throw around.
>>81258815
Pls no bully, truck is #VehicleOfPeace
>>81258878
>It's really not. The "Ban motor vehicles because they're as dangerous as gun" parody is one of the most embarrassing arguments that conservatives throw around.
It's hardly an argument meant to be taken seriously, rather one made for the sole purpose of pointing out the hypocrisy and idiocy of the ban-gun premise.
>>81250298
It just shows that a person determined to kill can achieve his goals no matter the laws trying to prevent him. Guns are heavily regulated in France, but that terrorist was able to kill dozens of people by just using a truck he rented, and then somehow a gun too.
People determined to do harm aren't dissuaded by laws.
>>81258878
The joke is that something not designed for killing is killing far more people and isn't a right protected by the constitution. The only reason you call the argument embarrassing is because you have no counter arguments for it and would rather deflect it as "beneath you" or "embarassing" when it does, in fact, bring up a valid point. If the person and not the object is blamed for deaths involving the use of literally every object except guns (a truck in this case) then why are guns to blame when they are used?
>>81258551
I want to preface my rebuttal by saying that I don't support removing all guns.
>PRIMARY function of a nuclear weapon is to deter countries from a full-scale war.
No, MAD is a side effect, a beneficial one, but an unintended effect none the less.
A gun is a tool specifically designed for destruction. How it's used and to what effect it has can vary, but the tool itself, the history of it's creation and application, is designed for killing. Harm is often the intended outcome when it is used. And yes, the proliferation of guns can be used as a deterrent for violent crime in some cases, but not all.
The difference between a gun causing a death and a vehicle causing death is that death by a vehicle is overwhelmingly by accident and an unintended side effect.
I'm so sick of brainwashed liberals offering themselves up to the globalist NWO, face down ass up.
>>81251980
>Your opinion is that the primary function of a truck is to transport things, but prove it. It's an arbitrary term with no basis in reality and fact.
>Reaching this fair
get out rat
>>81259312
>>81259801
I know it's meant for satire, it's a shitty satirical argument.
>>81250298
Liberal faggots are all cowards. They also worship the state.
They do not like the idea of their neighbor having any authority or power that could neutralize them or the state.
They have proven that they will say anything if it sounds good to get what they want.
>>81261773
>that liberal smugness
I am absolutely triggered now. Women's suffrage was a mistake.
>>81250298
Open carry is lawful in Washington without any permit. Open carry of a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal only with a concealed pistol license. Open carry of a loaded long gun in a vehicle is illegal, regardless of CPL possession. State Law does not allow more restrictive local laws.
At least some liberal states got it right.
if only there was a good guy with a truck
>>81250298
the guy obviously played too much GTA
>>81261773
conservatives worship the state just as much. police can do no wrong in their eyes
>>81261943
Not that I disagree but thats a man.
>>81260742
>The difference between a gun causing a death and a vehicle causing death is that death by a vehicle is overwhelmingly by accident and an unintended side effect.
It's a moot point. The point is that harm can be inflicted with both items, regardless of their intended purpose, and since that is true, the focus shouldn't be on regulating the items in such a way to supposedly prevent 'bad' people from getting them
Why didn't they just use guns to shoot at the truck?
>>81250298
Don't put it past them. As soon as cars are self driving there will be calls to end human control of vehicles. You don't NEED to drive. You put everyone else at risk! These computer run cars will be GPS tracked by the government too.
>>81264496
The degeneracy of the left knows no bounds. Do people still tout the "slippery slope fallacy"?
>>81264553
>The point is that harm can be inflicted with both items
m8 you can't seriously be equating a gun's capacity to cause harm to that of a vehicle. If vehicles are just as capable as guns for harm, then why do you need a gun in the first place if you own a vehicle? Shouldn't you feel secure enough knowing that your car is there to aid in your defense?
Guys, this is it, I can't support you any longer. It's obvious that you all are too stupid for words.
Clearly, more gun control would have saved those 80 people. If only France had banned guns we wouldn't have to hear about another horrible terrorist attack by a madman.
From now on I support more gun control to save the poor poor innocents in places like France.
>>81250969
Are guns built for the purpose of committing terrorist attacks?
>>81265999
Did you not understand his point. Fucking jackass I swear. How much does a person need to clarify till you idiots get the point someone is trying to make.
