I believe the point they are making is that “sure guns are the easiest path until you ban guns, then something else (seemingly cars is suggested) would become the easiest path and therefore would be ‘switched to’ by those wishing to cause violence, as their violent ideation was not dealt with merely the tool was, so now the tool has changed.”
I.e, most people hammer in nails with a hammer becuse it’s the easiest path, but if you ban hammers and I need this nail in this wood, I guess I’ll use the back of my wrench. Sure, it isn’t as good but it’ll work just fine. I wouldn’t say “oh well nothing can be built, guess I won’t build shit,” if I’m significantly determined to get that nail in I’ll do everything in my power to do so including using tools not exactly meant for the job but that’ll work.
One could make the argument that “at least it takes me longer to build the thing,” or “you’ll be able to build less things,” but that is only true assuming I downgrade to a wrench. I could make my own hammer easily, or I could upgrade to a nail gun (in this analogy I guess that’d be a pressure cooker and some nails Boston Marathon style.)
They do not seem to be saying “cars are more effective than guns,” imo, though it seems to be taken that way by (possibly you and) others in this thread.
The research shows that deterrents work. The more there are in place, the less likely the acts are going to be committed. That’s why gun owners have such a high success rate with suicide. It’s much easier. You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead? Reality shows that mass killings in developed countries happen predominantly in the US. Why is that?
Sure, suicide is easier with guns, but Japan demonstrates quite well that they are hardly a prerequisite. Guns are banned in Japan and so, to the other commenter’s point, they find another way to achieve their goals. Guns aren’t even statistically the most effective, drinking on train tracks is (or doing fentanyl on the train tracks, hit ya with the 2x.)
You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead?
Sure if you don’t account for any other differences between countries like mental health or other social services, or culture, or anything. Unfortunately in reality it is rarely that black and white, there are other differences.
I believe the point they are making is that “sure guns are the easiest path until you ban guns, then something else (seemingly cars is suggested) would become the easiest path and therefore would be ‘switched to’ by those wishing to cause violence, as their violent ideation was not dealt with merely the tool was, so now the tool has changed.”
I.e, most people hammer in nails with a hammer becuse it’s the easiest path, but if you ban hammers and I need this nail in this wood, I guess I’ll use the back of my wrench. Sure, it isn’t as good but it’ll work just fine. I wouldn’t say “oh well nothing can be built, guess I won’t build shit,” if I’m significantly determined to get that nail in I’ll do everything in my power to do so including using tools not exactly meant for the job but that’ll work.
One could make the argument that “at least it takes me longer to build the thing,” or “you’ll be able to build less things,” but that is only true assuming I downgrade to a wrench. I could make my own hammer easily, or I could upgrade to a nail gun (in this analogy I guess that’d be a pressure cooker and some nails Boston Marathon style.)
They do not seem to be saying “cars are more effective than guns,” imo, though it seems to be taken that way by (possibly you and) others in this thread.
The research shows that deterrents work. The more there are in place, the less likely the acts are going to be committed. That’s why gun owners have such a high success rate with suicide. It’s much easier. You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead? Reality shows that mass killings in developed countries happen predominantly in the US. Why is that?
Sure, suicide is easier with guns, but Japan demonstrates quite well that they are hardly a prerequisite. Guns are banned in Japan and so, to the other commenter’s point, they find another way to achieve their goals. Guns aren’t even statistically the most effective, drinking on train tracks is (or doing fentanyl on the train tracks, hit ya with the 2x.)
Sure if you don’t account for any other differences between countries like mental health or other social services, or culture, or anything. Unfortunately in reality it is rarely that black and white, there are other differences.
Yes, because every other country is otherwise identical…
No. It doesn’t.
However, I can think of a certain group of unarmed people right now being murdered by the hundreds/day by an invading force.