Turkish Media is reporting about "2" attackers!

[EricHiggin]

konnichiwa said:

EricHiggin said:

The fact of the matter is that at the core of what he said, is that as long as someone pays money, whether it be for tough vehicle regulations, or tough gun regulations, to be able to legally have and use those items, then using them to kill is acceptable, considering innocent people are being mowed down with both guns, and vehicles. If he didn't mean that, then he should have said something more along the lines of "Yes, obviously we do need much stricter regulations and restrictions on vehicles, as well as guns". If he would have said that, he would be taken seriously. That's not what he said though. Which makes me assume he must be going against the Fox comment. While unlikely, he could be going along with Fox, and pointing out that the vehicle control we have now, which is much more in depth than guns, obviously isn't working good enough either, yet no one is complaining. I don't think that is the case though.

Personally I thought the same as boffer and had same interpretation it also feels like a complaint from Fox that backfired.  'Sure he killed people with guns but would you say we need to be stricter if he did it with a truck?'  the point Kevin makes is that 'we' are stricter and it is harder to get the abilitry to drive with a car/pick up/truck than it is to get a gun.

Fox's point is why after the Vegas shooting, are stricter gun laws needed, if when the same thing happens with a vehicle, a blind eye is turned and nothing is said? If you want to be taken seriously, you can't just pick and choose when you "feel" like complaining and try to make changes on a certain subject. All that does is show you have an agenda, which people obviously won't go along with since it continues to infringe on their rights even more so.

The other point Fox makes indirectly, is that even with those stricter rules for vehicles, they are still being used as weapons. Not just are they using them as weapons, but they are doing so when the odds of them being able to get a gun and use that instead, are quite high. So why didn't they use a gun if it's so much better at killing and so much more dangerous? Probably because it was much easier, and cheaper, to just steal/use a free vehicle.

The Fox comment didn't backfire, it made a rock solid point. There is next to nothing you can do to completely stop the killing, in quick large numbers, or spread out small numbers, period. Even trying to take away everyone's rights altogether, wouldn't be enough. If they really cared and wanted the problem solved the most effectively, they would need to stop the extremists from coming in, and they would need to put something in place to try and weed out, and fix or contain, the citizens who may be an internal threat.