Both you and Vox are trying to limit the discussion to gun crime, as if knife crime or acid attacks or bombings or mass vehicular homicides don't matter. That's misleading and borderline dishonest. It's the violence that matters, not the weapon.
In December 2012, a crazed man entered an elementary school and attacked several staff members and students. He used a kitchen knife and while there were 24 injuries, there were zero deaths:
A little while later, another crazed man entered a second elementary school and also attacked staff and students. He used an XM15 and Glock 20SF; there were 2 injuries and 28 deaths:
I'm guessing you have never read Marshal McLuhan. The tools (communication or otherwise) that humans have available shape society and our perception of the world. There are daily examples (both negligent and purposeful) of people acting in a way that they probably would not have if they only had knives or just their fists:
The effects of different tools are... different. The "Garlic shooter" was able to kill 3 people and injure many more before he was taken out in under 60 seconds:
And the effort required to kill a number of people with a gun is significantly less--like, to the point where the "but but what about that?" verges on ludicrous--than knife crime or acid attacks. Gun violence requires less specialized knowledge and provides fewer opportunities to catch a criminal before their plan goes off than bombings. And vehicles have overwhelmingly more legitimate use than guns that present a meaningful and socially valid argument against their restriction where guns have no such value.
Which is why this is low-hanging fruit to deal with and long past due.
The vast majority of killers aren't aiming to kill a lot of people. Just one, usually. You're focusing on the dramatic mass killings instead of the significant majority of murderers, who could switch to knives and acid.
And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings. As would bombs, though that does require more skill than the other weapons.
And guns would remain available too. Gun control does very little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, as the gun crime rate in Chicago shows.
> And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings.
Yet curiously, almost all mass murders are committed with guns, not vehicles.
You say political agenda, but your own source lists the most recent vehicle attack as occurring last year, and no casualties occurred. Multiple mass shootings have claimed tens of lives in the past few days alone.
I think we all agree American murderers prefer to use guns rather than vehicles or acid. That's our culture. But it's not worse than other cultures where murderers prefer to use acid or knives or vehicles or bombs.
