Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

[oakiecokie]

Tell me about it. Back in the day I voted for Thatcher, now I’m somewhere to the left of Che Guevara. I’m like what the fuck just happened? How did I get here?

I’m too fucking old to be a revolutionary.

Power to the People.

 

[MCFC1993]

I’m going to get pelters for this from some quarters, but I’ve got very broad shoulders.

Have had a look at this guy online in a way that I hadn’t previously. I sort of knew what he was about before this, but he’d hardly registered.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I’m not saying it’s a good thing he’s dead, or that anyone deserves to die in that way, especially with their wife and kids there. Awful business all round. And this tragedy is acting as a further catalyst to the manifest and worsening divisions in US society. So unquestionably a bad thing.

But in my view, having seen him in action, he was a horrible ****. Plainly fed from negativity. Most of what came out of his mouth was designed to make the world a less happy place. And I’d say he was definitely a bully.

He was young, fit, rich, healthy with a beautiful family and a wife that adored him.

And all the **** did was moan and winge about how shit everything was. He had fuck all to complain about from where I’m standing.

Unless it was just an act…

Pretty much a perfect post.

Those with everything trying to exploit those with nothing and those in weaker social and political standings for financial gain and a bit of 'fun'.

People in a position to bring joy and positivity to the world doing nothing but spread hate, negativity and division.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

As requested, straight from the man himself:

This was in response to a school shooting in which multiple children died.

Would you like to hear his views on women, racial minorities, or the LGBT community? Because they're equally vile.

Thanks.

The US Second Amendment is intended to allow people to DEFEND themselves, not to MURDER in cold blood.

Here's the rest of his quote. Is it also "vile" to believe that road deaths are an unfortunate cost to have automotive transport? Do you believe all automotive transport should be banned?

Would you like to hear his views on women, racial minorities, or the LGBT community? Because they're equally vile.

Sure, let's see them.

 

[madloaf]

Thanks.

The US Second Amendment is intended to allow people to DEFEND themselves, not to MURDER in cold blood.

Here's the rest of his quote. Is it also "vile" to believe that road deaths are an unfortunate cost to have automotive transport? Do you believe all automotive transport should be banned?

Sure, let's see them.

Can I just clarify, are you just quoting him or are you agreeing with the bad faith bat shit false equivalence itself?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Thanks.

The US Second Amendment is intended to allow people to DEFEND themselves, not to MURDER in cold blood.

Here's the rest of his quote. Is it also "vile" to believe that road deaths are an unfortunate cost to have automotive transport? Do you believe all automotive transport should be banned?

Sure, let's see them.

I don’t think his view is vile, just fucking stupid. His is an inane point of view. Cars are DESIGNED to do things OTHER than destroy. They provide a positive benefit that has zero to do with the danger of misusing them. Guns do one thing — they destroy. That’s it. That’s all. Do they provide security? Yes because of the threat that they destroy. Do they provide limp dicks with an inflated sense of potency? Yes because of the threat that they destroy. Do I think they should be banned? Absolutely not. Do I think guns — because they have a sole purpose related to their designed-to-destroy nature — should be the dramatically most governmentally-regulated product available to the consumer? You bet I do. Did he? No.

 

[BobKowalski]

Thanks.

The US Second Amendment is intended to allow people to DEFEND themselves, not to MURDER in cold blood.

Here's the rest of his quote. Is it also "vile" to believe that road deaths are an unfortunate cost to have automotive transport? Do you believe all automotive transport should be banned?

Sure, let's see them.

This is nonsense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose. The purpose of a car is to transport people and goods. Deaths may occur as a result of their use, predominantly through accidents. We seek to minimise those accidents by training drivers and by better safety measures in cars to allow people to survive accidents. Cars are also logged, insured, maintained by law and so on. There is far less regulation around guns - there was a specific correlation made between cars and rifles when then shooters rifle was found ie finding the rifle would not necessarily be of much use as ownership is not recorded as stringently as a car.

There is no specific need to own a gun. It’s only function is to kill or wound people, and both these activities are illegal. You can argue in rural areas a farmer may need a weapon, but even here it’s a stretch. If a legitimate case can be made - protecting livestock from predators - then exceptions can be made, but these should be exceptions not the rule and there should be strict control over the type of weapon and mandatory training of use of the weapon. No one needs to own an assault rifle.

The car example can be applied to other activities. We consume food, sometimes that food can lead to death by choking or be contaminated. ‘But we have decided the benefits of eating out weigh the possibility of death’ ergo we should allow people to carry deadly assault rifles whose only function is to kill or wound people?

Finally, ask Charlie Kirk how he views gun ownership and the right of people to carry them. Oh, wait. You can’t because he is fucking dead.

So, you reckon Kirk won the gun debate?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

This is nonsense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose. The purpose of a car is to transport people and goods. Deaths may occur as a result of their use, predominantly through accidents. We seek to minimise those accidents by training drivers and by better safety measures in cars to allow people to survive accidents. Cars are also logged, insured, maintained by law and so on. There is far less regulation around guns - there was a specific correlation made between cars and rifles when then shooters rifle was found ie finding the rifle would not necessarily be of much use as ownership is not recorded as stringently as a car.

There is no specific need to own a gun. It’s only function is to kill or wound people, and both these activities are illegal. You can argue in rural areas a farmer may need a weapon, but even here it’s a stretch. If a legitimate case can be made - protecting livestock from predators - then exceptions can be made, but these should be exceptions not the rule and there should be strict control over the type of weapon and mandatory training of use of the weapon. No one needs to own an assault rifle.

The car example can be applied to other activities. We consume food, sometimes that food can lead to death by choking or be contaminated. ‘But we have decided the benefits of eating out weigh the possibility of death’ ergo we should allow people to carry deadly assault rifles whose only function is to kill or wound people?

Finally, ask Charlie Kirk how he views gun ownership and the right of people to carry them. Oh, wait. You can’t because he is fucking dead.

So, you reckon Kirk won the gun debate?

Said much better than I.

 

[SWP's back]

Thanks.

The US Second Amendment is intended to allow people to DEFEND themselves, not to MURDER in cold blood.

Here's the rest of his quote. Is it also "vile" to believe that road deaths are an unfortunate cost to have automotive transport? Do you believe all automotive transport should be banned?

Sure, let's see them.

To drive a car one has to learn how to use it, pass a test and register it.

 

[oldius]

Of all the nonsense spouted after the murder of Kirk, Don Trump Junior takes the looney of the year prize. He said:
“ I don’t know of a single school shooting in the last few years that was not carried out by trans people. They are fed hormones from the age of three to make them believe [that ideology]”
Jeez.

He is a deliberately dangerous idiot. I saw the figures earlier today and shootings committed by trans people were something like 0.1%.
He needs forensic challenge for everything he says, and that's why he bans media who do not offer him unequivocal, unquestioning support.

 

[SamTheGuru]

Guns are good, god bless Amurica.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Who the fuck do you think you are Chuck Berry ?

That’s MY ding-a-ling…and I want you to play with it!

;-P

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I hope you guys all watch Bill Maher’s “New Rules” this week!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

To drive a car one has to learn how to use it, pass a test and register it.

If guns were regulated in the US as vehicles presently are, then the number of firearms related fatalities each year would be discernibly fewer.

 

[KS55]

Nobody is going to propose the junking of A2, but modern tech was not envisaged at the time. Rethink for gods sake.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It’s only function is to kill or wound people, and both these activities are illegal.

This is patently false.

People shoot, wound and lawfully kill other people with guns every year, not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of animals legally killed with them.

It is the MISUSE of guns that is illegal.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Nobody is going to propose the junking of A2, but modern tech was not envisaged at the time. Rethink for gods sake.

Pretty much nothing about modern life was envisaged at the time, and yet people still cling to it like it’s sacred. It’s insanity on a grand scale.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

If guns were regulated in the US as vehicles presently are, then the number of firearms related fatalities each year would be discernibly fewer.

Sadly, the foundational law restricts such regulation, to some degree.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

This is nonsense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose. The purpose of a car is to transport people and goods. Deaths may occur as a result of their use, predominantly through accidents. We seek to minimise those accidents by training drivers and by better safety measures in cars to allow people to survive accidents. Cars are also logged, insured, maintained by law and so on. There is far less regulation around guns - there was a specific correlation made between cars and rifles when then shooters rifle was found ie finding the rifle would not necessarily be of much use as ownership is not recorded as stringently as a car.

There is no specific need to own a gun. It’s only function is to kill or wound people, and both these activities are illegal. You can argue in rural areas a farmer may need a weapon, but even here it’s a stretch. If a legitimate case can be made - protecting livestock from predators - then exceptions can be made, but these should be exceptions not the rule and there should be strict control over the type of weapon and mandatory training of use of the weapon. No one needs to own an assault rifle.

The car example can be applied to other activities. We consume food, sometimes that food can lead to death by choking or be contaminated. ‘But we have decided the benefits of eating out weigh the possibility of death’ ergo we should allow people to carry deadly assault rifles whose only function is to kill or wound people?

Finally, ask Charlie Kirk how he views gun ownership and the right of people to carry them. Oh, wait. You can’t because he is fucking dead.

So, you reckon Kirk won the gun debate?

"This is nonsense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose."

False. Guns are tools with multiple uses beyond killing. For example:

Self-Defense. Many people own guns to protect themselves or their families. The intent is to deter or stop a threat, not necessarily to kill. The 1995 study by Gary Kleck, estimated there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S. often without firing a shot.

Sport & Recreation.

Hunting.

Law Enforcement. Police use guns to maintain order and protect public safety, often aiming to subdue rather than kill.

"The purpose of a car is to transport people and goods. Deaths may occur as a result of their use, predominantly through accidents."

A gun’s purpose is shaped by the user’s intent. A hammer can kill, but its primary purpose is to drive nails. Similarly, a gun’s purpose varies—whether it’s for sport, protection, or harm depends on the wielder. Claiming all gun use is about killing ignores these distinctions.

So it's not "vile" to accept there will be deaths due to car ownership but "vile" to accept that deaths will result from gun ownership? Strange logic.

"There is no specific need to own a gun. It’s only function is to kill or wound people"

False. As rebutted above.

"‘But we have decided the benefits of eating out weigh the possibility of death’ ergo we should allow people to carry deadly assault rifles whose only function is to kill or wound people?

False equivalence. We would die if we didn't eat. Similarly, a gun can save someone's life from an attacker.

"Finally, ask Charlie Kirk how he views gun ownership and the right of people to carry them. Oh, wait. You can’t because he is fucking dead."

So ask someone's who's life was saved because they carried a gun. What do you think the answer would be?

Idaho woman, 85, fatally shot home intruder in 'heroic' act of self-defense

A county prosecutor said the woman acted in self-defense and ruled it was a case of justifiable homicide in a case review.

www.nbcnews.com

Your argument fails because it generalizes a gun's function and ignoring diverse uses, user intent, or specific designs. Guns can kill, but their purpose is not inherently or exclusively to do so.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This is patently false.

People shoot, wound and lawfully kill other people with guns every year, not to mention the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of animals legally killed with them.

It is the MISUSE of guns that is illegal.

Assuming the shooting was intentional, killing or wounding people with a gun is illegal, unless you can successfully raise a defence to that killing or wounding, so you’re both right as it happens.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

"This is nonsense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose."

False. Guns are tools with multiple uses beyond killing. For example:

Self-Defense. Many people own guns to protect themselves or their families. The intent is to deter or stop a threat, not necessarily to kill. The 1995 study by Gary Kleck, estimated there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S. often without firing a shot.

Self-defence.