Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

[gordondaviesmoustache]

One man’s simplistic is another man’s reality in fact.

Just because it’s someone’s reality, doesn’t make it any less simplistic.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Oh I’m under no illusions that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, but it’s only going to get worse if things don’t change.

In fact I’ll go further and say if things do change, and by that I mean meaningful regulation, then things will still probably get worse, but at a discernibly slower rate.

At this point, the change needed is not with the guns, but the mindset towards them and their use, plus the willingness to act in a manner society can tolerate.

The offensive use of weapons needs to not only be highly restricted, but punishable at the extreme. Sadly, though, many of those that commit crimes with them value life so little, they’re willing to take their own rather than face the consequences of their actions. While many would corral that under the “mental illness” header, I believe that to be a wholly separate and distinct cohort whose access to gun should not only be severely restricted to the point of prohibition, but anyone allowing them access considered a willing accomplice and also charged with the murder.

 

[SWP's back]

Great post, apart from the ‘license’ part.

US autocorrect but I left it in as I saw you correct a post a page or so back so wanted to see if you’d correct me as well. X

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

I don't even know where to begin with this one.

First, you asked where Kirk said gun deaths are acceptable in order to have an armed populace. This quote was provided. Please feel free respond to it. The wall of text is unnecessary and unrelated to his view that Americans should accept gun deaths as they're worth it to have the second amendment.

Second, comparing guns to cars is the mother of all false equivalencies, and one that only one morons like Charlie Kirk would think makes sense. A car is meant to transport things. A gun is meant to kill things. That's its sole purpose. To kill. People drown. Should we ban water? People suffocate. Should we ban air? See how that makes no sense?

As far as his other views, let's have at it. Do you believe transgender people are abomination to God and should be taken care of as they were in the 50's and 60's (which surely someone as intelligent as Mr. Kirk would know meant being a frequent target of hate crimes). Or that the civil rights act was a mistake? Or that foreigners are invading America to replace white people? Certainly as Muslims are doing in Europe, right? Or that women should reject feminism and submit to their husbands? Or implying black pilots are not qualified? Or that gays should be stoned to death as they were in biblical times?

Even if you want to hand wave that all away, he clearly wouldn't want us to feel empathy for what happened to him.

Charlie Kirk was a bad person, who took pride in being bad person, hiding behind a thin layer of pseudo intellectualist bullshit. The whitewashing of him is insane. I'm not saying his death should be celebrated. But his life, and what he represented, absolutely shouldn't be either.

"First, you asked where Kirk said gun deaths are acceptable in order to have an armed populace. This quote was provided. Please feel free respond to it."

I already did.

"Second, comparing guns to cars is the mother of all false equivalencies, and one that only one morons like Charlie Kirk would think makes sense. A car is meant to transport things. A gun is meant to kill things."

Completely false - as I've shown earlier. Your claim oversimplifies the purpose of guns. While, yes, cars are primarily for transportation, guns have multiple uses beyond killing such as self-defence (often without firing, as in ~2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S., per a 1995 Kleck study), sport shooting (like Olympic events), & hunting for sustenance or wildlife management. A gun’s purpose depends on the user’s intent, it's not just killing.

"As far as his other views, let's have at it."

If you provide them then I can comment.

"Charlie Kirk was a bad person, who took pride in being bad person"

Then provide the links to what he specifically said instead of just name-calling.

I also note you didn't answer my question: 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?

 

[SWP's back]

How do you know that though?

You don’t know what his political thoughts are right now or if they’ve changed. As I said having “hey facist catch” on bullet doesn’t exactly scream he’s a republican either.

We’re just guessing at the moment

It’s a meme from Helldivers. All the things written on the casings are gaming/internet memes.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Just because it’s someone’s reality, doesn’t make it any less simplistic.

Agreed. However, such a reality isn’t created by the individual, but rather the mire in which they have to co-exist. Painfully simplistic or not, their control over that collective reality absolves them of any derogatory connotation (or denotation) of individual simplicity.

 

[SWP's back]

And I didn’t say it was.

Agreed. Very limited.

Perhaps it was “to some degree” that confused you?

“In certain contexts”…Ah, now you’re agreeing with me. Excellent!

Who asserted this???

Asked and answered. Now, try enacting a Constitutional Amendment, esp 1A or 2A, and you’ll prove my point….and the one you finally got to, even though equating gun rights to the NON-CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of cars, booze or smokes is an oft used canard. (See JTU’s comments above!)

There is a reason my post didn’t quote you.

 

[yankblue]

"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.

Come on.

The purpose of a gun isnt just to kill - they can also be used to kill animals, or allow cops shoot people, but in a non lethal way. Here's a study from 30 years ago, that surely is completely relevant today and not nuanced in any way.

That's what we're saying?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It’s a meme from Helldivers. All the things written on the casings are gaming/internet memes.

A shoot ‘em up game! Quelle surprise!!!

I figured him more for a COD guy, but HELLDIVERS about covers it!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

There is a reason my post didn’t quote you.

Given its position in the thread, following your “Bullshit” response, it felt directed.

If not, then I retract any personal affront, but stand by my factual assertions.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

"I don’t think his view is vile"

I agree.

"His is an inane point of view. Cars are DESIGNED to do things OTHER than destroy."

So are guns. So explain why is his view "inane".

"They provide a positive benefit that has zero to do with the danger of misusing them."

So do guns. They are used to PROTECT the user.

"Guns do one thing — they destroy. That’s it. That’s all."

False. Firearms are used to protect people's lives without necessarily causing harm. A 1995 study by Gary Kleck estimated 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S., often involving no shots fired, only deterrence. Also, a 2013 CDC report noted that firearms are used in self-defense, and many incidents end without injury or death. Your statement's absolutism ignores these cases.

You're reducing a multifaceted tool to a single, negative outcome, disregarding all the evidence out there of many non-destructive uses, user intent, and varied contexts. Yeah, guns can destroy, but that’s not their only or universal function.

Seriously?

Why are they defensive, protective, etc?

Because of the power they have to harm their target. That’s their ONE AND ONLY purpose for existence. It is the very THREAT of the negative outcome that MAKES them powerful as a defensive tool.

Maybe we can name another use. Hammering a nail into a fence post using the butt end? You can maybe pry a stray chip you dropped under the fridge out from under it with the barrel?

Just to reiterate: it is the power to destroy — their one and only function — that makes them powerful as a defensive tool.

As such — since they are designed specifically and solely to destroy — WHATEVER the context — defensive, or offensive not in commission of a crime (skeet competition, shooting a plump pheasant for dinner), they should be aggressively, radically regulated to the absolute hilt IMO relative to other consumer goods.

No other product offers the social good/social ill trade-off a firearm does.

Of course that can then be in conflict with the “keep and bear arms” part of 2A, but that’s what we have courts for. I’m pretty sure citizens can’t own and operate nuclear missile silos, so somehow I don’t think the right to keep and bear arms has been deemed completely unfettered.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The offensive use of weapons needs to not only be highly restricted, but punishable at the extreme. Sadly, though, many of those that commit crimes with them value life so little, they’re willing to take their own rather than face the consequences of their actions. While many would corral that under the “mental illness” header, I believe that to be a wholly separate and distinct cohort whose access to gun should not only be severely restricted to the point of prohibition, but anyone allowing them access considered a willing accomplice and also charged with the murder.

How and at what point do you distinguish that cohort?

 

[yankblue]

"First, you asked where Kirk said gun deaths are acceptable in order to have an armed populace. This quote was provided. Please feel free respond to it."

I already did.

"Second, comparing guns to cars is the mother of all false equivalencies, and one that only one morons like Charlie Kirk would think makes sense. A car is meant to transport things. A gun is meant to kill things."

Completely false - as I've shown earlier. Your claim oversimplifies the purpose of guns. While, yes, cars are primarily for transportation, guns have multiple uses beyond killing such as self-defence (often without firing, as in ~2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S., per a 1995 Kleck study), sport shooting (like Olympic events), & hunting for sustenance or wildlife management. A gun’s purpose depends on the user’s intent, it's not just killing.

"As far as his other views, let's have at it."

If you provide them then I can comment.

"Charlie Kirk was a bad person, who took pride in being bad person"

Then provide the links to what he specifically said instead of just name-calling.

I also note you didn't answer my question: 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?

You're dancing around the gun death quote, and you know it.

I provided half a dozen links in there. I'm not just name calling.

Correlating road deaths to gun deaths is a complete false equivalency, and again, I suspect you know that since you're being extremely selective to which part of posts you're responding to.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Come on.

The purpose of a gun isnt just to kill - they can also be used to kill animals, or allow cops shoot people, but in a non lethal way. Here's a study from 30 years ago, that surely is completely relevant today and not nuanced in any way.

That's what we're saying?

Much like nuclear weapons controlled by nation states, the individual firearm is as much a deterrent (and is used as one more often than it is used as a weapon) as a lethal tool.

Brandishing, or even just exposing, a firearm isn’t a sign of a desire to use it to neutralize a threat, but pointing it at a target and putting one’s finger on the trigger is!

Knowing and understanding the difference can be the difference between life and death.

 

[SWP's back]

Given its position in the thread, following your “Bullshit” response, it felt directed.

If not, then I retract any personal affront, but stand by my factual assertions.

I didn’t want to quote you or Jim as my post whilst linked to what’s being discussed, wasn’t directly answering either of you.

 

[SWP's back]

Much like nuclear weapons controlled by nation states, the individual firearm is as much a deterrent (and is used as one more often than it is used as a weapon) as a lethal tool.

Brandishing, or even just exposing, a firearm isn’t a sign of a desire to use it to neutralize a threat, but pointing it at a target and putting one’s finger on the trigger is!

Knowing and understanding the difference can be the difference between life and death.

Yes but you only need one to show you’ve got one in case someone else has one.

When 99.999% of people don’t have them then there’s no need for such actions. It’s why I’ve made it to 44 without needing to show I have one. That and being tall and ripped I guess. :)

 

[ChicagoBlue]

How and at what point do you distinguish that cohort?

Exactly the problem we face in modern society, where most mental illness goes undiagnosed and/or untreated, and access to firearms is so ubiquitous.

It’s the age old argument that “I’m a good guy with a gun. You need to stop the bad guys from getting them!”

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Exactly the problem we face in modern society, where most mental illness goes undiagnosed and/or untreated, and access to firearms is so ubiquitous.

It’s the age old argument that “I’m a good guy with a gun. You need to stop the bad guys from getting them!”

I think the main problem we face as a society in terms of mental illness stems from the internet, and more specifically social media. It’s slowly (or in some cases, not so slowly) sending people nuts.

 

[yankblue]

Much like nuclear weapons controlled by nation states, the individual firearm is as much a deterrent (and is used as one more often than it is used as a weapon) as a lethal tool.

Brandishing, or even just exposing, a firearm isn’t a sign of a desire to use it to neutralize a threat, but pointing it at a target and putting one’s finger on the trigger is!

Knowing and understanding the difference can be the difference between life and death.

Honestly, I don't even care that much about guns. I think they should be far more heavily restricted but, whatever. It's not going to happen.

My original post was that Charlie Kirk had some terrible views, including that gun deaths (specifically referencing school children being killed) should be accepted so Americans can have guns. That's the line in the sand I am drawing.

Mr. Underpants has now gone and twisted himself up in a pretzel about automobile deaths and some study from about defensive uses of guns from 30 years ago instead of just acknowledging that.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Yes but you only need one to show you’ve got one in case someone else has one.

When 99.999% of people don’t have them then there’s no need for such actions. It’s why I’ve made it to 44 without needing to show I have one. That and being tall and ripped I guess. :)

While I appreciate and understand your point, my wife would suggest that “all men are not created equal….and neither are women.” Showing you have one deters a physically more imposing threat and is even more important against more than one potential threat, physically more imposing or not.

Indeed, it’s one of the reasons the term “shot an unarmed person” is one of the most naive and unsophisticated phrases I read on a regular basis when it comes to firearms. The absence of a firearm is far from the absence of a deadly threat!