Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

[mosssideblue]

I’d assume she’s going to take his place.

The way she spoke, it sounded like she wants to up the ante. Might be grievance talk though

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The way she spoke, it sounded like she wants to up the ante. Might be grievance talk though

Yeah, my comment was callous. She just lost her husband in a horrible, brutal, tragic fashion. She’s a widow with two small children. I suppose one should cut her some slack, the five stages of grief being what they are.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Complete crock of shit.

Three things. Firstly, road accident deaths are exactly that, accidental; a child being murdered by gunshot in school is very much intentional. Secondly, there's an assumption of risk that we all take when getting behind the wheel, we can drive as carefully as possible and still be at risk, and as adults we assume that risk voluntarily; a child shouldn't assume the risk of being shot during algebra. Thirdly, cars are manufactured for a practical use, they exist, primarily, to get people from point A to point B; firearms are manufactured to maim and kill, that's their chief purpose.

It's illogical and frankly distasteful to compare road accident deaths to school shootings.

As for Kirk's other beliefs, where do we start? He didn't trust black pilots because of the colour of their skin. He denigrated the work of MLK, an actual leader who helped reform civil rights and made America a more loving, equitable place for black people, and stated openly he was a bad man. He was a flagrant homophobe, and used hateful language against members of the LGBT community. He stoked the fires of the capitol riot, using insurrectionary language and even helped coordinate buses to get the rioters to the capitol building. He claimed girls as young as ten that are raped should be forced to give birth to the child. He proposed executions to be open for children to watch. He was a flagrant Islamophobe, and claimed all Muslims arrived in the West to infect white people. Here's a good one, he claimed empathy was for suckers; ironic, really, given half of America are now demanding an outpouring of empathy for this man. In short, he was a ****. And no, I'm not going to spend half an hour posting links, they're readily available if you choose to look for them.

Was it all a persona? Maybe, but that's on him. My opinion on him has been easily formed, and I'm comfortable with where that opinion lies.

"Complete crock of shit."

Really? Well let's critique your claims & reasoning and find out . . . .

"Firstly, road accident deaths are exactly that, accidental; a child being murdered by gunshot in school is very much intentional."

By making a distinction between accidental & intentional deaths you're oversimplifing the issue - which I note most of my respondents have made. While road accidents are often unintentional, they still result from human error, negligence, or risky behavior (e.g., speeding, DUI), yet we don’t ban car ownership.

Similarly, gun ownership doesn’t inherently lead to intentional harm; most gun owners use their firearms responsibly for self-defense, sport, or hunting. FBI data shows that in 2021, over 80% of firearm homicides were linked to specific circumstances like gang activity, domestic disputes, or criminal activity, not random school shootings which are statistically rare (e.g., 43 incidents in 2022 per the National Center for Education Statistics). Blaming gun ownership broadly ignores that intentional misuse by a small minority drives these tragedies, not the mere existence of guns.

Further, your argument overlooks defensive gun uses. Studies, like the 1995 Kleck and Gertz survey, estimate 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S., often preventing intentional harm without firing a shot. Restricting gun ownership could disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them vulnerable to intentional attacks, as criminals don’t typically obey gun laws.

"Thirdly, cars are manufactured for a practical use, they exist, primarily, to get people from point A to point B; firearms are manufactured to maim and kill, that's their chief purpose."

Yet again, another statement that oversimplifies reality. As I've already shown, firearms serve multiple purposes beyond harm, including self-defense, hunting & sport shooting - often preventing violence without injury.

Cars, while practical, also cause harm when misused—over 40,000 U.S. traffic deaths occurred in 2022, per the NHTSA, yet we regulate misuse, NOT ban ownership. Focusing solely on a tool’s potential for harm ignores its broader utility & responsible use by millions of people.

So, if your claim that firearms’ "chief purpose" is to "maim & kill" is correct, how can you reconcile this belief with the FACT that MOST gun owners use them for the "purpose" of protection, recreation, or sustenance without causing harm?

"It's illogical and frankly distasteful to compare road accident deaths to school shootings."

Explain how it's "illogical" to compare road accident deaths to school shootings when BOTH involve preventable loss of life & inform public safety debates.

In 2022, road accidents caused over 40,000 U.S. deaths, while school shootings, though horrific, numbered 43 incidents according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Comparing them provides context for risk assessment, not to equate their emotional impact. Dismissing such comparisons as "illogical" sidesteps the broader issue of addressing preventable deaths consistently across domains. If comparing these tragedies is "distasteful", then why do we accept high car-related death tolls but demand sweeping gun restrictions?

"He didn't trust black pilots because of the colour of their skin."

False.



"He was a flagrant homophobe"

False. A "flagrant homophobe" - by definition - wouldn't believe that "gay people should be welcome in the conservative movement. As Christians we are called to love everyone."



"and used hateful language against members of the LGBT community."

I note you haven't provided any actual quotes to support your belief.




"He was a flagrant Islamophobe"

You're misrepresenting his critiques of radical Islamism & unchecked Muslim immigration as some "fear" toward Muslims as a whole. He consistently distinguished between peaceful individuals & Islamist ideologies he viewed as threats to Western values. If critiquing radical Islamist values equates to Islamophobia, why do people such as Ridvan Aydemir, the Apostate Prophet, agree with Kirk's warnings about demographic and ideological threats to the West?

"he claimed empathy was for suckers"

Here's the actual quote - which NEVER included "suckers". Not as bad as you're trying to imply, is it?

"My opinion on him has been easily formed"

Maybe that's why you've so "easily" misrepresented what he's said.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

The threat of harm — with harm its sole purpose by design — serves all a firearm’s other purposes"

AGAIN: The claim was: "The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose"

This is clearly false, unless you believe that you can "kill" a Bullseye.

 

[BobKowalski]

"Firstly, road accident deaths are exactly that, accidental; a child being murdered by gunshot in school is very much intentional."

By making a distinction between accidental & intentional deaths you're oversimplifing the issue - which I note most of my respondents have made. While road accidents are often unintentional, they still result from human error, negligence, or risky behavior (e.g., speeding, DUI), yet we don’t ban car ownership.

Similarly, gun ownership doesn’t inherently lead to intentional harm; most gun owners use their firearms responsibly for self-defense, sport, or hunting. FBI data shows that in 2021, over 80% of firearm homicides were linked to specific circumstances like gang activity, domestic disputes, or criminal activity, not random school shootings which are statistically rare (e.g., 43 incidents in 2022 per the National Center for Education Statistics). Blaming gun ownership broadly ignores that intentional misuse by a small minority drives these tragedies, not the mere existence of guns.

Further, your argument overlooks defensive gun uses. Studies, like the 1995 Kleck and Gertz survey, estimate 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S., often preventing intentional harm without firing a shot. Restricting gun ownership could disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them vulnerable to intentional attacks, as criminals don’t typically obey gun laws.

"Thirdly, cars are manufactured for a practical use, they exist, primarily, to get people from point A to point B; firearms are manufactured to maim and kill, that's their chief purpose."

Yet again, another statement that oversimplifies reality. As I've already shown, firearms serve multiple purposes beyond harm, including self-defense, hunting & sport shooting - often preventing violence without injury.

Cars, while practical, also cause harm when misused—over 40,000 U.S. traffic deaths occurred in 2022, per the NHTSA, yet we regulate misuse, NOT ban ownership. Focusing solely on a tool’s potential for harm ignores its broader utility & responsible use by millions of people.

So, if your claim that firearms’ "chief purpose" is to "maim & kill" is correct, how can you reconcile this belief with the FACT that MOST gun owners use them for the "purpose" of protection, recreation, or sustenance without causing harm?

"It's illogical and frankly distasteful to compare road accident deaths to school shootings."
Explain how it's "illogical" to compare road accident deaths to school shootings when BOTH involve preventable loss of life & inform public safety debates.

In 2022, road accidents caused over 40,000 U.S. deaths, while school shootings, though horrific, numbered 43 incidents according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Comparing them provides context for risk assessment, not to equate their emotional impact. Dismissing such comparisons as "illogical" sidesteps the broader issue of addressing preventable deaths consistently across domains. If comparing these tragedies is "distasteful", then why do we accept high car-related death tolls but demand sweeping gun restrictions?

"He didn't trust black pilots because of the colour of their skin."

False.



"He was a flagrant homophobe"

False. A "flagrant homophobe" - by definition - wouldn't believe that "gay people should be welcome in the conservative movement. As Christians we are called to love everyone."



"and used hateful language against members of the LGBT community."

I note you haven't provided any actual quotes to support your belief.




"He was a flagrant Islamophobe"

You're misrepresenting his critiques of radical Islamism & unchecked Muslim immigration as some "fear" toward Muslims as a whole. He consistently distinguished between peaceful individuals & Islamist ideologies he viewed as threats to Western values. If critiquing radical Islamist values equates to Islamophobia, why do people such as Ridvan Aydemir, the Apostate Prophet, agree with Kirk's warnings about demographic and ideological threats to the West?

"he claimed empathy was for suckers"

Here's the actual quote - which NEVER included "suckers". Not as bad as you're trying to imply, is it?

"My opinion on him has been easily formed"

Maybe that's why you've so "easily" misrepresented what he's said.

Only 43 school shootings in 2022? Happy days.

 

[robbieh]

The majority of people I've heard criticizing affirmative action have usually been sad white losers.

How's that for a bit of Trump lingo.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

It shows just how far the Overton window has shifted that we now think it impossible that a Republican could also be against fascism.

Where have I said that’s impossible?

There’s a bullet with the ‘hey facist catch’ and the person being killed is a republican. Do you not think it’s pretty reasonable to think the murder might have a different political opinion?

I’d also like to know if you are a republican, why would you shoot Charlie Kirk? I’m genuinely interested to know the reasons?

We’re all just guessing at the moment

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

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.

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

No. I've explicitly addressed your contentions with facts and logic.

"I provided half a dozen links in there."

Your first link goes to some blog with an obvious political bias, needs a membership to access and therefore no actual video available to view of what he said so it can be viewed in full context.

TPUSA's Charlie Kirk: Trans People Are A "Throbbing Middle Finger to God"

Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk calls trans people a "throbbing middle finger to god" and "an abomination" in a video released Monday.

www.erininthemorning.com

Your second link goes to Wired.com, which has a left-center bias according to the Media Bias/Fact Check. Again, you need a membership to view so no way to verify the quote or the context.

How Charlie Kirk Plans to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is preparing to launch a campaign against Martin Luther King Jr. and the landmark civil rights law he helped enact.

www.wired.com

I therefore skipped some of your links out of exasperation and landed on your 6th link - which was a blatent misrepresentation of Kirk's views on black pilots. Here's the reality - stripped of your falsification:



"Correlating road deaths to gun deaths is a complete false equivalency"

Your statement overlooks the fundamental similarity between the two issues: both involve preventable deaths caused by human actions, whether through the use of firearms or vehicles. Both scenarios are influenced by factors such as policy, enforcement, cultural attitudes, & individual behavior.

For example, just as gun deaths can be reduced through stricter regulations, improved safety measures, & public education, rd deaths can also be mitigated through better traffic laws, enhanced vehicle safety standards & driver training programs. Both phenomena are public health concerns that require a multifaceted approach to reduce fatalities. The comparison is not about equating the mechanisms of death but about addressing the broader societal challenge of preventing the unnecessary loss of life.

Given this perspective, how can you argue that comparing the prevention strategies for rd deaths & gun deaths isn't a valid approach to understanding & reducing overall mortality rates?

 

[madloaf]

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

No. I've explicitly addressed your contentions with facts and logic.

"I provided half a dozen links in there."

Your first link goes to some blog with an obvious political bias, needs a membership to access and therefore no actual video available to view of what he said so it can be viewed in full context.

TPUSA's Charlie Kirk: Trans People Are A "Throbbing Middle Finger to God"

Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk calls trans people a "throbbing middle finger to god" and "an abomination" in a video released Monday.

www.erininthemorning.com

Your second link goes to Wired.com, which has a left-center bias according to the Media Bias/Fact Check. Again, you need a membership to view so no way to verify the quote or the context.

How Charlie Kirk Plans to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is preparing to launch a campaign against Martin Luther King Jr. and the landmark civil rights law he helped enact.

www.wired.com

I therefore skipped some of your links out of exasperation and landed on your 6th link - which was a blatent misrepresentation of Kirk's views on black pilots. Here's the reality - stripped of your falsification:



"Correlating road deaths to gun deaths is a complete false equivalency"

Your statement overlooks the fundamental similarity between the two issues: both involve preventable deaths caused by human actions, whether through the use of firearms or vehicles. Both scenarios are influenced by factors such as policy, enforcement, cultural attitudes, & individual behavior.

For example, just as gun deaths can be reduced through stricter regulations, improved safety measures, & public education, rd deaths can also be mitigated through better traffic laws, enhanced vehicle safety standards & driver training programs. Both phenomena are public health concerns that require a multifaceted approach to reduce fatalities. The comparison is not about equating the mechanisms of death but about addressing the broader societal challenge of preventing the unnecessary loss of life.

Given this perspective, how can you argue that comparing the prevention strategies for rd deaths & gun deaths isn't a valid approach to understanding & reducing overall mortality rates?

Automobiles are a societal necessity. Guns are not.
Car deaths are a side effect, no gun deaths are a side effect.
Cars are heavily regulated to stop deaths. Guns. ...well not so much.
Proportionally the number of deaths / usage in cars is far far lower than with guns.
I see you mention self defence yet you are more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than you are to commit a justifiable homicide.

Not only is it a false equivalence it is a bad faith argument.

As for the rest of your defence of kirks words, well I applaud your commitment if nothing else.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

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.

"Because of the power they have to harm their target. That’s their ONE AND ONLY purpose for existence."


This is a mischaracterization of purpose. The claim that the "ONE AND ONLY purpose" of firearms is to harm or destroy is an oversimplification which I have had to point out numerous times to various posters promoting the same illogical fallacy.

Firearms serve MULTIPLE purposes beyond destruction, including self-defense, sport, hunting, a& historical preservation. This narrow focus ignores the broader utility and cultural significance of firearms. If the primary purpose of a firearm is destruction, how do you account for its use in competitive sports like skeet shooting or target practice, where the goal is precision and skill rather than harm?

Your argument that the power of firearms as defensive tools lies solely in their destructive capability overlooks other factors, such as deterrence & the psychological impact of their presence. The mere possession of a firearm can deter potential attackers without any shots being fired. If the defensive power of a firearm is solely due to its destructive capability, how do you explain instances where the mere display of a firearm prevents an attack without any harm being inflicted?

Your comparison of firearms to hammers or other household items is a false equivalence. While a hammer can be used for multiple purposes (like construction or repair), firearms are designed with specific functions in mind, but this does not negate their defensive utility. Moreover, many tools, including knives & vehicles, can be used destructively, yet they are not regulated to the same extent as firearms. If firearms should be regulated aggressively due to their destructive potential, why are other potentially dangerous tools, such as knives or vehicles, not subject to similar levels of regulation, despite their capability to cause harm?

Your argument for "aggressive, radical regulation" conflicts with the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep & also bear arms. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that this right is fundamental & subject to certain limitations, but not to the extent of rendering it meaningless. If firearms are to be regulated to the "absolute hilt" as you believe, how do you reconcile this with the Supreme Court's rulings, such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) & New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which affirm an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defence?

Your claim also ignores the historical context of the Second Amendment, which was designed to ensure a citizen's ability to defend themselves against tyranny & personal threats. This right has been upheld as a cornerstone of American liberty. Given the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual liberty & self-defense, how can you justify regulations that might effectively nullify this right, especially when other constitutional rights are not subject to such stringent limitations?

Your assertion that no other product offers the same "social good/social ill trade-off" as firearms is debatable. Many products, such as alcohol, prescription drugs & even social media, have significant social ills but are not regulated to the extent proposed for firearms. The social good of firearms, including self-defense & personal security, must be weighed against their potential for harm. If the social ill of firearms justifies aggressive regulation, why are other products with comparable or greater social ills, such as alcohol (which contributes to thousands of deaths annually), not regulated to the same degree?

Comparing firearms to nuclear missile silos is a false analogy. Nuclear weapons are instruments of mass destruction with no practical defensive use for individuals, whereas firearms are tools for personal defence & other legitimate purposes. The scale & context of these weapons are vastly different. Since nuclear missile silos aren't comparable to personal firearms in terms of scale, purpose & individual use, how does your analogy support the argument for regulating firearms to the same extent as weapons of mass destruction?

There's also plenty of empirical evidence which suggests that stringent gun regulations don't always correlate with lower rates of gun violence. Countries with strict gun laws, such as Brazil & Mexico, still experience high levels of gun-related crime, while others with more lenient laws, like Switzerland, have low rates of gun violence.

If aggressive regulation is the solution, why do countries with strict gun laws still experience high rates of gun violence - & conversely - why do some countries with more lenient laws have low rates of gun violence?

 

[Blue Maverick]

Complete crock of shit.

Three things. Firstly, road accident deaths are exactly that, accidental; a child being murdered by gunshot in school is very much intentional. Secondly, there's an assumption of risk that we all take when getting behind the wheel, we can drive as carefully as possible and still be at risk, and as adults we assume that risk voluntarily; a child shouldn't assume the risk of being shot during algebra. Thirdly, cars are manufactured for a practical use, they exist, primarily, to get people from point A to point B; firearms are manufactured to maim and kill, that's their chief purpose.

It's illogical and frankly distasteful to compare road accident deaths to school shootings.

As for Kirk's other beliefs, where do we start? He didn't trust black pilots because of the colour of their skin. He denigrated the work of MLK, an actual leader who helped reform civil rights and made America a more loving, equitable place for black people, and stated openly he was a bad man. He was a flagrant homophobe, and used hateful language against members of the LGBT community. He stoked the fires of the capitol riot, using insurrectionary language and even helped coordinate buses to get the rioters to the capitol building. He claimed girls as young as ten that are raped should be forced to give birth to the child. He proposed executions to be open for children to watch. He was a flagrant Islamophobe, and claimed all Muslims arrived in the West to infect white people. Here's a good one, he claimed empathy was for suckers; ironic, really, given half of America are now demanding an outpouring of empathy for this man. In short, he was a ****. And no, I'm not going to spend half an hour posting links, they're readily available if you choose to look for them.

Was it all a persona? Maybe, but that's on him. My opinion on him has been easily formed, and I'm comfortable with where that opinion lies.

No such thing as a road accident, there is always someone or something to blame, therefore it is not an accident.

 

[BobKowalski]

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

No. I've explicitly addressed your contentions with facts and logic.

"I provided half a dozen links in there."

Your first link goes to some blog with an obvious political bias, needs a membership to access and therefore no actual video available to view of what he said so it can be viewed in full context.

TPUSA's Charlie Kirk: Trans People Are A "Throbbing Middle Finger to God"

Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk calls trans people a "throbbing middle finger to god" and "an abomination" in a video released Monday.

www.erininthemorning.com

Your second link goes to Wired.com, which has a left-center bias according to the Media Bias/Fact Check. Again, you need a membership to view so no way to verify the quote or the context.

How Charlie Kirk Plans to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is preparing to launch a campaign against Martin Luther King Jr. and the landmark civil rights law he helped enact.

www.wired.com

I therefore skipped some of your links out of exasperation and landed on your 6th link - which was a blatent misrepresentation of Kirk's views on black pilots. Here's the reality - stripped of your falsification:



"Correlating road deaths to gun deaths is a complete false equivalency"

Your statement overlooks the fundamental similarity between the two issues: both involve preventable deaths caused by human actions, whether through the use of firearms or vehicles. Both scenarios are influenced by factors such as policy, enforcement, cultural attitudes, & individual behavior.

For example, just as gun deaths can be reduced through stricter regulations, improved safety measures, & public education, rd deaths can also be mitigated through better traffic laws, enhanced vehicle safety standards & driver training programs. Both phenomena are public health concerns that require a multifaceted approach to reduce fatalities. The comparison is not about equating the mechanisms of death but about addressing the broader societal challenge of preventing the unnecessary loss of life.

Given this perspective, how can you argue that comparing the prevention strategies for rd deaths & gun deaths isn't a valid approach to understanding & reducing overall mortality rates?

A Gun: a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

A Car: a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people. Note: Not a weapon.

A Weapon: a thing that, in the manner it is used, or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

Just in case you were wondering what the differences were between a gun and a car. Carry on.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Automobiles are a societal necessity. Guns are not.
Car deaths are a side effect, no gun deaths are a side effect.
Cars are heavily regulated to stop deaths. Guns. ...well not so much.
Proportionally the number of deaths / usage in cars is far far lower than with guns.
I see you mention self defence yet you are more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than you are to commit a justifiable homicide.

Not only is it a false equivalence it is a bad faith argument.

As for the rest of your defence of kirks words, well I applaud your commitment if nothing else.

While automobiles are a societal necessity for mobility, dismissing guns as non-essential overlooks their role in self-defense & cultural significance, with studies like the National Crime Victimization Survey estimating 100,000–370,000 defensive uses annually. I'd say that the ability to be able to defend yourself with a firearm against an attacker who'd otherwise harm you is pretty 'essential"!

Car deaths, like gun deaths, are unintended consequences of widespread use. Both are side effects of tools with potential for harm.

Your death-to-usage ratio comparison is misleading without context: cars have a far higher usage rate (over 90% of U.S. households own one) versus guns (about 32%), skewing raw numbers.

On self-defence: while accidental shootings occur (around 500 annually per the CDC), justifiable homicides are rare but not negligible (under 1,000 per the FBI), & the risk-benefit debate hinges on training & regulation, not inherent equivalence.

My argument isn’t false equivalence - it’s a questioning of consistent safety standards & not a bad faith argument.

 

[madloaf]

While automobiles are a societal necessity for mobility, dismissing guns as non-essential overlooks their role in self-defense & cultural significance, with studies like the National Crime Victimization Survey estimating 100,000–370,000 defensive uses annually. I'd say that the ability to be able to defend yourself with a firearm against an attacker who'd otherwise harm you is pretty 'essential"!

Car deaths, like gun deaths, are unintended consequences of widespread use. Both are side effects of tools with potential for harm.

Your death-to-usage ratio comparison is misleading without context: cars have a far higher usage rate (over 90% of U.S. households own one) versus guns (about 32%), skewing raw numbers.

On self-defence: while accidental shootings occur (around 500 annually per the CDC), justifiable homicides are rare but not negligible (under 1,000 per the FBI), & the risk-benefit debate hinges on training & regulation, not inherent equivalence.

My argument isn’t false equivalence - it’s a questioning of consistent safety standards & not a bad faith argument.

We'll agree to disagree. (Well, I'll disagree with your very clearly chatgpt generated response).

If you want to have an actual debate with your own thoughts and feelings then you let me know. X

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

A Gun: a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

A Car: a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people. Note: Not a weapon.

A Weapon: a thing that, in the manner it is used, or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

Just in case you were wondering what the differences were between a gun and a car. Carry on.

I know the difference - which I have clearly illustrated - but thanks for your unnecessary sarcasm.

I'll leave all you Kirk bashers to it now. Chow.

 

[Blue Maverick]

While automobiles are a societal necessity for mobility, dismissing guns as non-essential overlooks their role in self-defense & cultural significance, with studies like the National Crime Victimization Survey estimating 100,000–370,000 defensive uses annually. I'd say that the ability to be able to defend yourself with a firearm against an attacker who'd otherwise harm you is pretty 'essential"!

Car deaths, like gun deaths, are unintended consequences of widespread use. Both are side effects of tools with potential for harm.

Your death-to-usage ratio comparison is misleading without context: cars have a far higher usage rate (over 90% of U.S. households own one) versus guns (about 32%), skewing raw numbers.

On self-defence: while accidental shootings occur (around 500 annually per the CDC), justifiable homicides are rare but not negligible (under 1,000 per the FBI), & the risk-benefit debate hinges on training & regulation, not inherent equivalence.

My argument isn’t false equivalence - it’s a questioning of consistent safety standards & not a bad faith argument.

Would those defence uses actually be needed if the guns didn’t exist? Are they all against people with guns themselves?

 

[BobKowalski]

I know the difference - which I have clearly illustrated - but thanks for your unnecessary sarcasm.

I'll leave all you Kirk bashers to it now. Chow.

Trust me, it was a pleasure.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I know the difference - which I have clearly illustrated - but thanks for your unnecessary sarcasm.

I'll leave all you Kirk bashers to it now. Chow.

The Chinese seem to be taking over Italian…

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

"Because of the power they have to harm their target. That’s their ONE AND ONLY purpose for existence."


This is a mischaracterization of purpose. The claim that the "ONE AND ONLY purpose" of firearms is to harm or destroy is an oversimplification which I have had to point out numerous times to various posters promoting the same illogical fallacy.

Firearms serve MULTIPLE purposes beyond destruction, including self-defense, sport, hunting, a& historical preservation. This narrow focus ignores the broader utility and cultural significance of firearms. If the primary purpose of a firearm is destruction, how do you account for its use in competitive sports like skeet shooting or target practice, where the goal is precision and skill rather than harm?

Your argument that the power of firearms as defensive tools lies solely in their destructive capability overlooks other factors, such as deterrence & the psychological impact of their presence. The mere possession of a firearm can deter potential attackers without any shots being fired. If the defensive power of a firearm is solely due to its destructive capability, how do you explain instances where the mere display of a firearm prevents an attack without any harm being inflicted?

Your comparison of firearms to hammers or other household items is a false equivalence. While a hammer can be used for multiple purposes (like construction or repair), firearms are designed with specific functions in mind, but this does not negate their defensive utility. Moreover, many tools, including knives & vehicles, can be used destructively, yet they are not regulated to the same extent as firearms. If firearms should be regulated aggressively due to their destructive potential, why are other potentially dangerous tools, such as knives or vehicles, not subject to similar levels of regulation, despite their capability to cause harm?

Your argument for "aggressive, radical regulation" conflicts with the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep & also bear arms. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that this right is fundamental & subject to certain limitations, but not to the extent of rendering it meaningless. If firearms are to be regulated to the "absolute hilt" as you believe, how do you reconcile this with the Supreme Court's rulings, such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) & New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which affirm an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defence?

Your claim also ignores the historical context of the Second Amendment, which was designed to ensure a citizen's ability to defend themselves against tyranny & personal threats. This right has been upheld as a cornerstone of American liberty. Given the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual liberty & self-defense, how can you justify regulations that might effectively nullify this right, especially when other constitutional rights are not subject to such stringent limitations?

Your assertion that no other product offers the same "social good/social ill trade-off" as firearms is debatable. Many products, such as alcohol, prescription drugs & even social media, have significant social ills but are not regulated to the extent proposed for firearms. The social good of firearms, including self-defense & personal security, must be weighed against their potential for harm. If the social ill of firearms justifies aggressive regulation, why are other products with comparable or greater social ills, such as alcohol (which contributes to thousands of deaths annually), not regulated to the same degree?

Comparing firearms to nuclear missile silos is a false analogy. Nuclear weapons are instruments of mass destruction with no practical defensive use for individuals, whereas firearms are tools for personal defence & other legitimate purposes. The scale & context of these weapons are vastly different. Since nuclear missile silos aren't comparable to personal firearms in terms of scale, purpose & individual use, how does your analogy support the argument for regulating firearms to the same extent as weapons of mass destruction?

There's also plenty of empirical evidence which suggests that stringent gun regulations don't always correlate with lower rates of gun violence. Countries with strict gun laws, such as Brazil & Mexico, still experience high levels of gun-related crime, while others with more lenient laws, like Switzerland, have low rates of gun violence.

If aggressive regulation is the solution, why do countries with strict gun laws still experience high rates of gun violence - & conversely - why do some countries with more lenient laws have low rates of gun violence?

I’m busy taking a cheese making class of all things right now so I will respond later, but I’ll give you this — you are the smartest poster on Bluemoon who doesn’t know how to read.

 

[yankblue]

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

No. I've explicitly addressed your contentions with facts and logic.

"I provided half a dozen links in there."

Your first link goes to some blog with an obvious political bias, needs a membership to access and therefore no actual video available to view of what he said so it can be viewed in full context.

TPUSA's Charlie Kirk: Trans People Are A "Throbbing Middle Finger to God"

Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk calls trans people a "throbbing middle finger to god" and "an abomination" in a video released Monday.

www.erininthemorning.com

Your second link goes to Wired.com, which has a left-center bias according to the Media Bias/Fact Check. Again, you need a membership to view so no way to verify the quote or the context.

How Charlie Kirk Plans to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is preparing to launch a campaign against Martin Luther King Jr. and the landmark civil rights law he helped enact.

www.wired.com

I therefore skipped some of your links out of exasperation and landed on your 6th link - which was a blatent misrepresentation of Kirk's views on black pilots. Here's the reality - stripped of your falsification:



"Correlating road deaths to gun deaths is a complete false equivalency"

Your statement overlooks the fundamental similarity between the two issues: both involve preventable deaths caused by human actions, whether through the use of firearms or vehicles. Both scenarios are influenced by factors such as policy, enforcement, cultural attitudes, & individual behavior.

For example, just as gun deaths can be reduced through stricter regulations, improved safety measures, & public education, rd deaths can also be mitigated through better traffic laws, enhanced vehicle safety standards & driver training programs. Both phenomena are public health concerns that require a multifaceted approach to reduce fatalities. The comparison is not about equating the mechanisms of death but about addressing the broader societal challenge of preventing the unnecessary loss of life.

Given this perspective, how can you argue that comparing the prevention strategies for rd deaths & gun deaths isn't a valid approach to understanding & reducing overall mortality rates?

I feel like I'm arguing with an AI model that's been fed a thesaurus and been told to randomly bold certain words. You pick and choose what you want to respond to and give the same circular arguments over and over again.