Kirk also made clear his hate of transgenders and his killer was indeed in couple with a transgender.
Does anyone see a motive there ?
Charlie Kirk shot dead today
- Thread starter urquell
- Start date
Kirk also made clear his hate of transgenders and his killer was indeed in couple with a transgender.
Does anyone see a motive there ?
Neither side has done fuck all to change anything and they have both had their shot at being in power.
The reality is that Americans in general are in love with their gun culture and will cling to it.
It is basically political suicide for either party to try to ban guns or to put meaningful restrictions.
Keep the prayers and thoughts going though they have all practiced that speech well.
Toute right again but in countries with less guns, other means were used and are still. Remember the Nice France 2016 a truck used by a Muslim extremist to kill 86 pedestrians and injured 458.
In Toronto, a man driving a Ford Econoline or something similar killed 11 persons or so on a sidewalk.
In Europe, many examples also.
Saw an interesting take on this from Aiden Walker, via Tizzyent (I have no idea who Aiden is)
What it boils down to is that we have a generation of people that feel like they're going to be alone forever and the world is just going to get worse. Tyler James Robinson spent most of his life online, as can be seen from the bullet engravings. They're all memes and game related. He wasn't effected so much by Left vs Right as he was by a nihilistic view of the world. We have too many lonely people that don't know how to interact with the real world and see no future for themselves. Combine that with ready access to guns and the constant ragebait online and you end up with this.
They should be looking more into his upbringing, less about where he stands on the political scale. There's going to be many more people like Tyler on both sides.
What it boils down to is that we have a generation of people that feel like they're going to be alone forever and the world is just going to get worse. Tyler James Robinson spent most of his life online, as can be seen from the bullet engravings. They're all memes and game related. He wasn't effected so much by Left vs Right as he was by a nihilistic view of the world. We have too many lonely people that don't know how to interact with the real world and see no future for themselves. Combine that with ready access to guns and the constant ragebait online and you end up with this.
They should be looking more into his upbringing, less about where he stands on the political scale. There's going to be many more people like Tyler on both sides.
Yes and this happens how many times? Once every couple of years and you have to search several countries to find them.
Not so much in the US , not a day goes by without many people getting killed by guns and mass shootings are happening on a weekly/ monthly basis.
Perhaps you can add up all the people killed in a year world wide without the use of firearms and I bet it won’t come close to how many were killed by guns in a week in the US, but keep on playing this game of guns don’t kill humans do.
Yes it is a human that does the killing but it is damn easy with an automatic assault rifle or even a hand gun.
Stop trying to blame both sides. Democrats having been trying for decades to pass sensible gun safety legislation. Republicans block it each and every time. Fortunately, I live in a blue state with strict gun safety laws and our gun deaths are one of the lowest in the country.
But here’s the thing: if someone saved your life with a gun, you’d be grateful. You wouldn’t blame the weapon - you’d thank the person holding it.
But when a bad man with a gun does something horrific, suddenly it’s not his fault.
It’s the gun. It’s society. It’s his political beliefs. It’s everything except the choices he/she made.
So we should stop blaming the guns and start holding people accountable instead maybe? Especially the politicians that advocate for soft on crime policies.
Same thing with my knife analogy at the beginning of this thread:
When there’s a stabbing, no one calls for a worldwide ban on knives. We don’t hear politicians demanding “knife control.” No one rebrands them as “assault knives.” It’s treated as what it is - a tragic incident caused by a violent individual. And then everyone moves on.
But when a gun is involved, suddenly the conversation shifts. It’s not just about the person who pulled the trigger it’s about the tool they used.
A knife has many uses. A knife can't kill a dozen people in a matter of minutes (unless they're REALLY good with a knife). You see someone attacking people with a knife, you can run.
Guns have a very limited purpose - hunting, killing and providing defense against being killed. If someone's shooting people, there's no outrunning that. Firing back, that's a gamble. Most likely just going to end up getting shot by the attacker.
The whole good guy with a gun thing is kind of silly. If every single person at the Kirk rally had a gun, they still wouldn't have been able to stop the assassin. Same goes for JFK, MLK, Malcom X, etc... At best, they'd be able to shoot the assassin afterwards.
A gun can kill people from pretty far away. I don't think many people could kill someone with a knife from 200 yards.
If we going to go down the road of "Knives can kill too, so gun control is pointless"... where's it end? Can I have a rocket launcher? It's no different than a butter knife, right? You could kill someone with a butter knife, therefore I should be able to launch missiles from my backyard.
You're not entirely wrong, and yes it's hypocritical to absolve one weapon and not the other. Having said that, there's practical reasons to address guns first. The most important is that guns is a bigger problem. Gun deaths represent 13.7 deaths per 100K and stabbing deaths represent 0.53 per 100K, making guns a 27X greater problem than knives. Secondly, there's practicality. Knives serve a variety of domestic purposes and are indispensable in normal households. Guns serve a useful domestic purpose only in terms of hunting for food, which most people don't do, so the absence of a firearm is less impactful than the absence of knives for the average household. Also, guns can act over large distances whereas knives can't, making knives less useful as assassination tools, and because of the arms length reach less useful for mass killing than guns are. Basically, from a moral and logical standpoint there's virtually no difference between guns and knives as potential weapons, but from a practical standpoint there's a vast chasm between the two as to what needs to be addressed first. Also, the political implications can't be ignored, as the knife issue is less of a political flashpoint and not as good for public sound bites. I personally view knives as a more dangerous weapon generally, but it seems clear that guns are a bigger problem.
Nah both sides were in power and did fuck all about it.
Only you with your one sided complete hatred cannot think past it.
The only thing you do is pile one hate post after another on Trump and Republicans, and then bitch about how divided the country is lol.
Your blue states have countless gun killings need I name some of your blue states and cities that have the worst crime and gun killings, Chicago, New York, Los Angelas.
You can have your blue states and guns and Americas whole fucked up love affair with firearms.
It's extremely rare in USA that mass murders are made with knives, I cant think of one, perhaps I am wrong.
In Canada, it happenned in Manitoba a couple of years ago in First Nation villages. But not in the same close neighborhood.
You named the most populated cities, it's not a surprise they have the most gun killing.
The right comparison would be the murder rate vs the cities population. The same for Blue states vs Red states.
In Canada, you will find more murders in Toronto vs Longueuil !
So what. are you trying to say that gun violence is not a huge problem all over the US.
There is no other country with the amount of gun related crime and killing that comes remotely close to the US and you can throw in the most populated cities in the world in China, India, any country.
Why because all of them put together don’t have the amount of guns in private citizens hands as the US.
Doesn’t take rocket science to figure this out.
Similar threads
