Isn't the shooter simply honoring Charlie Kirk's legacy?

[RF667799]

Ummm. Ok.

Speaking of running away....are firearms utterly unique representations of liberty or just another household appliance?

Is your question stupid, or just an artifact of being at a loss?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

OP

Total non-sequitur to the discussing reposted below. Save that straw for the barnyard animals.

quip said:
By now everyone knows Kirk's quote:

“I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational,”
trixare4kids said:
I believe every human being has the right to defend their own lives. However they choose to do this isn't the point.

Kirk wanted a country where each individual takes responsibility for their own self defense, but then failed spectacularly at actually defending himself.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[trixare4kids]

OP


Kirk wanted a country where each individual takes responsibility for their own self defense, but then failed spectacularly at actually defending himself.

That's not what Kirk espoused. Kirk praised figures like Kyle Rittenhouse as heroes for "standing their ground," and dismissed mass shootings as a tolerable cost for liberty, basically, "a few deaths for freedom's sake." Kind of hard to defend yourself with a weapon when you're ambushed from behind.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Really stupid rebuttal.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

That's not what Kirk espoused. Kirk praised figures like Kyle Rittenhouse as heroes for "standing their ground," and dismissed mass shootings as a tolerable cost for liberty, basically, "a few deaths for freedom's sake." Kind of hard to defend yourself with a weapon when you're ambushed from behind.

Yeah. Seems like it would be pretty tricky. Personally, I would prefer to be defended by a more structural system that reduced the chances of being shot at to begin with, rather than defending myself in a shootout.

For the Kirk types who want to DIY their self-defense, I guess they need to develop some kind of spidey-sense and catlike reflexes to make sure that they will be able to turn around and draw quicker than the bad guy. Pew pew!

And if some of them are too slow, like Kirk, that is an okay price to pay for all the more competent gunslingers out there to be able to do their thing. Pew pew!

 

[quip]

Is your question stupid, or just an artifact of being at a loss?

Nothing stupid about it. I'll sum it up for you: Are firearms uniquely special, if so how? Conversely, are firearms ubiquitous household items no more/less threatening than the car in the driveway....if so, then why is there a need for amendment protections?

I'm aware of the cognitive dissonance your grappling with here....so, if you can't answer, I understand.

 

[RF667799]

Nothing stupid about it. I'll sum it up for you: Are firearms uniquely special, if so how? Conversely, are firearms ubiquitous household items no more/less threatening than the car in the driveway....if so, then why is there a need for amendment protections?

I'm aware of the cognitive dissonance your grappling with here....so, if you can't answer, I understand.

You've manufactured an entire argument consisting of nothing but internal non-sequitur. There's no logic to address. Congrats.

 

[RF667799]

Yeah. Seems like it would be pretty tricky. Personally, I would prefer to be defended by a more structural system that reduced the chances of being shot at to begin with, rather than defending myself in a shootout.

For the Kirk types who want to DIY their self-defense, I guess they need to develop some kind of spidey-sense and catlike reflexes to make sure that they will be able to turn around and draw quicker than the bad guy. Pew pew!

And if some of them are too slow, like Kirk, that is an okay price to pay for all the more competent gunslingers out there to be able to do their thing. Pew pew!

Now place yourself in a position where any police have a response time of up to 20-30 minutes.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Now place yourself in a position where any police have a response time of up to 20-30 minutes.

Ok. Placed myself there. Now what?

 

[RF667799]

Ok. Placed myself there. Now what?

Now get snippy and snarky about finding yourself in need of defense there.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Now get snippy and snarky about finding yourself in need of defense there.

I would prefer not to need to defend myself there on account of a lack of threats.

Kirk thought that making sure nothing would ever stand in the way of Tyler Robinson having instant, unregulated access to any guns he wanted was something worth dying for, and die for it he did.

He thought he could defend himself with his guns, but apparently he wasn't up to the task.

 

[RF667799]

I would prefer not to need to defend myself there on account of a lack of threats.

Kirk thought that making sure nothing would ever stand in the way of Tyler Robinson having instant, unregulated access to any guns he wanted was something worth dying for, and die for it he did.

He thought he could defend himself with his guns, but apparently he wasn't up to the task.

You really don't get to decide there will only ever be a threat when it's convenient for you.

Was Kirk even armed? Access to guns is regulated.

The police that you apparently count on weren't "up to the task" either.

I've never seen anyone claim that being prepared to defend oneself is a guarantee that one will escape unscathed.

You're neck deep in straw and silliness.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You really don't get to decide there will only ever be a threat when it's convenient for you.

Was Kirk even armed? Access to guns is regulated.

The police that you apparently count on weren't "up to the task" either.

I've never seen anyone claim that being prepared to defend oneself is a guarantee that one will escape unscathed.

You're neck deep in straw and silliness.

A society gets to decide what it will do to reduce threats. The US collectively wants to wait until the last possible moment to deal with threats, and then shoot them down. Pew pew!

In places like Denmark, they get ahead of the threats with things like requiring licensing for firearm ownership, providing universal healthcare and social safety nets to make sure people are getting the help they need and aren't getting into such desperate situations that they turn to a life of crime, etc.

The police don't need to show up to stop all the crimes that don't happen in the first place when you develop a system to prevent violent crime rather than thinking that you will just shoot anyone who tries to mess with you as your first line of defense.

The time for the police to act should have been when Robinson tried to acquire a gun. But that isn't how we do thigs around here. We are perfectly capable of protecting ourselves with our own guns, thank you very much.

Except for Kirk, of course. He obviously wasn't capable of that.

 

[RF667799]

A society gets to decide what it will do to reduce threats. The US collectively wants to wait until the last possible moment to deal with threats, and then shoot them down. Pew pew!

In places like Denmark, they get ahead of the threats with things like requiring licensing for firearm ownership, providing universal healthcare and social safety nets to make sure people are getting the help they need and aren't getting into such desperate situations that they turn to a life of crime, etc.

The police don't need to show up to stop all the crimes that don't happen in the first place when you develop a system to prevent violent crime rather than thinking that you will just shoot anyone who tries to mess with you as your first line of defense.

The time for the police to act should have been when Robinson tried to acquire a gun. But that isn't how we do thigs around here. We are perfectly capable of protecting ourselves with our own guns, thank you very much.

Except for Kirk, of course. He obviously wasn't capable of that.

What should the police have done when the eventual murderer "acquired" the gun he used?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What should the police have done when the eventual murderer "acquired" the gun he used?

They should have prevented him from acquiring it to begin with. If he managed to acquire it nonetheless, they should have taken it away from him. But of course they aren't allowed to do that around here. Kirk would have rather died than see anyone get in the way of Robinson's unrestricted access to firearms.

Waiting until the bad guys are reaching for their gun and then whipping your six-shooter out in the blink of an eye to stop them is great fun in one of those cheap Kurosawa knock-off films that Eastwood was famous for, but it's pretty terrible as an actual policy.

 

[quip]

You've manufactured an entire argument consisting of nothing but internal non-sequitur. There's no logic to address. Congrats.

That's an odd reaction to an overview of your own line of reasoning. You could've clarified how firearms are unique by being classified as household weapons whereas automobiles (for example) are classified as modes of transportation. Furthermore, explaining why a common, otherwise innocuous, mode of transportation must be diminished to the level of a weapon in order to enjoy the veneration of the firearm.

It's a peculiar demonstration of rationalization, so I hope you understand my confusion here.

 

[RF667799]

They should have prevented him from acquiring it to begin with. If he managed to acquire it nonetheless, they should have taken it away from him. But of course they aren't allowed to do that around here. Kirk would have rather died than see anyone get in the way of Robinson's unrestricted access to firearms.

Right. The police could do nothing, because Minority Report was as fictional as what you're trying to peddle.

Waiting until the bad guys are reaching for their gun and then whipping your six-shooter out in the blink of an eye to stop them is great fun in one of those cheap Kurosawa knock-off films that Eastwood was famous for, but it's pretty terrible as an actual policy.

Whatever makes you believe that self defense is only necessary when confronted by someone with a gun?

 

[RF667799]

That's an odd reaction to an overview of your own line of reasoning. You could've clarified how firearms are unique by being classified as household weapons whereas automobiles (for example) are classified as modes of transportation. Furthermore, explaining why a common, otherwise innocuous, mode of transportation must be diminished to the level of a weapon in order to enjoy the veneration of the firearm.

It's a peculiar demonstration of rationalization, so I hope you understand my confusion here.

You're the one furiously classifying and categorizing as if labeling makes an argument. I'm just watching the spectacle at this point, since you've left the original point far behind in the wake of your hasty departure from it.

 

[Fletch]

OP


Kirk wanted a country where each individual takes responsibility for their own self defense, but then failed spectacularly at actually defending himself.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

What a stupid comment that is

 

[quip]

You're the one furiously classifying and categorizing as if labeling makes an argument. I'm just watching the spectacle at this point, since you've left the original point far behind in the wake of your hasty departure from it.

I'm simply following the bread crumbs you and co. are dropping. You abandoning your "logic"?

 

[RF667799]

I'm simply following the bread crumbs you and co. are dropping. You abandoning your "logic"?

You just illustrated my point, really:

That's exactly what it does....though the value and utility of the automobile serves society exponentially greater than the sole, lethal benefit of the firearm....thus, given the pragmatic mundanity of automobile use plus their ubiquity, suggests the potential for their political discourse (and subsequent political value) remains close to nil. The gun, by contrast and by rhetoric, is categorically (and constitutionally) unique. Yes?

As such, I challenge you to discover an otherwise identical advocate for automobiles, who's died by the dispassionate method of his own rhetoric....and suggest lowering our national flag to half mast in his or her honor!

Otherwise, your attempt at gun apologetics is nothing more than spurious horseshit.

So it's still a fact that you are weighing deaths against the utility of privately owned motor vehicles. You're assigning greater value to that utility, than to the lives it costs for you to conveniently utilize those vehicles.

 

[quip]

Asked and answered.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Right. The police could do nothing, because Minority Report was as fictional as what you're trying to peddle.

More because they were American police. We prefer to wait until after someone like Kirk is dead, and then have the police arrest the killer afterwards, rather than prevent the crimes to begin with around these parts.

Whatever makes you believe that self defense is only necessary when confronted by someone with a gun?

I don't believe I ever suggested that it was.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What a stupid comment that is

Do you think Kirk succeeded in defending himself?

He lost that gunfight. And you know what Trump says about people who lose.

 

[RF667799]

Do you think Kirk succeeded in defending himself?

He lost that gunfight. And you know what Trump says about people who lose.

It was an assassination, not a gunfight.

Your rhetoric would classify the girl murdered on the train recently as a knife fight.

 

[RF667799]

More because they were American police. We prefer to wait until after someone like Kirk is dead, and then have the police arrest the killer afterwards, rather than prevent the crimes to begin with around these parts.

What's your idea for preventing that particular crime? Arrest people with extreme political views?

I don't believe I ever suggested that it was.

Seems the intent in making up the scenario that you used.