Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths 'Unfortunately' Worth it to Keep 2nd Amendment

[billd766]

19 minutes ago, transam said:

The problem with that is, no one would look cool....????

 

I have fired a black powder blunderbuss, it nigh-on blew me over backwards...????

You are a braver man than I am Gunga Din.

[Tug]

On 4/7/2023 at 5:12 PM, Skeptic7 said:

The USA has fallen mightily and continues in decline. It's become so unhinged and usurped by ignorant Trump sucking, gun toting, bible banging, Fox News loving, conspiracy spouting, extreme right-wing imbecile hypocrites. It's just gross. ????

I disagree we are trying to change a younger generation is coming up I give it 4 election cycles to create a democratic super majority then things will start to change like real background checks banning assault type long guns it’s messy it’s frustrating it’s frightening and unfortunately sometimes fatal but change is coming bank on it!

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

I disagree we are trying to change a younger generation is coming up I give it 4 election cycles to create a democratic super majority then things will start to change like real background checks banning assault type long guns it’s messy it’s frustrating it’s frightening and unfortunately sometimes fatal but change is coming bank on it!

Nah, the US is and will stay as it has usually been- a 40/40 split between the two parties, with about 20% in the middle/undecided camp. BTW, what is an "assault type long gun" and why is it necessary to ban them when they are used so relatively infrequently in crime? 

[Hanaguma]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to go back to the original 2nd amendment but only allow black powder weapons and ban anything made newer than 1800. That way the 2nd amendment would still be available and only weapons made prior to that time to be allowed.

Sure. And a "free press" would only include hand printed sheets of vellum, not the internet or tv or radio. 

 

The idea of the 2A was to give free citizens the right to roughly arm themselves in a way equivalent to the standing army. 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Nah, the US is and will stay as it has usually been- a 40/40 split between the two parties, with about 20% in the middle/undecided camp. BTW, what is an "assault type long gun" and why is it necessary to ban them when they are used so relatively infrequently in crime? 

The AR15 and similar guns are used most commonly in mass shootings.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

The AR15 and similar guns are used most commonly in mass shootings.

Actually not, according to Statista.  Handguns more than 60% of the time.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

 

The National Institute of Justice says 77% are committed with handguns...

 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

 

 

But even so mass shootings are a very tiny fraction of overall murders and shootings.  Makes no sense to obsess over them when other factors are far more common.

[StreetCowboy]

On 4/7/2023 at 6:13 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

God given rights… to own guns?

I thought it was in the Constitution, rather than the Bible.  Maybe they have a different Bible in the USA.

[StreetCowboy]

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Sure. And a "free press" would only include hand printed sheets of vellum, not the internet or tv or radio. 

 

The idea of the 2A was to give free citizens the right to roughly arm themselves in a way equivalent to the standing army. 

Generally, whenever Americans exercise the 2nd amendment in the spirit in which it was intended - Waco siege, murder of Lincoln, shooting of Ronald Reagan, the Civl War, it is generally looked on with ill-favour.  The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is the right of the populace to overthrow the government by force of arms.  Without domestic nuclear weapons, the 2nd Amendment is no more than an empty fantasy that results in unnecesasary murders.

[Bkk Brian]

10 hours ago, Tug said:

I disagree we are trying to change a younger generation is coming up I give it 4 election cycles to create a democratic super majority then things will start to change like real background checks banning assault type long guns it’s messy it’s frustrating it’s frightening and unfortunately sometimes fatal but change is coming bank on it!

Agree, that change is a long hard road ahead but starting off with the banning of assault weapons is a first step. 

 

You're either a loon, a murderer in the making, or just so insecure you want to have something that makes you feel more like a man.

 

These are the facts on what they do to you and to a child's internal organs.

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

8 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually not, according to Statista.  Handguns more than 60% of the time.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

 

The National Institute of Justice says 77% are committed with handguns...

 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

 

 

But even so mass shootings are a very tiny fraction of overall murders and shootings.  Makes no sense to obsess over them when other factors are far more common.

One more time. 
When the number one cause of death for  children in your country is no longer disease, car accidents, drowning and other common accidents but is in fact guns, then I think you just might want to “obsess” over it just a little bit. 

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Agree, that change is a long hard road ahead but starting off with the banning of assault weapons is a first step. 

 

You're either a loon, a murderer in the making, or just so insecure you want to have something that makes you feel more like a man.

 

These are the facts on what they do to you and to a child's internal organs.

 

 

Except, as has been proven, it is not. Handguns are the choice at from 60-75%, depending on the statistics you use.  The crazy and unrealistic fear of long guns is simply mystifying to me.

[Skeptic7]

12 hours ago, Tug said:

I disagree we are trying to change a younger generation is coming up I give it 4 election cycles to create a democratic super majority then things will start to change like real background checks banning assault type long guns it’s messy it’s frustrating it’s frightening and unfortunately sometimes fatal but change is coming bank on it!

OK, possibly...but this is not a disagreement. It's an optimistic prognostication. While I can't predict the future...I can observe the whackjob present with reference and comparison to the past. I hope you're correct, but not banking on it. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Except, as has been proven, it is not. Handguns are the choice at from 60-75%, depending on the statistics you use.  The crazy and unrealistic fear of long guns is simply mystifying to me.

"Except, as has been proven, it is not."

 

Wrong, re read the tweet and its claim and watch the short video

 

"The AR-15 style rifle is the weapon of choice for the nation's deadliest mass shooters"

 

 

https://medium.com/armedwithreason/its-the-system-stupid-uvalde-buffalo-4c41bcad3410

 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/durbin-reads-out-death-tolls-of-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-last-decade-calls-on-colleagues-to-pass-gun-safety-legislation-in-wake-of-nashville-school-shooting

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[Hanaguma]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"Except, as has been proven, it is not."

 

Wrong, re read the tweet and its claim and watch the short video

 

"The AR-15 style rifle is the weapon of choice for the nation's deadliest mass shooters"

 

 

As soon as the phrase "weapons of war" is deployed, the so-called journalist loses all credibility.  There is no military on earth that uses the AR-15.    

 

Again, the numbers don't bear out the assertion that AR-15s and other long guns are a particular problem.  Handguns are used to kill far more people.  Politicians and ignorant journalists are simply scapegoating the vast majority of legal and safe owners of long weapons. 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

As soon as the phrase "weapons of war" is deployed, the so-called journalist loses all credibility.  There is no military on earth that uses the AR-15.    

 

Again, the numbers don't bear out the assertion that AR-15s and other long guns are a particular problem.  Handguns are used to kill far more people.  Politicians and ignorant journalists are simply scapegoating the vast majority of legal and safe owners of long weapons. 

the numbers don't bear out the assertion that AR-15s and other long guns are a particular problem

 

The facts disagree with you. You're sounding much like the Charlie Kirk

 

"I think 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 is a prudent deal."

 

The parents of those children and their loved ones murdered also disagree with you and Charlie.

 

As for your discrediting of those who call these weapons of war, again read the links I supplied, watch the video in the tweet. Your attempts to sanitize the murder of innocents is lame.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Except, as has been proven, it is not. Handguns are the choice at from 60-75%, depending on the statistics you use.  The crazy and unrealistic fear of long guns is simply mystifying to me.

Ok. One more time.

Long guns (or whatever you want to call them) is the leading fire-arm used in mass-shootings, including mass shootings of children. No one is disputing that overall, handguns kill more people.

There is a logical 'fear of long guns' as that's what's being used to kill children and would be really quite simple to ban them entirely as they have little use anywhere else including hunting. Your deflection and 'here's the real statistics' isn't helpful, neither is your assertion that those concerned are 'crazy and unrealistic'.   

A parent shouldn't have to worry about their children being shot as they send them off to school. And although banning AR-15's and the likes might not cure the problem, it's at least a start.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

As soon as the phrase "weapons of war" is deployed, the so-called journalist loses all credibility.  There is no military on earth that uses the AR-15.    

 

Again, the numbers don't bear out the assertion that AR-15s and other long guns are a particular problem.  Handguns are used to kill far more people.  Politicians and ignorant journalists are simply scapegoating the vast majority of legal and safe owners of long weapons. 

So what, I would be happy with a reduction in mass shooting victims of 25-40 percent.

[Hanaguma]

11 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ok. One more time.

Long guns (or whatever you want to call them) is the leading fire-arm used in mass-shootings, including mass shootings of children. No one is disputing that overall, handguns kill more people.

There is a logical 'fear of long guns' as that's what's being used to kill children and would be really quite simple to ban them entirely as they have little use anywhere else including hunting. Your deflection and 'here's the real statistics' isn't helpful, neither is your assertion that those concerned are 'crazy and unrealistic'.   

A parent shouldn't have to worry about their children being shot as they send them off to school. And although banning AR-15's and the likes might not cure the problem, it's at least a start.

According to the US Government, HANDGUNS are used in the majority of mass shootings-77% to be exact. See my above link.  Fear of long guns is de facto illogical as they are not the most common weapon used in any kind of shooting- mass or otherwise.  So you have to ask why they are the target of gun abolitionists, and not the much more deadly handgun. 7,000 murders with handguns, 350 with long guns. 

[Bkk Brian]

Following hot on the heals of Kirk, comes Matt Gaetz with his stupidity...............(vid in the article)

 

Matt Gaetz claims 'no mass shootings' when automatic weapons and cannons were legal

"Your grandparents used to be able to order mail-order automatic weapons, and when the Second Amendment was written, the American people, such as they were, could own cannons. No mass shootings back then," he said.

https://www.rawstory.com/matt-gaetz-automatic-weapons/

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

According to the US Government, HANDGUNS are used in the majority of mass shootings-77% to be exact. See my above link.  Fear of long guns is de facto illogical as they are not the most common weapon used in any kind of shooting- mass or otherwise.  So you have to ask why they are the target of gun abolitionists, and not the much more deadly handgun. 7,000 murders with handguns, 350 with long guns. 

What is trying to be done is start with a reduction of 350 deaths then.

[Hanaguma]

4 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

What is trying to be done is start with a reduction of 350 deaths then.

Spending 80% of your time trying to reduce 2% of a problem is stupid.  Again, why is the 2% being targeted, not the 80%?  

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

As soon as the phrase "weapons of war" is deployed, the so-called journalist loses all credibility.  There is no military on earth that uses the AR-15.    

 

Again, the numbers don't bear out the assertion that AR-15s and other long guns are a particular problem.  Handguns are used to kill far more people.  Politicians and ignorant journalists are simply scapegoating the vast majority of legal and safe owners of long weapons. 

 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

As soon as the phrase "weapons of war" is deployed, the so-called journalist loses all credibility.  There is no military on earth that uses the AR-15.    

Yet, "Armalite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle".

 

A "military rifle" ergo a "weapon of war".

 

I suggest that a poster who denies the facts loses all credibility.

 

A Brief History Of The AR-15 : NPR

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by LosLobo

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Spending 80% of your time trying to reduce 2% of a problem is stupid.  Again, why is the 2% being targeted, not the 80%?  

Because its an initial step in reduction. Its quite simple really. That's how change happens. Start with the weapons that cause most damage when used. Get rid of them completely and then address the lax controls in place in many of the US states.

[Kwasaki]

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Spending 80% of your time trying to reduce 2% of a problem is stupid.  Again, why is the 2% being targeted, not the 80%?  

Govts have stop talking and start somewhere.

 

If uk did nothing after the M. Ryan incident I would say the uk would be having worse gun trouble than it is now. 

[Hanaguma]

26 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

Yet, "Armalite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle".

 

A "military rifle" ergo a "weapon of war".

 

I suggest that a poster who denies the facts loses all credibility.

 

A Brief History Of The AR-15 : NPR

 

...and as the article says, NEVER used by the military. A fifty year old design.  Nothing unique or special about it. So old that the patent expired and it can be copied by any company. A weapon that has never been used in any military on earth and has never been used in a war cannot be called a weapon of war.  

 

It is akin to a Ford Mustang with a 4 cylinder engine. Looks like a sports car, but performs like a family sedan.  

[Hanaguma]

15 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Because its an initial step in reduction. Its quite simple really. That's how change happens. Start with the weapons that cause most damage when used. Get rid of them completely and then address the lax controls in place in many of the US states.

So, mass shooters will stop if they cant get an AR 15?  Where is your evidence of that? 

 

There are more than 8 million long guns in the AR family in circulation. 7,999, 800 are used peacefully and lawfully, and also for legitimate home defence. 

[transam]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

...and as the article says, NEVER used by the military. A fifty year old design.  Nothing unique or special about it. So old that the patent expired and it can be copied by any company. A weapon that has never been used in any military on earth and has never been used in a war cannot be called a weapon of war.  

 

It is akin to a Ford Mustang with a 4 cylinder engine. Looks like a sports car, but performs like a family sedan.  

When was the Browning .50 cal designed, is it still used today....? ????

[transam]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

So, mass shooters will stop if they cant get an AR 15?  Where is your evidence of that? 

 

There are more than 8 million long guns in the AR family in circulation. 7,999, 800 are used peacefully and lawfully, and also for legitimate home defence. 

They are not needed.......................

[Hanaguma]

Just now, transam said:

They are not needed.......................

Neither are baseball bats, and bats kill as many people as AR15s.  So howzabout we get rid of baseball bats too?

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

So, mass shooters will stop if they cant get an AR 15?  Where is your evidence of that? 

 

There are more than 8 million long guns in the AR family in circulation. 7,999, 800 are used peacefully and lawfully, and also for legitimate home defence. 

Strawman. Where 's your evidence I claimed that?

 

You may want to actually "view" this vid by the LAPD and see why they kill more people when used especially children