Anonymous #2 1w

I literally just posted that guns save lives bro what are you on about

27

Anonymous OP 1w

Seems like you’re clowning him and it’s just a sorry excuse for a human being for mocking a man who was possibly murdered in cold blood.

-9

Anonymous #2 1w

Prove me wrong

27

Anonymous OP 1w

Sorry excuse for a human being ^^^

-6

Anonymous #2 1w

This wouldn’t have happened with a rock, a knife, or bare hands. The gun is the most important factor here.

29

Anonymous #5 1w

If they decided to use a knife in that moment that would be stupid. If they decided to get up close and personal a knife would be a possibility. Either way the problem is that there’s someone with enough hate in their soul to want to kill someone. Doesn’t matter if it’s with a gun knife or rock. It’s a mental health problem either way

1

Anonymous #2 1w

The point is, Charlie Kirk would be alive, or at least well, if someone had to physically get close enough to hurt him with the aforementioned weapons. It was the gun. End of story.

20

Anonymous #5 1w

Okay ban guns. But we still will have needless murders across the world because we have a deep issue with peoples mental health. Banning guns won’t fix this problem. Even if you ban guns, chances are it won’t stop half the murders that happen.

-3

Anonymous #2 1w

Actually I think it’s the bullets that kill ppl

1

Anonymous #6 1w

that’s not what this post is about. it’s about the irony of the situation

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You are correct right up until the last two sentences. People will still die, people will still get murdered. In the US, according to the census from last year, 38% of all gun deaths were murders, and 79% of all murders were with guns. Banning guns will not get rid of murder, but it will get rid of upwards of 80%. I call that a good reduction. Why don’t you?

4

Anonymous #2 1w

it would’ve stopped charlie kirk from getting shot tho wouldn’t it

1

Anonymous #6 1w

We don’t know if it was a Republican yet. Shooter hasn’t been brought it

1

Anonymous #6 1w

“It clearly wasn’t a Republican who did this” Right just like the Trump shooters weren’t republican. When will you learn every fucking shooter is a neo Nazi. They’re all one of your

3

Not every shooter is but overwhelmingly shooters are far right. The FBI has put out multiple articles outlining this fact

19

Anonymous #11 1w

OP had no idea I promise

100

Anonymous #11 1w

Did you bother to check the timestamp on when they posted it? Also this post is pointing out hypocrisy, not intended for comedy

86

Anonymous #2 1w

i don't want the government to ban guns. i want it to more strongly regulate which guns can be bought and by whom; and when and where they can take them. i also want it to provide free healthcare so people can be treated and stabilized before they engage in any violence. similar for housing and basic needs like food, water, hygiene and clothes. none of these things can solve the issue alone

0

This post was intended to point out hypocrisy and irony. No part of this is making anyone a piece of shit

52

Can you read? this isn’t a mocking post and this is also not a joke post. Please develop any critical thinking.

19

Kirk mocked the thousands of kids who have been killed by gun violence. Did u ever call him out for being immoral

19

Anonymous #12 1w

Uh yeah. Violence is bad when it’s against ANYONE!

22

Anonymous #11 1w

I agree. Just calling out the hypocrisy

3

Anonymous #6 1w

I agree that some sort of mental health testing needs to be done for people who want to buy guns but not that they need to be taken away entirely.

1

Anonymous #13 1w

Ah so the trans were neonazi?

6

Anonymous #16 1w

Nobody truly wants that. Unless they are incredibly far left

1

Anonymous #16 1w

Lol yes, they were spreading alt right views and was a part of many far right groups

2

Anonymous #11 1w

It’s kinda like the dude in Grizzly Man, who was attacked and killed by a bear. He said repeatedly that what he did was safe. As it turns out, he was dead wrong (pun intended).

0

I find that incredibly hard to believe

-2

Anonymous #16 1w

Literally NO ONE is saying they all need to be taken away. Stricter purchasing procedures and the ban of rapid fire weapons are what we want gone.

1

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115286/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20230208-SD008.pdf

1

Anonymous #12 1w

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/counterterrorism/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report.pdf

1

Anonymous #12 1w

I can continue if you want. My “commando analysis of stabbings” has factual basis from the 90s when australia imposed their gun reform. I would love to see any articles disputing gun reform limiting deaths along with any articles not saying one of the largest threats to modern America is alt right groups

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

This is the correct way to handle this, at least for legal reasons -mushy

9

Seems like you’re the one who has been whining

-1

Anonymous #11 1w

exactly its not funny its serious and we need more gun control

1

Scroll up in this thread. You sound more insecure as time goes on

-2

Anonymous #15 1w

Not hypocritical

1

Anonymous #2 1w

No. Not every homicide is premeditated or carried out with such strong intention that they would commit the crime regardless of the weapons available. This is one of the dumbest things that pro-gun advocates say.

5

Anonymous #2 1w

The gun enabled Charlie’s death, especially in the exact manner in which he was assassinated. The presence of guns extremely IMPROVED the chances of Charlie being killed. This is an inescapable fact, and denying it is moronic. It only serves the purpose of defending your own personal ownership of guns because you like the feeling of individual power that it gives you. Childish af

0

Gun legislation could have stopped this. Unintelligent take saying that gun legislation wouldn’t reduce gun deaths

1

If more creativity is required to kill someone, then that weeds out those that are less creative, thereby decreasing deaths as a result of gun violence. This is basic logic, buddy.

1

You keep commenting that it wouldn’t when I have given evidence that it would. Provide evidence that counters what we are saying and I’ll stop.

1

You said that typing in two links would take you two hours. The fact that you are comparing constructing IEDs and making homemade Sarin gas to guns is comedic

1

I’m not fine with killing. You’re such a disingenuous piece of shit that you have to construct a straw man, and I find it difficult to believe that you’re so stupid that you can’t comprehend my extremely simple argument. No, killing is not ok, and nothing I said even REMOTELY implied that it was. In fact, I advocate for banning or heavily restricting guns, which will REDUCE killing.

1

What your simple mind is "missing" is that less people know and are willing to learn how to construct an IED than those who are willing to buy a gun. Constructing an IED is more DIFFICULT than buying a manufactured product. 🤯

0

It’s not hard to follow. It’s illogical. Guns are some of the most easily accessible ways to kill someone efficiently. Constructing IEDs aren’t efficient in the same manner and Sarin gas is a crazy thing to randomly pull

5

For the average person yes. Mixing them and creating an ignition switch is more work than someone is willing to do when they can go buy a gun and ammo

1

Idk what the hell any of that means. Seems difficult to me. 🤷‍♂️ Do just as many people have IED’s and Sarin gas as those who have guns? There’s a correct answer here, buddy. I wonder why that is. 🤔

1

Never claimed to be a ballistics expert buddy. Just point out the issues with your claims

3

Why are most mass killings in the US with guns then?

3

Not all homicides are motivated psychos. Your premise is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Easiest argument I’ve ever debunked.

1

Anonymous #12 1w

Also tell me the last time sarin gas was used on US civilians

6

What? There are more mass killings with guns than ieds because of the media

5

So you deny that guns are used to kill people more often than IED’s? Because that would really fucking stupid thing to propose.

1

Oh so it’s actually never happened in the US. So satin gas is a moot point.

4

It CAN happen here. It’s just quite rare EVERYWHERE. Gun violence is common and becoming the norm in America. This is the Nirvana fallacy. Only morons use fallacious reasoning.

1

So it’s the medias fault that guns are used more than IEDs? I want to make sure this is the point you are arguing

3

What are u getting at then. You keep mentioning the media and people having a field day abt gun reform

4

It’s literally what you implied when you shouted "ThE mEdIa" in response to our request to explain why IED’s we’re not used to kill people as often as guns

2

*you say as you neglect to make any clarification whatsoever

1

Bro what is your claim. Is it that IEDs cause more deaths than guns in America. The media is the reason there are more gun deaths than IEDs. You are bouncing around more than a fucking rabbit

6

That’s definitely not why people use a gun lol. How many ied attacks have there been on us soil in the past 25 years

5

I made that comment prior to your response showing up numbnuts

5

No. Nice try trying to defend your indefensible position. It is obviously because AR15s are easier to access. Also, you are shifting the goalposts to terror attacks when we are speaking about violent crimes in general.

1

Also why are we talking abt terrorism now? This was originally abt gun legislation for the American people and how Americans are building IEDs if they are crazy enough

1

The difference between my comments and yours is that I insult you AND identify flaws in your arguments, while many of your arguments consist exclusively of insults and are entirely unsubstantive. It’s obvious who is the one who is cooked, bro.

1

Nope. This was never about political violence or terrorism specifically. This argument was always about violent crime as a whole. Your cluelessness is on proud display for everyone to see.

1

Political violence isn’t an act of terror in this circumstance. The shooter shot Kirk and that’s it. There’s no information leading to believe he/she wanted anything other than Kirk’s rhetoric to be gone

1

I am reading and responding to everything you said. The same cannot be said of you.

1

Anonymous #12 1w

As 24 stated, you shifted and you continue to shift.

1

Insults ✅ Argument ❌

1

If you’re too tired to engage right now, just admit that. Because it’s quite obvious to any onlooker that none of your comment at this point contain any argument or intelligent insight.

1

My entire argument has been cohesive and I have been following the egg hunt you have been dragging me and 24 on. You have led the majority of this conversation you dumb fuck

1

Buddy, I was more clear headed last night after I had been drinking coffee all day than I am right now after I have just woken up. I was arguing quite well and keeping track of the argument.

1

All of those “bounces” were in direct responses to your statements. You’re projecting

1

You were the first one to even mention "ballistic experts," and it was from a sarcastic statement of yours, even though you presented it as one of #10’s "bounces." Really intellectually honest, buddy. You are an intellectual joke.

1

I do think it’s a bit foolish to say that, should guns be banned, people would just use knives to do the same crimes. Like, that’s not logical.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Nah. #10’s of the all or nothing mentality. People won’t use knives to commit the same crimes. They’ll use improvised explosive devices and sarin gas.

1

Anonymous #24 1w

I was under the impression that a lot of criminals prefer to keep collateral damage to a minimum? I feel like a high presence of innocent people would be a deterrent to using uncontrollable weaponry like you mentioned.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

I was being sarcastic. This is #10’s position, and it is ridiculous.

1

Anonymous #24 1w

Ooohhhh my mistake, carry on.

1

Anonymous #24 1w

It’s not worth it. 10s gotta be rage baiting us at this point. If he’s not then I feel bad for his future children since he’s incoherent over an app and will only be worse irl

1

As I said previously, the biggest problem with your argument is that you are neglecting the difference between guns and every other weapon you anticipate as their replacement.

1

Ah, yes. If people are disagreeing with you and proving you wrong, it must be because they misunderstand you. An actual error on your part is impossible. 🙄

1

No. Like I said before, you made the ridiculous assumption that all homicides were committed by motivated psycho killers. That is what your entire argument rests upon. My "creativity" does not float free from rationality or objective truth as justified by the evidence. 🤣

1

I have understood everything you have said. It makes no sense for the people who commit shootings to use sarin gas or ieds since most shootings are either A: spur of the moment and unplanned or B: planned with a singular target in mind. Keep tapping about Sarin gas which has never been used in the US against civilians and IEDs which have been restricted to mostly terror organizations over the past 2 decades

1

"'Mostly' gap"? Yeah, if guns are banned, *most* attacks might be committed with a different weapon, but this is a shift in the portion that can remain true with an overall reduction in the number of attacks, which is the ultimate goal.

1

Chlorine gas wouldn’t be effective since it takes a large quantity to kill someone. Try again. I never said knife attacks don’t happen. Furthermore, so you concede that less deaths would occur if guns were restricted.

0

Anonymous #12 1w

Also it’s been two decades since chlorine gas was exposed to a us population and both were accidents and had minimal fatalities.

0