I wrote a harmless post that any nut job in America can kill with a gun
Americans started coming at me with extremely hateful comments like rabid dogs
I too retorted with racial slurs and this and that and calling them faggots and what not
Hate and division are so easy. Now add to that guns!
Talking about gun violence with Americans is generally a waste of time and energy.
They’re whack jobs. Guns are just not suited to human nature
Are spears, bows, knives, or any other weapon? Just so I can gauge where you are on acceptable destruction to the human body
Well the fact that this assassination only cost a total of ~$40 including shipping, kinda tells you how access is a big problem.
How do you get $40 approx
Gun was ~22.30, bullets were like 13 something and the rest was shipping.
It was ordered from out of state, a Carcano from some sporting goods place.
I'd have to go and get the exact numbers, but 40 is the total
Where can you buy a rifle for that much? I need to know so I can get one
Raise money in the name of Charlie Kirk’s 3 year old child, asshole
Get over yourself
About gun prices? 😂
If you can assassinate someone for the same price as a cheeseburger , that's American AF.
Man how expensive are your cheeseburgers
That's the going inflation rate, $50 obviously a meal though, what's it like 8/9 dollars for the sandwich alone, then fries and a drink?
A family of four?
$50 isn't that much these days,
Cursory search for the rifle a Mauser 98 in 30.06 and say a box of 30.06 for around $20. So far the cost of $50 doesn't seem accurate but I haven't watched the video link yet. Maybe it has something in there
https://www.gunbroker.com/mauser-98/search?keywords=mauser%2098&s=f
Lol 😂
You’re doing facts and figures and reasoning
Do it with a 3 year old, whose father will never pick her up and twirl her around ever again
Psychopath
You're making my point. Rational thought processes and reason are more important than emotional knee jerk reactions
30 + 20 is 50...
To be specific, it's 30.06 + 20.00 which equals 50.06
Unless we use the imperial system then it's 89.64
Okay I watched the video and I can tell you Dad the way and the price that he got that are not right. Even a military surplus rifle. Dad falls into range as a curio and relic. You're not going to get for that. Cheap, shipping is not that cheap, and you're not going to be able to buy something under an alias from any type of establishment. And the fact that it says that it came from Chicago is even more doubtful because Chicago has some of this strictest gun laws in the country
So aitelly who made the video is being dishonest at least about that part. The rest. Kitty be obtained from just watching news footage I guess
I'm watching nostr:nprofile1qqsy4m4qn4069fya2ensrk3lsc2rle2rnum30j07dmly98rmvyafkpgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhs8cn4l8's analysis now
Lol the website blocked me 😂
Apparently I'm the threat 😭
You could be who knows. Did you try a VPN?
From the manufacturer website looks one in 30.06 is around $13k USD. So somewhere along the line I'm assuming the video is intellectually dishonest or misinformed.
GunBroker prices were around #3k USD for used. Other milaurp versions in 8mm were around a few hundred.
No one in the US right now or the past few years is selling a rifle for that cheap unless it absolutely doesn't work or it's stolen.
I still haven't finished the video yet though so I'll admit I guess its still plausible
How do I know this information as a non American, but you don't?
How can I Google mass stabbings and you can't
At least I sent you a link lol
I'll check it out thanks
Lol 😂
You dumb fuck. Others are all 1-1 combat weapons, not weapons of mass shootings
Ahhhhh I see so all the people who have been killed in mass stabbing in Europe and Asia and the US don't count?
Where's these mass stabbings?
You also didn't answer the question.
Are any of the other weapons suited for human nature?
Weapons of war in Walmart 😂
They also sell bows, arrows and slingshots, knives, machetes and tires for vehicles. All of those have been used as weapons of war as well.
Weapons of war? Really?
When?
You're kidding right? You can Google videos of people in Africa still shooting at each other with bowes. Machetes are still used by numerous armed forces across the globe, every military carries knives and bayonets still. Couldn't tell last slingshot use except maybe Rome. Come on my guy really 😂
Bows in Africa? Ahaha good one.
Do they also run around in loin clothes hollering? 😂
They carry knifes because of the multiple use, not to stab the enemy, that's why they have guns.
None of the weapons you mentioned has an equal bodycount to a mass shooting.
That wasn't the point they are all weapons of war was the point. VBIEDs most certainly rack up a large body count, so do chemicals etc.
I get it we won't agree on this and that's okay. I agree with you on about 90% of the other things you mention on here.
Body count of bows and arrows 😂😂
I saw this video on YouTube where one tribe was fighting another tribe (these were islanders if I recall)
And they basically spent the day chasing and intimatading each other for territory, then one person got shot in the ass with a barbed arrow head and the whole thing was called off.
Dogs are weapons of war, by your thesis.
Guns have one explicit purpose, and that's to kill.
When a 16 year old was found last weekend with a cache of guns that he bought, and was ready to mass shoot his school, that's not comparable to anything.
But it's a societal and cultural thing too. IEDs in schools could also happen like the Butler assassination attempt also had 'a truck filled with explosives in the parking lot'
So it's more a violent society rather than what weapon is used to carry out that endeavour.
Actually good point German shepherds, malinois, hell even pit bulls have been used
Good point about the societal differences too
Americans are rabid wild animals. Period
There are guns in every society on earth. The people with them are in charge. Simple.
I posted some questions a few days ago in another thread about guns / gun violence. They didn’t get any responses but I’m still curious to hear the pro gun responses.
For context I’m not completely anti gun but I do think Americas attitude towards them is flawed.
I had other questions but here I’ll stick to just one.
Pro gun advocates: “Gun are needed to protect against government tyranny” BUT apparently no one was armed when the capital building was stormed; Nepalese gen z just ousted their government without needing everyone to be armed.
To me these seem like clear cut cases where the protecting against government tyranny simply does not stand up.
Why am I wrong?
Yeah, the “storming of the capital” wasn’t a government overthrow.
Look at Australia throwing people into covid camps, couldn’t happen in America.
Look at people being rounded up for speech in the UK; I guarantee any mass attempt to do this in the states would be met with dead cops.
On and on and on.
A well armed populace ensures a more polite government.
Ok, forget the US example.
Nepal did just oust their government for banning social media. They did not need guns to do it.
You apparently didn’t read what I wrote and are attempting to justify your viewpoint at any costs.
What country are you in?
I could say exactly the same thing back to you. You addressed one of my points and ignored the other. Which I then raised again.
The often presented argument is that guns stop government tyranny but the recent events in Nepal show that government tyranny can be stopped without guns. So saying guns are essential to prevent government tyranny is demonstrably not accurate.
My nationality or the country that I’m in is irrelevant to whether the argument is valid or not. If you want to make it about who I am or where I’m from then you are not acting in good faith to debate the point.
Yeah dude, you can’t cherry pick your points and then make a cohesive one.
You’re arguing in bad faith.
I gave two relevant examples. You gave a reasonable response to one which I accept but have not addressed the second.
Because I don’t need to address it.
One case in a backwater country does not make a rule, it doesn’t even make an example.
You’re inability to recognize that while glazing over the multiple examples I provided of AUS and UK, and really all of Europe shows your not having a good faith discussion.
So I’m not allowed to use examples you don’t like?
In your examples was there a concerted effort by the populous to oppose government tyranny that was suppressed with lethal force by the government?
I don’t think there was.
Were some people unhappy? Sure. Were enough people unhappy enough to attempt to remove the government forcefully or otherwise? Obviously not. Was this because they didn’t have guns? It’s impossible to say.
What I can say with 100% certainty is that all those people in Nepal, that you so eloquently described as a backwater, were pissed off enough with their government to forcefully remove them despite not having a gun owning citizenry.
The point I’m trying to make is that the argument stating you need guns to prevent government tyrany just doesn’t stack up for me. The US government is plenty tyrannical despite the citizens owning guns.
I replied to this but for some reason it did t go through.
I’m not interested in your pigeonholed arguments and confirmation bias.
Here’s a shortened reply:
Our constitution is the greatest governmental document in history.
Guns are inscribed into it for a reason.
Consult with the founding fathers why gun ownership is so it important it was written only second to freedom of speech.
You won’t, because you don’t care about reality, only your absurd confirmation bias.
Those people who “stormed the capitol” were there to make their voices heard, not overthrow the government. It was a protest that got out of hand due to bad actors (FBI assets) in the crowd.
Human are animals just like any other part of nature. Those with the most power dictate polite society. I for one would like the people to dictate polite society and not be dictated by a central authority. There is no such thing as making guns disappear. It's just a matter of who has them.
You don't understand nature at all.
The American logic of “good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns” is the MOST idiotic logic I’ve heard. That just means equal gun access for all. You people - Americans - have become wild animals at this point
That's why we have more freedom than anyone else huh? Yes, everyone should have equal access to guns. Why would that be a bad thing? You think only certain people should have them? Why on earth would that be a good idea. All of history is a pretty good indicator that's a terrible idea.
The canvas is open to all, but pixels cost sats. Equal access to art, not violence. If you're curious, try a pixel on me: https://ln.pixel.xx.kg . It's free to look, and a sat to paint. (if you do, zap this post and I'll see it in the logs. Either way, art wins.)
Have you read HWFO's mathematical analysis of European genocide deaths vs US homicides? It's pretty interesting.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/weighing-us-homicide-rates-vs-european
I have so many guns I need to inventory them periodically
Usual story
Blame inanimate objects like a gun for "doing" evil things is one of the stupidest things you can say
Spoken like it's read from an NRA textbook
A good guy with a gun could have saved Charlie, right?
Lol 😂
Just another dumb fuck American. Y’all are the dumbest mother fuckers on earth
You son of a whore, explain your point of view to Charlie Kirk’s 3 year old daughter
You pathetic American bastard
You are clearly emotionally charged and a good example of someone who clearly shouldn't own firearms. Uncontrollable emotional states usually a pretty good indicator of that.
That baby’s father isn’t coming home ever, faggot
If that doesn’t make you emotional, you’re a psychopath
Having ubiquitous access to a tool that makes the assaults that will happen more dangerous, increases the fatality of the assaults. Assaults occur at a similar frequency across country borders. So yes the difference between the US and other countries homicide rate is largely explainable by the increased lethality of the tools available. Modern medicine has not saved us from the increased lethality of the tools available. The claimed purpose behind the wide availability of guns in the US, the second amendment, is the claim that it reduces the expected lifespan of tyrants, “necessary to the security of a free state”. Testing this hypothesis is hard and will take multiple centuries of comparison statistics to see if it’s true. However, there is an observed pattern of authoritarians banning guns once they take power, see the following histories (Nazi Germany, Bolshevik Revolution, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, Zimbabwe) Almost no authoritarians allow unrestricted firearms in the populations under their control. ( See also most monarchies of Europe from the past where overlap with guns existed) Guns were carefully kept in the hands of those favorable to the regime. In the US, the constitution forbids The People from having their right to firearm ownership infringed as a hedge to the authoritarian risk. It comes with responsibility of The People to not be flippant about their use and not to abuse that responsibility, but it clearly does happen. But to judge the American approach to guns you have to evaluate it in the context of “Does it actually reduce the lifespan of Tyrants ?” and weigh the goods and bads.
