The latest images are confusing - most suggest he's walking up stairs carrying nothing - suggesting the rifle had already been secreted on the roof sometime before... yet there is at least one showing him going up the stairs with a back pack ... One question, particularly in light of Trump's 'ear graze'... you'd have expected that security would have swept every roof and also ensured that access to such vantage points was also prevented during the event itself.... wouldn't you?
I think with Trump, yes you would expect vantage points to be checked, but I don't think Charlie Kirk was even a politician was he, and he was in a place where he appeared to be welcomed, so I think that sort of covers the lack of any security. I agree about the back pack, I started to wonder how come some pics were bad, some were with a back pack, but others without, I hadn't really looked too closely to guage why that is. I don't believe the clothes he was wearing were his normal attire, could be but I wondered more if it was a case of him having clothes somewhere for him to change into after the assassanation. This top just looks completely out of place for climate on that day... please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
You know the context. You have seen it. He’s also previously said that somebody would attempt to kill him at some point. Just admit it, you’re delighted he’s been killed.
Yeah we're having Jelly and Ice cream later to celebrate. As I said, the context didn't change the message. He thought it was acceptable that some people would die from being shot if it meant that he and others had the right to carry a gun. He either didn't expect, was that it would be him who lost his life to gun violence, or he accepts that his death is part of the 'worthwhile' cause.
Don't get the big deal about this whole he thought it was acceptable for there to be deaths to maintain the second amendment. Society literally does it with loads of things, it's a reasonable view to hold even if I disagree with it.
You think that a number of deaths by shooting each year to uphold a 'right' ratified in 1791 is a 'reasonable view' ?... So ... just how many school massacres would it take until it becomes an 'unreasonable view' in any particular year? Asking on behalf of any concerned parents..
Alcohol. Causes tons of deaths each year, women to suffer domestic abuse, kids to suffer neglect or worse. If you don't want alcohol to be banned that means you're happy to accept the consequences of it. Same for the internet. We could ban that tomorrow and save huge amounts of children from CSE but people like using the internet and believe the benefits outweigh that and so are happy to accept the pitfalls.
Guns are specifically designed to kill though. The others are negative symptoms of something that can otherwise be enjoyed / used in a positive way
Like he said in the speech you like to take out of context. He said there’s tens of thousands of deaths through car accidents and he questioned if cars should be banned too.
In principle yes. I disagree with it massively as I'm not American and find the entire thing bizarre frankly. But in principle there are lots of things in society which cause untold harm but people believe the benefits of it outweigh that. How many children would have to suffer CSE for you to believe your right to use the internet is unreasonable?
Fundamental difference - the vast majority of people that die from alcohol, or drugs, don't die because somebody has used lethal force to administer them ...
Alcohol is a literal poison to the human body. Guns can also be used for hunting which is a legitimate use of them (if for food and not sport anyway imo).
So how many children need to be abused before you stop using the internet and campaign for it to be banned?
A majority of gun deaths in the US are suicide aren't they? There'll be literally hundreds of thousands victims of alcohol who don't abuse it themselves. Like children who suffer neglect for example.
I think the comparison is a complete misnomer. Cars are designed to transport people and are a vital part of society's infrastructure. Guns are designed to kill. If you take those kind of comparisons to their natural conclusion you would simply ban everything on the premise that it might cause harm
How many children need to be abused through the internet before you personally stop using it and campaign for it be banned? Or does your need and enjoyment of the internet stop you from doing that?
