Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Jimmy Higgins]

Really, all we end up with here are reasons as to why we should excuse *insert gun death* case. Mass murders at schools lead to "too soon" and "mental health". Gang related killings lead to "it is just gangbangers killing each other". And cases of self-negligence like Rittenhouse and Zimmerman, "play stupid games" and "self defense".

I'd rather people like thebeave, TSwizzle, Emily Lake, etc... just come out and say the "death toll simply isn't high enough to do a thing about it, and it never will be".

 

[Patooka]

This might help clarify things, regarding the inevitable guns deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

I like your idea of the use of the word "thing" It fascinates me, Please tell me more.

 

[thebeave]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

This might help clarify things, regarding the inevitable guns deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

No, It Wasn't Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot

Automobiles were brought up by Derec not me. I was simply replying that the danger of automobiles and deaths due to them isn't considered a fait accompli, rather automobiles are a massively regulated thing in the US in order to ensure greater safety. If cars started exploding, AAA wouldn't be on the news saying it is "too early" to take action.

I never claimed you brought up autos, but you did comment about them in a way (i.e. regulation) that did not seem particularly relevent to the issue at hand. The argument is, that regardless of how much regulation you impose on guns (short of making them all magically disappear somehow, never to be made again and thereby nullifying the 2A) there will always be some guns around (either legally or illegally), and thus some level of guns deaths in society. Whether the 2A should be eliminated or more restrictive is a different issue altogether.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

This might help clarify things, regarding the inevitable guns deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

No, It Wasn't Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot

Automobiles were brought up by Derec not me. I was simply replying that the danger of automobiles and deaths due to them isn't considered a fait accompli, rather automobiles are a massively regulated thing in the US in order to ensure greater safety. If cars started exploding, AAA wouldn't be on the news saying it is "too early" to take action.

I never claimed you brought up autos, but you did comment about them in a way (i.e. regulation) that did not seem particularly relevent to the issue at hand. The argument is, that regardless of how much regulation you impose on guns (short of making them all magically disappear somehow, never to be made again and thereby nullifying the 2A) there will always be some guns around (either legally or illegally), and thus some level of guns deaths in society. Whether the 2A should be eliminated or more restrictive is a different issue altogether.

Different issue altogether? It is the same conversation.

Automotive related safety regulations (car design, crash design, speed limits, licensing requirements, use requirements, punishment for abusive or negligent use) exist to reduce harm and save lives.

We aren't even allowed to talk about gun violence safety, excluding of course the discussion about needing more guns for self defense. Access to weapons that can be made semi-automatic, concealed carry, open carry, endless number of gun access, non-restrictive storage requirements, no waiting periods for gun possession or mental health checks.

Sure, people will throw shade at maybe there should be more regulations on guns, but that usually blows away in a light breeze. Which led to my post above, this would all be easier if you folk would simply stop saying much of anything except, 'not enough people are dying by gun violence to warrant doing anything about it'.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

This might help clarify things, regarding the inevitable guns deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

No, It Wasn't Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot

Automobiles were brought up by Derec not me. I was simply replying that the danger of automobiles and deaths due to them isn't considered a fait accompli, rather automobiles are a massively regulated thing in the US in order to ensure greater safety. If cars started exploding, AAA wouldn't be on the news saying it is "too early" to take action.

I never claimed you brought up autos, but you did comment about them in a way (i.e. regulation) that did not seem particularly relevent to the issue at hand. The argument is, that regardless of how much regulation you impose on guns (short of making them all magically disappear somehow, never to be made again and thereby nullifying the 2A) there will always be some guns around (either legally or illegally), and thus some level of guns deaths in society. Whether the 2A should be eliminated or more restrictive is a different issue altogether.

Different issue altogether? It is the same conversation.

Automotive related safety regulations (car design, crash design, speed limits, licensing requirements, use requirements, punishment for abusive or negligent use) exist to reduce harm and save lives.

We aren't even allowed to talk about gun violence safety, excluding of course the discussion about needing more guns for self defense. Access to weapons that can be made semi-automatic, concealed carry, open carry, endless number of gun access, non-restrictive storage requirements, no waiting periods for gun possession or mental health checks.

Sure, people will throw shade at maybe there should be more regulations on guns, but that usually blows away in a light breeze. Which led to my post above, this would all be easier if you folk would simply stop saying much of anything except, 'not enough people are dying by gun violence to warrant doing anything about it'.

It's a situation that shows regulation actually can work to reduce deaths, so of course right wingers don't want to talk about it and want to pretend it's irrelevant.

 

[Toni]

For the last several years, in the US, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and teenagers, eclipsing automobile or other accidents, cancer and other diseases.

One of the reasons is that life has become so much safer for children and teenagers that others causes of death have become very rare. That's a good thing.
But you also have to consider that the risk of firearm death is much, much higher for teenagers than for children, and that's because teenagers who get killed with firearms are often participants in these crimes - for example, they get involved in robberies or are victims and perpetrators of gang shootings.

For example this one: Suspects in deadly shooting near Atlantic Station take guilty pleas

Without easy access to firearms, fewer minors would lose their lives to gun violence.

I never quite get how it is that to you, once someone is over the age of 12, they no longer count: they are fuckable and deserve to die violent deaths, especially if they are not white.

Gun deaths among U.S. kids rose 50% from 2019 to 2021 | Pew Research Center

In 2021, there were 2,590 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18, up from 1,732 in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

The number of children and teens killed by gunfire in the United States increased 50% between 2019 and 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest annual mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

What in the holy fuck?

?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

For the last several years, in the US, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and teenagers, eclipsing automobile or other accidents, cancer and other diseases.

One of the reasons is that life has become so much safer for children and teenagers that others causes of death have become very rare. That's a good thing.
But you also have to consider that the risk of firearm death is much, much higher for teenagers than for children, and that's because teenagers who get killed with firearms are often participants in these crimes - for example, they get involved in robberies or are victims and perpetrators of gang shootings.

For example this one: Suspects in deadly shooting near Atlantic Station take guilty pleas

Without easy access to firearms, fewer minors would lose their lives to gun violence.

I never quite get how it is that to you, once someone is over the age of 12, they no longer count: they are fuckable and deserve to die violent deaths, especially if they are not white.

Gun deaths among U.S. kids rose 50% from 2019 to 2021 | Pew Research Center

In 2021, there were 2,590 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18, up from 1,732 in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

The number of children and teens killed by gunfire in the United States increased 50% between 2019 and 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest annual mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

What in the holy fuck?

?

I think it gave him an aneurysm. Right wingers' brains can't handle statistics very well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For the last several years, in the US, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and teenagers, eclipsing automobile or other accidents, cancer and other diseases.

One of the reasons is that life has become so much safer for children and teenagers that others causes of death have become very rare. That's a good thing.
But you also have to consider that the risk of firearm death is much, much higher for teenagers than for children, and that's because teenagers who get killed with firearms are often participants in these crimes - for example, they get involved in robberies or are victims and perpetrators of gang shootings.

For example this one: Suspects in deadly shooting near Atlantic Station take guilty pleas

Without easy access to firearms, fewer minors would lose their lives to gun violence.

I never quite get how it is that to you, once someone is over the age of 12, they no longer count: they are fuckable and deserve to die violent deaths, especially if they are not white.

Gun deaths among U.S. kids rose 50% from 2019 to 2021 | Pew Research Center

In 2021, there were 2,590 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18, up from 1,732 in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

The number of children and teens killed by gunfire in the United States increased 50% between 2019 and 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest annual mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

What in the holy fuck?

?

thebeave was questioning the loaded text suggesting they care about the age or race of gun violence victims, when in reality, they simply don't care about gun violence victims (regardless of race or age) enough to suggest government needs to do anything more about firearms.

 

[Toni]

For the last several years, in the US, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and teenagers, eclipsing automobile or other accidents, cancer and other diseases.

One of the reasons is that life has become so much safer for children and teenagers that others causes of death have become very rare. That's a good thing.
But you also have to consider that the risk of firearm death is much, much higher for teenagers than for children, and that's because teenagers who get killed with firearms are often participants in these crimes - for example, they get involved in robberies or are victims and perpetrators of gang shootings.

For example this one: Suspects in deadly shooting near Atlantic Station take guilty pleas

Without easy access to firearms, fewer minors would lose their lives to gun violence.

I never quite get how it is that to you, once someone is over the age of 12, they no longer count: they are fuckable and deserve to die violent deaths, especially if they are not white.

Gun deaths among U.S. kids rose 50% from 2019 to 2021 | Pew Research Center

In 2021, there were 2,590 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18, up from 1,732 in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

The number of children and teens killed by gunfire in the United States increased 50% between 2019 and 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest annual mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

What in the holy fuck?

?

thebeave was questioning the loaded text suggesting they care about the age or race of gun violence victims, when in reality, they simply don't care about gun violence victims (regardless of race or age) enough to suggest government needs to do anything more about firearms.

He can suggest away but I have a feeling he’d look at things differently if middle aged middle class white guys on their way to work were ‘collateral damage’ in gang wars.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Indeed. What the actual fuck?

Fact Check: Charlie Kirk once said he would want a 10-year-old daughter who was raped to deliver the baby

The conservative commentator answered the hypothetical question in a 2024 YouTube video in which he debated 25 college students.

ca.news.yahoo.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What in the holy fuck?

?

thebeave was questioning the loaded text suggesting they care about the age or race of gun violence victims, when in reality, they simply don't care about gun violence victims (regardless of race or age) enough to suggest government needs to do anything more about firearms.

He can suggest away but I have a feeling he’d look at things differently if middle aged middle class white guys on their way to work were ‘collateral damage’ in gang wars.

These people didn't care enough to suggest any change when white elementary school children were mowed down in Connecticut.

This has nothing to do with race or age. It has everything to do with a sense of extreme overemphasis of personal freedom over that of public safety.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What in the holy fuck?

?

thebeave was questioning the loaded text suggesting they care about the age or race of gun violence victims, when in reality, they simply don't care about gun violence victims (regardless of race or age) enough to suggest government needs to do anything more about firearms.

He can suggest away but I have a feeling he’d look at things differently if middle aged middle class white guys on their way to work were ‘collateral damage’ in gang wars.

These people didn't care enough to suggest any change when white elementary school children were mowed down in Connecticut.

This has nothing to do with race or age. It has everything to do with a sense of extreme overemphasis of personal freedom over that of public safety.

Oh yeah? But Biden.

 

[Toni]

What in the holy fuck?

?

thebeave was questioning the loaded text suggesting they care about the age or race of gun violence victims, when in reality, they simply don't care about gun violence victims (regardless of race or age) enough to suggest government needs to do anything more about firearms.

He can suggest away but I have a feeling he’d look at things differently if middle aged middle class white guys on their way to work were ‘collateral damage’ in gang wars.

These people didn't care enough to suggest any change when white elementary school children were mowed down in Connecticut.

This has nothing to do with race or age. It has everything to do with a sense of extreme overemphasis of personal freedom over that of public safety.

I think it has to do with fear. Personal fear. And tiny penises.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What in the holy fuck?

?

thebeave was questioning the loaded text suggesting they care about the age or race of gun violence victims, when in reality, they simply don't care about gun violence victims (regardless of race or age) enough to suggest government needs to do anything more about firearms.

He can suggest away but I have a feeling he’d look at things differently if middle aged middle class white guys on their way to work were ‘collateral damage’ in gang wars.

These people didn't care enough to suggest any change when white elementary school children were mowed down in Connecticut.

This has nothing to do with race or age. It has everything to do with a sense of extreme overemphasis of personal freedom over that of public safety.

I think it has to do with fear. Personal fear. And tiny penises.

Correlation isn't evidence of causation.

 

[bilby]

The argument is, that regardless of how much regulation you impose on guns (short of making them all magically disappear somehow, never to be made again and thereby nullifying the 2A) there will always be some guns around (either legally or illegally), and thus some level of guns deaths in society.

That's not an argument; It's a fact accepted by all serious parties to the debate, and is not in dispute.

There is "some level" of gun deaths in every OECD nation. There was recently a mass shooting in Australia - the second one in just thirty years. It's a terrible thing. But it's not the same thing as a mass shooting every few days.

The level of gun deaths is FAR, FAR higher in the USA than in any of the other developed nations.

If a kid is reading at a second grade level when he's fifteen, is that OK because all fifteen year olds have "some level" of difficulty reading? Or is such a wild outlier an indication of a problem that needs remedial action, and that should have been acted upon long ago?

 

[Derec]

Without easy access to firearms, fewer minors would lose their lives to gun violence.

Perhaps. But if you make legal firearm access more difficult, it would affect law abiding people most severely. Gang members who use illegal guns would be affected only indirectly, if at all.

I never quite get how it is that to you, once someone is over the age of 12, they no longer count:

What do you mean, "they no longer count"? I just pointed out the age distribution because it affects the causes, and therefore informs possible solutions.

they are fuckable

This nonsense is bordering on defamatory, Toni. Cut it out!
And why are you so obsessed about who's "fuckable" anyway since this discussion has nothing to do with this? It's not healthy.

and deserve to die violent deaths, especially if they are not white.

... and neither does race.

But there is a big difference between a child who got shot accidentally or as a victim of a crime, or a teenager who commits suicide on one hand, vs. a teenager who gets shot because he (or she for that matter) is active in a street gang and may have shot people themselves.

Gun deaths among U.S. kids rose 50% from 2019 to 2021 | Pew Research Center

In 2021, there were 2,590 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18, up from 1,732 in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

Also from the article:

Older children and teens are much more likely than younger kids to be killed in gun-related incidents. Those ages 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021, while those 6 to 11 accounted for 7% of the total, as did those 5 and under.

Exactly my point. This discrepancy means that we should not lump in teenagers (and tweens, given Pew's cutoff at 12) with actual children.

 

[Derec]

I agree, actually. But people get pissed/anxious when someone points a semi auto weapon at them.

I'd feel the same if somebody pointed a revolver at me.

Same with a bolt-action Winchester or a 12 gauge.

What does semi-automatic action have to do with anything?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree, actually. But people get pissed/anxious when someone points a semi auto weapon at them.

I'd feel the same if somebody pointed a revolver at me.

Same with a bolt-action Winchester or a 12 gauge.

What does semi-automatic action have to do with anything?

Your options facing down a semi-automatic are fewer than a revolver. Then there is the damage by the bullet.

How many of the recent and not as recent mass shootings involved some idiot with a gun but little in the way of knowing how to really use it? And the semi-automatic part is why they were able to successfully fuck up the lives so many people and families for the rest of their lives.

 

[Toni]

Without easy access to firearms, fewer minors would lose their lives to gun violence.

Perhaps. But if you make legal firearm access more difficult, it would affect law abiding people most severely. Gang members who use illegal guns would be affected only indirectly, if at all.

I never quite get how it is that to you, once someone is over the age of 12, they no longer count:

What do you mean, "they no longer count"? I just pointed out the age distribution because it affects the causes, and therefore informs possible solutions.

they are fuckable

This nonsense is bordering on defamatory, Toni. Cut it out!
And why are you so obsessed about who's "fuckable" anyway since this discussion has nothing to do with this? It's not healthy.

and deserve to die violent deaths, especially if they are not white.

... and neither does race.

But there is a big difference between a child who got shot accidentally or as a victim of a crime, or a teenager who commits suicide on one hand, vs. a teenager who gets shot because he (or she for that matter) is active in a street gang and may have shot people themselves.

Gun deaths among U.S. kids rose 50% from 2019 to 2021 | Pew Research Center

In 2021, there were 2,590 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18, up from 1,732 in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

Also from the article:

Older children and teens are much more likely than younger kids to be killed in gun-related incidents. Those ages 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021, while those 6 to 11 accounted for 7% of the total, as did those 5 and under.

Exactly my point. This discrepancy means that we should not lump in teenagers (and tweens, given Pew's cutoff at 12) with actual children.

Actual children are those under 18, by law. Many are capable of procreating at earlier ages but at significant risk to their physical and emotional health, greater risk associated with the younger they are and at permanent risk to their lifelong education attainment and employment opportunities. Which is why it is so important to distinguish between ‘adult’ and ‘child’ when discussing things such as sex, and reproduction.

If we are talking about the capacity for long term thinking and intellectual and emotional development, true adulthood is 10 years or more later. It is extremely important to keep this in mind as we structure our society to meet the needs of all its members. Young legal adults are still adolescents emotionally and have less developed appreciation of long term consequences for their actions, less impulse control and less ability to plan ahead, short and long term. They need and deserve guidance and to a lesser extent, protection. Some of our laws recognize this but mostly in terms of owner’s property rights. It is desirable ficus or impossible for someone under age 26 to re t a vacation property, for example or even a re tap car. Car insurance rates are higher because of the increased risk of automobile accidents for young ‘adults.’ It is imo a great failing of our country that we do not consider see the risks to individuals to be as important as the risk to property.

I’ve raised kids to adulthood and definitely the teenage/early 20’s years are as difficult for parents as caring for newborns and in many ways riskier.

Re: ‘they no longer count’—was referring to your propensity to have very little or zero sympathy, compassion or understanding for adolescents who may be or may approach adult size but who lack the capacity for critical thinking, judgement and long term planning we expect from adults. You are quick to assume that black teenagers, especially males, are on equal footing as 30 year olds in terms of ability to reason and make decisions and regulate their emotions. They are not. Full stop. Adolescents are in that grey area where they are adult sized, usually physically sexually mature/capable of reproduction but not yet able to appreciate the long term consequences of their actions. It is made worse by the fact that there is no clear bright line that divides childhood from adulthood, except in the legal sense at which in the US, it was decided that adult meant 18 and over for most purposes. I’m old enough to remember and to understand exactly why 18 year olds were determined to be adults: Because it made them eligible to be drafted and fight in the Viet Nam War. Not because they were actually adults but because it was convenient t for a bunch of mostly old white men to have access to healthy young bodies who could take a beating, carry a backpack and a weapon. 18 year olds were given the right to vote because of the draft — to serve the purposes of both pro and anti war advocates.

 

[Derec]

I linked to the CNN article that reported the video of a man saying Rittenhouse pointed the AR-15 at him and Rittenhouse saying "Yes, I did" was shown at the trial as part of the Prosecution's case, and that Rittenhouse testified about it on the stand.

Can you repost it?
In any case, if what you say was so convincing, the prosecutor would not have felt the need to try to conjure up corroboration from a pixelated video still. I maintain that the "brandishing" was not demonstrated and should not be stated as fact.

If you feel you must quibble you could at least follow the links and have some idea what you're quibbling about.

It's a long derail of a long thread. Can't have all the links at the ready.

Link to the evidence the car lot owner invited a 17 year old from Illinois to his car lot that night. I suspect you're posting bullshit but I am more than happy to learn more about all the different people who showed extremely poor judgement that night.

Again, why is him living in Illinois seen as such a clincher by the Ilk?
Anyway, see here:

Rittenhouse testified that he and Black went downtown because they were invited to guard the Car Source, a Kenosha car dealership, during the unrest and were under the impression they were going to be paid.
The Khindri brothers who own the dealership denied this under oath, but multiple other witnesses testified against them, backing Rittenhouse's version.

Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked

Is that because unlike Rittenhouse, Martin was unarmed, not inserting himself into a volatile situation or going to a place where rioting was likely to occur, and not doing anything provocative when he was chased down by a man with a documented history of violence? Or is it because Martin was black and therefore cannot get anything close to the same consideration you give to a white teenager?

Yes, one big part of the reason why the two cases are very different is that one of them occurred during a riot. And no, my analysis, unlike yours, has nothing to do with race. Also, I would say opening a can of "whoop ass" on the man he described as a "creepy ass cracker" is definitely provocative, to say the least.

Shall we compare Rittenhouse to Tamir Rice, then?

Why?

Rice had a pellet gun in a park and reportedly he pointed it at someone. You were adamant in your claim that 12 year old Rice should have known how intimidating he looked and was entirely responsible for the cops killing him within 2.5 seconds of arriving on scene. Was 17 year old Rittenhouse responsible for his actions, too, and for the response he got from Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz? If not, why not?

Again, it has not been established that Ritt pointed his gun at anybody. It has been established that Rosenbaum has been belligerent the whole night and certainly did not require such provocation to attack Ritt. Huber smashed his skateboard over Ritt's head and Grosskreutz admitted that he pointed his gun at Ritt first.