4 ms·
Because it is incredibly apt. He and his campaigns and influence have worked very hard over the years to stop progress on gun reform, aimed at preventing the ve
by bdhe 1y ago
Because it is incredibly apt. He and his campaigns and influence have worked very hard over the years to stop progress on gun reform, aimed at preventing the very kind of violent actions that he was unfortunately subject to today.
This doesn't condone violence but offers context as to how he would've assessed a similar situation if he weren't the target.
- firesteelrain 1y ago2nd amendment doesn’t protect against mental health or someone deciding to hurt someone.
- Hikikomori 1y agoWhat do you mean, Charlies whole argument is that good guys with guns solve shooter problems instead of limiting gun ownership.
- firesteelrain 1y agoI get it But are we suggesting that he should have deployed counter snipers?
- Hikikomori 1y agoI think we're suggesting that his solution isn't really a solution.
- trimethylpurine 1y agoI don't see that he suggested a solution. Just the opposite, he pointed out that gun laws also aren't a solution. Much like the war on drugs isn't. Much like "though shalt not kill" didn't stop the inquisition, or the Moorish conquest.
- Hikikomori 1y agoWorked in Australia. Works in Europe. It's not that hard to understand.
- trimethylpurine 1y agoWorked to do what? There are no murders in Europe and Australia?
- selcuka 1y agoNo murders? No. You should read about the "Nirvana fallacy". Fewer murders? Yes. The homicide rate is 0.854 per capita in Australia (5.763 in the US) and much lower than US in most European countries (Russia being the exception).
- Hikikomori 1y ago[flagged]
- bdhe 1y agoI think I need to just post the Sartre quote over and over again. The inability or disinterest of certain factions of the right in having a good faith argument is just genuinely frustrating.
- trimethylpurine 1y agoI'm still here if you'd like to make an argument. The above rebuttal is not remotely a good faith argument. It appears to be a hope that repeating misinformation will somehow make it an accepted truth. That might work for circles of low performing political movements, but it doesn't work for those of us interested in a scientific approach to knowledge. By all means, explain what making guns illegal has actually done for Australia, the whitest country in the world, and the UK, the capital of knife crime. You're about to prove facts that neither of us want to admit. I'm a listening scientist. Are you?