4 ms·
> everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?” It's easy to get sucked into a learned helplessness doing this, though.
by bigyabai 1y ago
> everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?”
It's easy to get sucked into a learned helplessness doing this, though. We know exactly why it happens - Charlie Kirk explained it himself:
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense, [...] But I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
America means guns. It's written in our constitution, reinforced through our history, reflected in our multimedia franchises and sold to American citizens as a product. The only way out of this situation is through it - we can't declare a firearms ban in-media-res without inciting even more violence and dividing people further. At the same time, America cannot continue to sustain this loss of our politicians, schoolchildren and minority populations. The threat to democracy is real, exacerbated by the potential for further "emergency powers" abuse we're familiar with from both parties.
When people push for firearms control in America, this is the polemic they argue along. You can say they're justified or completely bonkers, but denying that these scenarios exist is the blueprint for erasing causality.
- goshdangit 1y ago[dead]
- agensaequivocum 1y agoNo it's not because of the guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe
- bigyabai 1y agoShinzo Abe's killer was captured immediately, he had to walk right in front of him to get a shot off. Charlie Kirk's assassin is still at-large and fired from a standoff distance, with a conventional long-barrel firearm. Make of that what you will.
- johnisgood 1y agoYou added the term "conventional", except nothing about this is conventional. You said it yourself that the shooter is still at large... despite the involvement of the FBI and other agencies.
- bigyabai 1y agoThe firearm certainly seems conventional. Early reports suggest it was a bolt-action Mauser: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-we-know-about-weapon-used-by-suspect-charlie-kirks-fatal-shooting-2025-09-12/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-we-know-about-weapon-u... Is there something I'm missing here? > despite the involvement of the FBI and other agencies. Many such cases. We're still looking for D. B. Cooper, aren't we? Did the FBI ever dig up Hoffa's body? The feds are hardly a panacea with these things.
- johnisgood 1y agoNot everything is about the firearm itself and not even the shot, that many people focus on. And you need more context and the training required to take such a shot and then evade the local cops and FBI, with a solid escape plan from a fuckton of witnesses and so forth. And I did not mention that most people would probably panic and mess up, let alone take the shot and escape. It is much more complex than that. When you look at the pattern fit, it no longer looks like a spur-of-the-moment act by a "typical gun owner". They gave us some 22 years old kid as the person who pulled this whole operation, allegedly, and acted alone. Even if someone had been shooting since childhood, the rooftop selection, escape route, and casing inscriptions suggest deliberate operational planning and situational awareness, not just trigger skill. Shooting skill alone doesn't cover the logistics and environmental awareness. Plus a 22-year-old who "trained since childhood" might have technical skill, but most young adults still lack the composure and foresight to execute a high-stakes assassination with minimal mistakes, especially under the psychological pressure of killing a person in a public setting. FWIW, some cases remain unsolved for decades because of scarce evidence, degraded scenes, or lack of witnesses, which does not come into play here at all. Modern investigations, by contrast, often benefit from immediate CCTV, cell-data, social media, and so forth. ...thus I remain skeptical.
- alsetmusic 1y agoJust because you can cite an example of a killing without a gun says nothing about the reality about gun violence and gun culture in the USA.
- fawkesalbus 1y agoWhich example are you referencing here?
- johnisgood 1y ago[flagged]
- bigyabai 1y agoNone of that matters, though. Democracy continues working because the transition of power persists. If you disagree, there are plenty of other countries you can immigrate to that don't practice democracy. But this is how America works, and I'll defend it to the last even if I disagree with the extremists.
- johnisgood 1y agoWhat are you thoughts on http://anthonyflood.com/rothbarddemocracy.htm http://anthonyflood.com/rothbarddemocracy.htm?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bigyabai 1y agoI think the "neoliberalism contradiction" point was tired when Hegel noticed it. America is (and has always been) mired in inequality, the system we have today doesn't need a refit. Judging by the last paragraph, it seems like Rothbard agrees on this. There's not much else to add that isn't buffeted in the essay itself. Representative democracy sucks dick, and the fact that Americans engage in politics vicariously ensures that our Volksgeist is reduced to petty arguments about Michelle Obama's penis. Appeals to transgression are a threat to all political systems, not just democracy. See my other comment about the Red Guard.
- johnisgood 1y agoYeah, but with this comment in mind, I do not quite understand "but this is how America works, and I'll defend it to the last even if I disagree with the extremists.", because it seems like you do want to change some things with regarding to how it works. This is what I was interested in.