RIP Charlie Kirk

vigras rojara said:
This makes me wonder why you would carry for self defence if guns really make no difference in these situations. You might as well go around armed with a teaspoon then.
Click to expand...
Dude did you really just post this ^ ?

Is this your logic for self-defence ?

How many reasons do you want ?

Let's start off by uhmmm, this wasn't a self-defence incident, it was murder, so your comment is irrelevant again.

But let me explain, the evil kants you would encounter don't come armed with a teaspoon, nor are they there for a cup of Earl Gray.

Besides, self-defence isn't to protect you from your own loved ones, it's the complete opposite.
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
Dude did you really just post this ^ ?

Is this your logic for self-defence ?

How many reasons do you want ?

Let's start off by uhmmm, this wasn't a self-defence incident, it was murder, so your comment is irrelevant again.

But let me explain, the evil kants you would encounter don't come armed with a teaspoon, nor are they there for a cup of Earl Gray.

Besides, self-defence isn't to protect you from your own loved ones, it's the complete opposite.
Click to expand...

You really need to make up your mind about when firearms are effective, and when they make no difference to the outcome of a situation.

You are inconsistent in this regard.
 
vigras rojara said:
This makes me wonder why you would carry for self defence if guns really make no difference in these situations. You might as well go around armed with a teaspoon then.
Click to expand...

Shot from behind a closed door therefore firearms are ineffective for self defense.

Gun debates are just not your thing vigras.
 
vigras rojara said:
You sound like someone who doesn't believe that people should be allowed to have different opinions. Are you perhaps a right winger?
Click to expand...
:oops:

Bookmarked.
www.psychologytoday.com

How Common Is It for People to Confuse Left and Right?

Have you ever confused left and right when driving in your car? A study investigated how common left-right confusion really is.
www.psychologytoday.com www.psychologytoday.com
Imagine driving in a car and asking a passenger whether you should turn left or right at the next intersection. The person says “right”—but after the turn is completed, they follow up with “I meant the other right!” because they had confused left and right in their mind. There are many anecdotes like this.
Click to expand...
 
Solarion said:
Shot from behind a closed door therefore firearms are ineffective for self defense.

Gun debates are just not your thing vigras.
Click to expand...

You also don't seem to get it mate. Apparently she was doomed even if old Oz didn't have a gun. That implies that guns are no more deadly than any other thing he may have found lying around the house.

Obviously that's BS, which was my whole point.
 
vigras rojara said:
Please see my response to Solarion. Hopefully at some point you might understand.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're trying to say, but yet again it doesn't hold water.

You're saying if he had a knife, bat, rope, axe etc etc he would've been able to calm down and not murder her by shooting her through the door, jaa right the gun made him do it, or maybe it was the devil...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You do realise he still had to make a conscious decision to retrieve the gun, then proceed to the bathroom, aim the gun and pull the trigger MULTIPLE times.
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
I understand what you're trying to say, but yet again it doesn't hold water.

You're saying if he had a knife, bat, rope, axe etc etc he would've been able to calm down and not murder her by shooting her through the door, jaa right the gun made him do it, or maybe it was the devil...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You do realise he still had to make a conscious decision to retrieve the gun, then proceed to the bathroom, aim the gun and pull the trigger MULTIPLE times.
Click to expand...

Yes, she could have opened the window and shouted for help. Chances are someone would have called security while she was still behind a locked door.

It's difficult to kill someone behind a locked door with rope or a knife.

You're saying that it doesn't matter if lunatics have guns, as they have access to rope anyway. Weird.
 
vigras rojara said:
Yes, she could have opened the window and shouted for help. Chances are someone would have called security while she was still behind a locked door.
Click to expand...
You're defending and fighting so hard with this one example you somehow believe is brilliant :ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

vigras rojara said:
It's difficult to kill someone behind a locked door with rope or a knife.
Click to expand...
Murder, there's a difference between killing and murdering FYI...

vigras rojara said:
You're saying that it doesn't matter if lunatics have guns, as they have access to rope anyway. Weird.
Click to expand...
jaa that's what I said sure :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
vigras rojara said:
You also don't seem to get it mate. Apparently she was doomed even if old Oz didn't have a gun. That implies that guns are no more deadly than any other thing he may have found lying around the house.

Obviously that's BS, which was my whole point.
Click to expand...

A knife death would not have occurred if no knives were available. Now we ban baseball bats, crowbar, fire irons, rope and on and on we just basically ban everything because it may be used in a murder.

What about rocks or bottles? See how this ends?
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
You're defending and fighting so hard with this one example you somehow believe is brilliant :ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:


Murder, there's a difference between killing and murdering FYI...


jaa that's what I said sure :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm using it as an example as everyone knows about it. There are loads of examples of legal gun owners shooting people in fits of rage. His legal access to guns should have been removed when he discharged a forearm in that restaurant. Obviously an unfit person.

And yes, you said the result would have been the same had our legless rager had a knife, a bat and some rope, so that's on you.

I seem to recall that he had a bat, but fetched his gun when he couldn't bash down the door with the bat. I may be mistaken.
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
I understand what you're trying to say, but yet again it doesn't hold water.

You're saying if he had a knife, bat, rope, axe etc etc he would've been able to calm down and not murder her by shooting her through the door, jaa right the gun made him do it, or maybe it was the devil...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You do realise he still had to make a conscious decision to retrieve the gun, then proceed to the bathroom, aim the gun and pull the trigger MULTIPLE times.
Click to expand...
The point you are missing is that his entire defence was that he thought that the person behind the door was an intruder and he shot her because of that mistake, you cannot make that defence without a firearm being used.

Remove the possibility of using that defence (if has firearm had been taken away when he showed he could not be trusted with it), then it's entirely possible he doesn't kill her in the first place as you can accidentally beat your girlfriend to death with cricket bat and then claim you thought she was an intruder.

We aren't saying Oscar should not have been allowed to own a gun originally, we are saying that his behaviour with it after that made him unsuitable to own one.
 
vigras rojara said:
You also don't seem to get it mate. Apparently she was doomed even if old Oz didn't have a gun. That implies that guns are no more deadly than any other thing he may have found lying around the house.

Obviously that's BS, which was my whole point.
Click to expand...
We could argue that if she had a self-defence gun with her behind that door, the outcome might have been completely different.

There...see....guns clearly work for self-defence and if Charlie had himself a gun on that stage he could've defended himself.
(/Removes tongue from cheek)
 
Solarion said:
A knife death would not have occurred if no knives were available. Now we ban baseball bats, crowbar, fire irons, rope and on and on we just basically ban everything because it may be used in a murder.

What about rocks or bottles? See how this ends?
Click to expand...

Sure, I understand that argument. I don't support a total ban on guns, but I understand why some people do. The other things that you mention have other primary intended and common uses, they aren't designed for the sole purpose of killing people.

But it just reinforces my point - if they are just as deadly, why not carry some rope or a bottle instead of a gun?
 
KulQkumba said:
We could argue that if she had a self-defence gun with her behind that door, the outcome might have been completely different.

There...see....guns clearly work for self-defence and if Charlie had himself a gun on that stage he could've defended himself.
(/Removes tongue from cheek)
Click to expand...

Nope, all she needed was a piece of rope! 😂
 
vigras rojara said:
Sure, I understand that argument. I don't support a total ban on guns, but I understand why some people do. The other things that you mention have other primary intended and common uses, they aren't designed for the sole purpose of killing people.

But it just reinforces my point - if they are just as deadly, why not carry some rope or a bottle instead of a gun?
Click to expand...
The "just as deadly" argument is really silly when you look at literally every army in the world and take into account what the basic infrantry weapon is.
 
Solarion said:
A knife death would not have occurred if no knives were available. Now we ban baseball bats, crowbar, fire irons, rope and on and on we just basically ban everything because it may be used in a murder.

What about rocks or bottles? See how this ends?
Click to expand...
Warrabout the European weapon of choice, vehicles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X