Charlie Kirk. A patriot and man of God, or major douche?

The main issue that most gun owners have with ardent gun control advocates is that they clearly know quite literally nothing about guns, don't care to know anything about them, but still feel fit to weigh in on how they ought to be regulated with no small amount of fervor.

If someone doesn’t know much about something but speaks on it anyway it’s fair to criticize them, that doesn’t mean they are ultimately wrong in what they’re saying.

The bottom line is that a gun is an extremely dangerous product and what gun safety enthusiasts like myself want is for them to be treated like any other dangerous product or at least apply the same logic to them that we do everything else.

This is the worst possible reaction from the right, just as cheering and celebrating is the worst from the left.

You’re cherry picking the worst of the worst people, and you’re generalizing an entire politics party to be exactly like those horrible people.

There are not “two sides” in American politics, only two major parties, and there is still great division and nuance between the beliefs of the members of those parties. Saying half of all Americans support the cold blooded murder of a husband and a father for expressing his opinions in public is just plain vitriol.

And as I’ve already pointed out, the totalitarian government isn’t actually a thing that exists. You can’t point to it and go that’s the totalitarian government right there.

China. That's a totalitarian government.

Justin Trudeau is one who specifically praised the Chinese style of dictatorship because of the ease which the government can do what they want. And there are certainly more politicians than him that have wet dreams about China's government.

So I ask you again, who are the people that you think benefit from this? Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton?

I was speaking of the Left generally. As far as individuals go, most politicians are not as stupid as Trudeau to come right out and say, "How cool would it be to govern in a totalitarian regime?" We could analyze individuals to make a judgment as to what style of government they see as ideal. But generally speaking, the Left seeks more government regulation. Totalitarian governments are characterized by high amounts of government regulation. There is a very simple path to connect Leftism with totalitarian style governance.

Ok, let’s start with the most basic. True or False:

more guns = more gun violence

That is one of the few that is probably true for the U.S. today, though even that is not a straight truism because it depends on who has the guns that are left. Since the Nazi/Soviet governments had most of the remaining guns, there was still quite a bit of unidirectional gun violence. An armed population may have gone a long way to deter this high level of gun violence.

Not only that, a reduction in gun violence does not necessarily mean a reduction in violent crime. If shootings go down but stabbings rise by the same amount, what have you really accomplished?

China. That's a totalitarian government.

Yes, and like I said, it doesn't actually exist. China's government is an entity on paper, it doesn't have cognizance, it doesn't have goals or motivations. The goals and/or motivations we ascribe to it are represented by the people running it, so if you're going to claim that this government wants something you have to put that claim through the lense of the people making those decisions in order to make sense of it. Otherwise you're just spewing out words that mean absolutely nothing, which is exactly what you did by claiming "the left" wants gun control in order to control the population.

And there are certainly more politicians than him that have wet dreams about China's government.

Then talk about those individual politicians and what their personal motivations are. Last time I checked Justin Trudeau is a private citizen now, so any actions he would have taken to control the populace would now be controlling him as well, which makes for a pretty terrible reason to engage in what you describe.

the Left seeks more government regulation. Totalitarian governments are characterized by high amounts of government regulation. There is a very simple path to connect Leftism with totalitarian style governance.

Yes, you can connect them, but you are also completely disregarding Occam's razor to draw the conclusions you are suggesting. Regulations are far easier explained by a desire to reduce harm in the very ways they are designed to do rather than as some form of conspiracy to control the population.

You can argue they will be ineffective, or have unintended consequences, that is far less of a reach than what you're suggesting.

Yes, and like I said, it doesn't actually exist. China's government is an entity on paper, it doesn't have cognizance, it doesn't have goals or motivations. The goals and/or motivations we ascribe to it are represented by the people running it, so if you're going to claim that this government wants something you have to put that claim through the lense of the people making those decisions in order to make sense of it.

You are being intentionally obtuse. I'm not going to explain how generalizations work.

Otherwise you're just spewing out words that mean absolutely nothing, which is exactly what you did by claiming "the left" wants gun control in order to control the population.

First, I made clear that is not the only reason, and not everyone on the left is seeking to disarm the population. Second, you are making claims about "the left" as well. Stop doing that if you are going to be so obtuse when someone else does it.

Then talk about those individual politicians and what their personal motivations are.

I'm not going to make a list of every politician and their political affiliations just because you're too obtuse to understand generalizations. I gave an example, and if you think Trudeau can't step back into a position of authority in the future, then you are again being obtuse.

Yes, you can connect them, but you are also completely disregarding Occam's razor to draw the conclusions you are suggesting. Regulations are far easier explained by a desire to reduce harm in the very ways they are designed to do rather than as some form of conspiracy to control the population.

Occam's razor is not the end all of logical arguments. Honestly, it's not even a very good one because of the abuse it receives due to the limitation of human knowledge. Not only that, you don't just get to say, "I'm right because of Occam's razor!" It's not a conspiracy to say that an unarmed population is easier to control, that's a fact. And it's not a conspiracy to say that many politicians desire power to exercise their will over people. It takes a truly obtuse person to assume that the simplest explanation is that all politicians are upstanding and moral individuals genuinely seeking the best interest of the public rather than their own selfish desires.

"There are gonna be a lot of unemployed chicken shits after their employers see the videos they post on social media celebrating his death."

They are dropping like flies. Gonna need a special Charlie Kirk line at the unemployment office.

Sucks when you lose your job for exercising your first amendment right don't it. Next thing you know people will be killing people for exercising their first amendment right.

Who is Tyler Robinson, the suspect in custody for shooting Charlie Kirk?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wl2y66p9o

At some level we have to take reasonable precautions to prevent unnecessary deaths.

Which Charlie agreed with, but his idea of reasonable precautions was having armed guards.

And if you don’t believe that there’s not much you can really say when you become the victim.

The victim is dead, so yeah, not much they can say.

I don't care who did it. It will never erase the cheers and laughter I saw on your news of so many Americans celebrating his death.

Who did it might impact how politics and society responds.

. . .

Also, I have to ask, are you doing a bit?

Always with all the Americans, Americans, Americans, I mean.

. . .

Pot says what?

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-canadians-celebrating-charlie-kirks-assassination-may-be-banned-from-u-s

Not that I'm saying such Canadians should be banned,

. . . But I don't know where a lot of Reddit users are from,

I don't know how many Canadians cheer.

Not to mention how many comments and threads might get deleted.

https://researchco.ca/2024/01/10/social-media-canada-2

Eh, one would expect Americans to talk about it more and care more one way or another than Canadians. (Shrug)

Well, Free Speech is greater in America I have heard.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/users-reeling-feeling-sick-and-frustrated-after-facebook-and-instagram-accounts-deleted-without-cause-or-recourse

Your society already responded and it was utterly disgusting.

You are being intentionally obtuse. I'm not going to explain how generalizations work.

If you understood how they work you wouldn't be making the claim 'the left wants to pass gun laws in order to disarm and thereby control the population'.

First, I made clear that is not the only reason, and not everyone on the left is seeking to disarm the population. Second, you are making claims about "the left" as well. Stop doing that if you are going to be so obtuse when someone else does it.

What I'm doing is fundamentally different. Generalizations are first off all only genuine when one is talking about a sizable majority of whatever group is being referred to. There's no argument for asserting your characterization of the left is majority represented.

Second, when I say "the left" or "the right" I'm talking about what I believe the majority of individuals within that group want, not what sounds scary if we pretend these groups are linked to a Borg hive mind where their individuality is erased.

I'm not going to make a list of every politician and their political affiliations just because you're too obtuse to understand generalizations. I gave an example, and if you think Trudeau can't step back into a position of authority in the future, then you are again being obtuse.

I didn't ask you to name every one, I asked you to talk about done of the ones you're referring to when you make this claim. The only one you've provided is Trudeau and notably didn't even bother to attempt an explanation as to how it made sense, just referenced the possibility that he might some day, despite no evidence he would even think about it. Clearly your initially started position fails, and that's fine. Just admit that, to yourself if no one else.

Occam's razor is not the end all of logical arguments. Honestly, it's not even a very good one because of the abuse it receives due to the limitation of human knowledge.

Occam's razor isn't an argument at all, it's a test of whether logic is being applied correctly. To ignore it is to be irrational by definition.

It takes a truly obtuse person to assume that the simplest explanation is that all politicians are upstanding and moral individuals genuinely seeking the best interest of the public rather than their own selfish desires.

What's obtuse is to continue to defend against another person's arguments buy strawmanning them when their original point should have been clear.

I said nor implied anything about "all politicians", nor do my arguments require them to be moral individuals setting aside their own personal ambitions. All you need to do is take your own arguments to their logical conclusion and recognize how absurd that picture is.

Gun laws have to be passed by Congress. But congressional representatives have no role in "controlling the population", all they do is pass laws. Those laws are then enforced by officials within the executive branch, so if anyone wanted to nefariously control the population it would be them.

The argument against your stated position has nothing to do with assuming moral purity, it's about the fact that the actual people who would be at the heart of this plot you describe attain no personal benefit and therefore have no personal motivation for carrying it out, thereby leaving you to assume malice with no purpose and for which there is no evidence. It's right on par with 9/11 was an inside job.

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

Then move on to the next shooting.

Not forgetting the evergreen Mr Holly.

Though young Tyler stole his thunder somewhat.

The moral being, if you wanna shoot and become famous these days, you've gotta shoot big.

There are approximately 325 shootings per day in the US, resulting in approximately 125 fatalities.

It's the norm, get over it.

And as Charlie would have told you, it's as safe as driving a vehicle.

Nonetheless, my sympathies go to all who have lost a loved one in the past few days.

Which will be half a million or so and counting, at a rate of approximately 2 per second.

Which Charlie agreed with, but his idea of reasonable precautions was having armed guards.

That is in no way, a reasonable means of preventing unnecessary deaths.

I don't care who did it. It will never erase the cheers and laughter I saw on your news of so many Americans celebrating his death.

Do you feel the same way about all the people cheering and laughing when violence is perpetrated against left wing figures, or does it only matter when it's the side you care about?

Hmm...who was it... what's her name... Giffords? I don't recall coverage of anyone cheering her death via assassin. Definitely not as widespread as today, (and still continues btw)

If you can pull up people publicly cheering on her assassination, that would definitely be worth a look. I also don't think anyone called her a fascist, racist, or some other manufactured trope signifying some "existential threat" either. That seems to be a relatively recent thing with your country. It just seems to me that the comparison to Giffords doesn’t really stick, because the scale and tone were nothing like the “cheering section” that exists now. But I suppose with the proper indoctrination, you can turn apples into oranges with a clever mental trick.

I guess his mind has finally been changed.

Why do I need to pull up anything, you have the internet at your finger tips as well. Here, let's let ChatGPT have a look:

❌ Isolated far-right online reactions

There were some fringe online posts — forums, blogs, and anonymous commenters — expressing hostility toward Giffords or making callous jokes. These were largely condemned and not considered representative of any major political movement.

Some commenters (on far-right blogs or 4chan-type boards) made mocking or dismissive remarks about Giffords, but outright cheering was extremely rare and widely denounced.

Because of course there was, and keep in mind that this example occurred in 2011, social media did not have the same reach and was more restrictive back then.

The point here is that the internet is a cesspool of filth, everyone knows that. So to pretend there merely finding it within any large group is somehow representative of that group is either grossly disingenuous or remarkably stupid.

The point at which it can be reasonably argued to be representative of a political movement is when prominent and influential figures within that movement join in. And when it comes to that, there is no comparison between the political right vs the left. You will find nothing like this on the left, meanwhile on the right you don't have to look any further than the sitting president of the United States who last year stood on a stage in front of supporters while running for office and joked about an attack against his political opponent where their husband's head got bashed in with a hammer. And that's just one small anecdote of many many more I could give.

This isn't a both sides issue.

What I'm doing is fundamentally different. Generalizations are first off all only genuine when one is talking about a sizable majority of whatever group is being referred to.

As I said, I'm not going to explain generalizations to you. For further reading, see the following link:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/

By the second paragraph, it can be seen where your point that generalizations must refer to a majority in order to be "genuine" is incorrect.

Occam's razor isn't an argument at all, it's a test of whether logic is being applied correctly. To ignore it is to be irrational by definition

I typed too quickly and used the wrong phrase, but my point remains accurate. Occam's razor is not a "logical argument," but it is still not an end all rule since it deals with what is most likely, not what is definitively true. You are outright wrong because violating Occam's razor does not definitionally make something irrational. Your misuse of Occam's razor also further proves my point. But let's test out how accurate your assertion is anyway.

Has gun control historically been used by authoritarian governments as a means to disarm populations, allowing for easier control and preventing violent dissent?

Yes.

Did these authoritarian governments frame gun control measures in terms of population control, or in terms of public safety?

Public safety. It would not be politically expedient to outright admit the true purpose of their gun control measures. It is actually unreasonable to think a politician would not attempt to hide their true motives behind the facade of public safety.

Therefore, when a government official advocates for gun control, is the desire to reduce harm the only reasonable explanation? 

No. Historical precedence shows that disarming the population under the guise of public safety for the purpose of control is a reasonable explanation. The unreasonable position is to ignore this historical fact to exclude the possibility.

You are the unreasonable one in this situation.

his idea of reasonable precautions was having armed guards.

That is in no way, a reasonable means of preventing unnecessary deaths.

A lot of unnecessary deaths have been prevented by armed guards. That's why the Secret Service exists.

Fair enough, but I think we all know if someone in your media is going to use the language "racist, nazi, fascist...." we all know exactly what side of the fence that rhetoric is.

That's the part where you would have to use pure magic to turn apples to oranges.

I keep waiting for the return of #JeSuisCharlie.

By the second paragraph, it can be seen where your point that generalizations must refer to a majority in order to be "genuine" is incorrect.

Nothing in your link refutes what I've argued, and it is common sense than when you generalize any group with characteristics that do not apply to the majority of that group, you are being sloppy at best and disingenuous at worst.

Occam's razor is not a "logical argument," but it is still not an end all rule since it deals with what is most likely, not what is definitively true. You are outright wrong because violating Occam's razor does not definitionally make something irrational.

Yes, it does. To be rational is by definition to be in accordance with logic. To be logical you must be in accordance with it's most basic laws, which are built on one primary pillar: consistency.

Occam's razor is the test of whether your analysis is founded on that primary pillar. If it is ok to accept an explanation as the best one despite more assumptions being necessary to substantiate it over alternative explanations, then any position can be justified. That's the opposite of consistency in reasoning, aka the opposite of being rational, which is why it violates Occam's razor.

Therefore, when a government official advocates for gun control, is the desire to reduce harm the onlyreasonable explanation? 

No. Historical precedence shows that disarming the population under the guise of public safety for the purpose of control is a reasonable explanation. The unreasonable position is to ignore this historical fact to exclude the possibility.

This isn't what we're talking about. You didn't argue it was a possibility that shouldn't be excluded, you offered it as your explanation for what you're seeing. That means out of all other explanations, you think this is the most reasonable one. That's why I put forward what the test of that is and how your explanation fails that test. To disregard that is to disregard reason.

A lot of unnecessary deaths have been prevented by armed guards. That's why the Secret Service exists.

Yes but this is an option available to only a tiny sliver of the population so it cannot be put forward as a reasonable solution to a societal problem.

we all know if someone in your media is going to use the language "racist, nazi, fascist...." we all know exactly what side of the fence that rhetoric is.

Yes, because we all know what side of the fence these groups within the US identify with. It's not rhetoric to call a spade a spade, reality matters.

Oh for sure, the most radicalized ones will think the rhetoric is real, as in thinking Kirk was an actual Nazi ready to creep into their homes at any moment in some cartoon outfit.

The very idea that it's all made-up rhetoric for shock value would never register to that part of your country, the part that laughs and cheers at assassinations. Their reality most definitely matters to the normal parts of your country.

Oh for sure, the most radicalized ones will think the rhetoric is real, as in thinking Kirk was an actual Nazi ready to creep into their homes at any moment in some cartoon outfit.

Yes, it's called stochastic terrorism, and the left has been warning about it for years everytime Trump launches his overt partisan attacks on democrats. It's always funny to see though how that sentiment is always disregarded as since kind of derangement syndrome by the lefties but when it happens to their own, suddenly they understand full well what we're talking about.

The very idea that it's all made-up rhetoric for shock value would never register to that part of your country, the part that laughs and cheers at assassinations. Their reality most definitely matters to the normal parts of your country.

Again, the crazies will always exist within our society, on every side. We don't judge any movement by them until they gain prominence.

When criticizing the other side, what matters is that those criticisms are based on reality. When for example, a president claims am election was stolen, he is absolutely responsible for the violence that ensues because he's the one spreading misinformation. When we on the left call him or for that by accurately describing it as part of his fascist ideology, that is absolutely legitimate because it's true.

Truth is the standard, otherwise you're claiming that wrongdoers cannot be criticized. That's absurd.

They reek of smugness, are impervious to reason, and simply regurgitate whatever was last shitted down their throat by the rest of their social media feed, most of whom received the information in the same way.

yeah it’s the mix of smugness and ignorance that results in some truly nasty displays. And I think being a “digital native” just scrambled peoples brains.

YouGov actually just polled this and the results are bleak to say the least. Among “young” (18-44) liberals only a bare majority are willing to say that celebrating the death of a public figure you oppose and politics violence are unacceptable. That’s really not good at all. And Kirk really was not some radical at all, it wouldn’t be justified even if he was some white nationalist or something but this guy was just a normal conservative advocating views more or less in line with half the country…

https://x.com/sival84/status/1967120265567236461?s=46&t=XyI0XggPG-A0IFGA0FJzyQ