Are Gun Nuts happy the United Health CEO was murdered?
Second amendment finally doing its job and placing power back in the hands of the people
shareYou sound like a thoughtful, intelligent soul.
share
MovieChat Forums > Politics > Are Gun Nuts happy the United Health CEO...
It is not guns which kill people, it is people. Just like it is not drugs which kill people but, er, people...
shareReminds me of that scene in UHF where there is a commercial that that says that.
shareAlmost like people don’t need access to guns…
shareGood thing our rights are given by God and not a man...
sharemagical sky fairy doesn’t exist, laws are written by men
shareLol. I guess you'll find out, eventually. Until then it's just your opinion.
shareDo you believe in Santy clause too? Lmfao
shareGOD GAVE THE RIGHT FOR HIS CHILDREN TO MURDER ONE ANOTHER! YOU WILL ACCEPT THAT GOD IS LOVING BY ALLOWING SO MUCH CARNAGE AND CHAOS BECAUSE HE IS JUST. GOD WILL ALSO JUDGE YOU (NOT BEFORE) AFTER YOU COMMITTED ALL YOU NEEDED TO COMMIT OF HIS OWN CHILDREN BECAUSE GOD IS SMART! NO ONE IS ABOVE OR SMARTAR THAN THE ALL MIGHTY!
shareWell, I think he is smart enough to know how to spell "Smarter" correctly.
sharemagical sky fairy
🥱
Thanks to our God-Given rights, you're allowed to say this without persecution from men. share
My mistake, I thought it was evangelical nut jobs believing in an invisible sky daddy that burned people at the stake for saying that 🤣
shareShow me where that was done by the creator and not the devil or his acolytes.
shareSeems like you are the reverse of the coin when it comes to religious nut jobs listening to sky daddies...
shareGod wrote "Thou shalt not kill" therefore God believes guns are an abomination that needs to be completely abolished.
shareIt’s not people that kill people, it’s…wait… hold on a minute 🤔
shareBlame New York City that has plunged into the depths of being a third world shithole.
shareSure is expensive for a third world shithole 🤔
shareWho says 3rd world shitholes are cheap?
shareI guess most of the usa is a 3rd world shithole then
shareLiterally has nothing to do with what "3rd World" actually means.
shareShitty failing infrastructure, banana republic style government, rampant corruption… yeah pretty much fits the bill LoL
shareThat's actually not what "Third World" means. But you can keep thinking that lol.
shareyou don’t even know the definition of the word, lmao
shareOmg you are that fucking stupid...
1st World - The West
2nd World - The USSR
3rd World - Literally every other nation not the West or USSR.
None of this has anything to do with national nor individual wealth. There's no underlying meaning.
People like you have given it more meanings than ever intended.
Wow you declare that with such confidence for a general expression that has no real fixed meaning at all and varies from place to place and time to time.
You must have picked that definition from your grandad's Soldier of Fortune magazine in the 70s.
What an odd, reality-defying rationalization. Were you also nodding along to Matt Gaetz when he claimed the Capitol was seized by ANTIFA on January 6th? Investigators claim it was a targeted hit, not an opportunistic crime from a city resident. The assassin probably does not reside there, and the gun came from out of state. Also odd a health-care executive would be at a four-star hotel in a third-world shit-hole. Again, reality-defying.
shareWhy would anyone be happy with a psycho murdering someone? Who cares what the weapon was, it's the intent.
shareRead the comments online. Literally everyone is siding against the insurance company. Gee I wonder why…
shareThe weapon facilitates the action. You might understand if you were not retarded.
shareA killer will kill with whatever they can get their hands on. It's kinda been happening since before guns were invented.
shareSure. The executive could have been assassinated with a lamppost. You'd have no problem restricting guns since you can kill and defend with whatever you can get your hands on. Or just by using your hands. Like I said, you'd understand if you were not retarded.
shareRight, a lamp post. That's the kind of point a retard makes.
Instead of a gun, he could have used a knife; he could have run him down with a car; he could have brained him with a hammer. But you thought it was clever to say "lamp post". You got him there, champ!
It’s a lot harder to run a guy over with a car or kill him with a hammer than it is a silenced .22 with subsonic round.
shareYou're the retard who claimed people could be killed with anything they can get their hands on. You're also the retard who has gone on to say that the assassin could run the guy down with a car. Try to game that one out, my guy. Assassin busses in from Atlanta and... rents a car? Steals a car? Targets a person on a sidewalk in one of the most densely populated places on earth? Jesus fucking Christ. You can't understand a simple reductio ad absurdum despite offering multiple (self-refuting) iterations.
It's not about facilitation, its about intent and opportunity. Even hands and feet can kill.
Show me where banning guns for law abiding citizens guarantees that a criminal could not use a gun.
"It's not about facilitation, its about intent and opportunity. Even hands and feet can kill."
Transparent nonsense. Why do able-bodied people insist on using firearms for self-defense when hands and feet can kill? People have their hands on their person at all times, but firearms are still used in more homicides. Just because bad faith non-arguments are common here does not mean you must add to them. Do better.
"Show me where banning guns for law abiding citizens guarantees that a criminal could not use a gun."
Again, more nonsense. Laws are not intended as "guarantees." They do not eliminate crime; laws reduce crime. Japan has strict gun laws, but there are still firearm homicides (low double-digits in a country of over 100 million people). I'm not sure I can reason out of a position that you have not been reasoned into.
Nonsense to you is common sense to others. Try applying some.
Why do able-bodied people insist on using firearms for self-defense when hands and feet can kill?
Because it's not a sports match fight, it's about self defense against a criminal(s) that means you and your family harm. They have no rules or lawful boundaries.
Your second paragraph doesn't refute my point in any way, but confirms it. lol share
You're just doubling down on nonsense. It's "common sense" to you that laws are intended to eliminate behavior?? Like all of those laws against homicide. Just because you post regularly on this forum does not obligate you to act like a retard. The enforcement of laws reduces undesirable behavior, as evidenced by countries like Japan. As noted, it's a country with over a hundred million people and extremely low rates of gun homicide.
shareTheir lower crime rates has nothing to do with guns.
- Japan is an authoritarian enslaved country, enslaved culture and enslaved society (a hive mind society without free will or individualism). They generally do as they're told. If they are told to keep quiet, they comply. If they're told to destroy their subhuman enemies, they comply.
- The Yakuza is in control of most crimes.
You should move to Japan since it’s a perfect Utopia for neutered leftoids like you.
Their lower crime rates has nothing to do with guns.
While correlation is not cause, it is reasonable to assert that the more guns there are which circulate in a society, the more times a gun is likely to be used criminally share
They can use any blunt object and/or sharp object “criminally”, so no; guns have nothing to do with it.
shareIndeed they can, but the point still is that if guns are more widespread, then they are more likely to be used in a crime. Same way, if there are more cars on the road, then road accidents will inevitably be higher. Come to think of it, the more eccentric alt-righters there are on a message board then the more eccentric alt-right postings inevitably there will be too.
shareSo now you're comparing it to vehicle accidents. lol,
Sharp/Blunt objects are more widespread than guns.
Your points, comparisons and analogies are getting worse.
You need a software upgrade; all syntax and zero logic.
Sharp/Blunt objects are more widespread than guns.
I am sure they are, but the point was about the preponderance of guns. Can you show me a country where guns are strictly controlled where gun crime is common? Fun fact: guns are the most common weapon used in homicides in the United States, causing more deaths than knives. In 2023, 7,159 people were murdered with a handgun, while 1,562 were murdered with a knife or cutting instrument. There are concerns with knife crime in the UK, but that is likely simply because it is harder to get hold of a gun. In the year ending March 2023, 41% of homicides in England and Wales were knife-related, while only 5% were firearm-related. If in both countries, if we accept that sharp objects are more widespread in either than guns, then what distinguishes one country from another? - the amount and freedom to own guns.
QED. share
So it’s not about guns, it’s about crime in general. You went back in a circle confirming indirectly that the problem is not guns. lmao
shareSo it’s not about guns, it’s about crime in general
No, it is still about the amount of gun crime likely to be higher the more guns which are in easy and wide circulation.
You went back in a circle confirming indirectly that the problem is not guns. lmao
Please read what I said again. And you haven't shown me a country where guns are strictly controlled where gun crime is common. Evasion noted. share
Because guns are not the problem, it’s about the crimes committed by the criminals.
Crime is common regardless of how much guns are controlled; your country is a prime example.
Because guns are not the problem,
In 2023 USA, 7,159 people were murdered with a handgun, Not a problem?
it’s about the crimes committed by the criminals
Presumably then in the same way, drugs are not the problem, just the crimes committed by criminals? Why has the USA spent years trying to fight and restrict drugs then?
Crime is common regardless of how much guns are controlled; your country is a prime example.
The UK has more violent crime than the United States or Canada. The UK has fewer gun crimes because fewer people have handguns. Just another reminder that we are still only talking about the likelihood of gun crime when more guns are around. But don't take my word for such common sense:
Harvard Injury Control Research Center
A review of the literature found that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide in high-income countries like the United States. The research also found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of firearm homicide.
https://rockinst.org/blog/more-guns-more-death-the-fundamental-fact-that-supports-a-comprehensive-approach-to-reducing-gun-violence-in-america/
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/322833 etc etc
Please don't fall back on 'left wing propaganda' tropes.
And ... evasion noted.
. share
We have five times the amount of people than the UK and even with all the gun restrictions, gun crimes still occurs in the UK.
And all the "non-gun crimes" were simply substituted by blunt and sharp objects.
Guns are not the problem; criminals are. Your logic is flawed. Try using common sense; for once.
You rely too much on internet scriptures to do the thinking for you. Many of those scriptures are mis/dis-info.
We have five times the amount of people than the UK and even with all the gun restrictions, gun crimes still occurs in the UK.
The US homicide rate is about six times higher than the UK's. In 2020-2021, people aged 15 to 19 were three times more likely to be killed by homicide in the US than in 1960. You don't think I have been quoting per capita figures?
And all the "non-gun crimes" were simply substituted by blunt and sharp objects.
Your source for this? You haven't given any at all so far. The common thinking is actually that knife crime does not replace gun crime when guns are harder to get. But since you can't be bothered with sources backing up your claims. then I won't anymore either.
Guns are not the problem; criminals are. Your logic is flawed.
So why can we not say that drugs are 'not the problem' in the same way? Looks like the same argument of logic to me.
You rely too much on internet scriptures to do the thinking for you
Remember how I asked you not ti fall back on 'left wing propaganda' tropes? Oh dear. Look at the links I provided; are they really biased? Why don't you provide some that support your claims? Is there a problem?
share
The US homicide rate is about six times higher than the UK's.
We are five times the pop and the extra one was substituted by blunt/sharp objects which means it evens out or the UK actually has a higher rate.
See how simple it is to refute your cited BS. share
The United States has a higher rate of violent crime per capita than the United Kingdom. That is the incidence of serious violent crime per capita is between 3.6 and 6.5 times as high in the United States as it is in England and Wales.
"...the data for the United States and England and Wales can be derived for the narrower category of serious violent crime. The chapter shows broadly that the incidence of serious violent crime per capita is between three and seven times as high in the United States as in England and Wales. This parallels the comparative data on homicide; existing comparisons with Canada and New Zealand lend further weight to the claim that levels of serious violence in the United States are distinctively high."
https://academic.oup.com/book/36298/chapter-abstract/317747759?redirectedFrom=fulltext
That is a fact, Sorry 'bout that. I know, Oxford University is just 'internet sciptures' but who do I more sensibly believe? An academic institution with a world-wide reputation for excellence and their research - or some anonymous guy on a message board and an axe to grind, who never offers any substantiation? Hard one, that....
Per capita, btw, is a Latin term that translates to “by head” and is used in English to mean average per person. Per capita is often used in place of “per person” in statistical observances. Glad to help.
And .. you still haven't given an example of country which has strict gun laws and high gun crime. I wonder why. That's all from me here now, unless you can offer anything more than unsupported opinion, which is unlikely. Thanks for playing.
More propaganda scriptures? lol
A higher capita because we have a higher pop and therefore, more criminals. You’re making refutations easier every time.
How naive and gullible are you? ...
Many cited sources are riddled with mis/dis-info. They get paid, funded and incentivized to post whatever they’re told.
This is nonsense. You can compare gun crimes among similar demographics in the United States. Though small population samples, you can compare the British Virgin Islands against the US Virgin Islands. You can compare Australia before and after strict gun control was implemented. It's fucking retarded to suggest gun violence has nothing to do with guns. Is it so difficult to concede that gun availability facilitates gun violence? Is it too difficult to bite that bullet? You could still argue that regulations do not necessarily follow, but instead you choose to deny empirical reality.
Also, Japan is not my North Star. It's a racist and misogynistic society.
My previous reply was in reference to Japan only. Apparently, it went over your head; therefore, your entire retarded rhetoric is dismissed.
shareYou're just double-down on fallacious reasoning. You engaged in special-pleading for Japan. The comparative analysis stems not from your hare-brained non-arguments regarding Japan but your hare-brained suggestion that enforcing laws against guns has no effect.
shareBackpedaling and deflecting eh.
You're the one that started the special-pleading for Japan and comparing guns and crime in the USA to Japan.
Wow, you're really bad at this. Not only are you engaged in pure projection, but you're reduced to fabricating the reason Japan was invoked. Have you forgotten you wrote, "Show me where banning guns for law abiding citizens guarantees that a criminal could not use a gun." Please stop huffing gasoline.
shareYes, and that question was specifically for USA only. You brought up Japan and you couldn't handle my reply.
shareFun fact, firearms are used in self defense a million times a year.
Show me how your average woman can fight off your average man (or men) with the intent of raping her. Show me how your average elderly person can fight off someone a fraction of their age who is intent on doing them bodily harm or stealing their property.
Then go sit in the corner and think about how retarded you are.
How many shootings occur in Japan compared to the US?
shareJapan is an enslaved country.
Any country where guns are banned or illegal, the people are not free, they’re enslaved.
How many people died in the past 100+ years after giving up their guns? … 100+ million.
Didn't answer the question. I have friends in Japan and they like it better than America. Now answer the question bitch. Any country that charges people for healthcare isn't free. See I can make points like that as well.
shareThey're enslaved and that's why they like it better.
You should move there since you hate our country so much.
So then America is enslaved since they don't have free healthcare then right?
shareAre you referring to a universal socialist-type free healthcare where people are enslaved to one particular system established by the gov? Like the ones in enslaved commie countries? That type of free healthcare? ... sorry bud, but you got that one backwards.
I prefer to pay and have the freedom to choose from whatever provider I want.
Your "free HealthCare" is gov controlled HC.
Wait you mean the one where it's a pay up or die system in America? Answer me this. Why is it the police, fire fighters, public roads, and public schools come out of taxes but healthcare doesn't? Shouldn't the police, schools and fire fighters being privatized by your mentality? I mean after all I should be able to choose right?
share"Fun fact, firearms are used in self defense a million times a year."
This is the Kleck stuff from the 90s. It has not held up well. There are also umpteen cases of people defending themselves by barking and turning the headbeams on their car and lying about having a boyfriend.
"Show me how your average woman can fight off your average man (or men) with the intent of raping her. Show me how your average elderly person can fight off someone a fraction of their age who is intent on doing them bodily harm or stealing their property."
More nonsense. The vast majority of women are not carrying guns. The biggest effect of gun laws in this country is to make it easier for criminals to obtain firearms, for law-abiding citizens to obtain toys, and for police to be trigger-happy (agents of the state in the US kill significantly more citizens than similarly advanced Western countries). As for the US, women are more likely to be gunned down in intimate partner violence. But, please, continue with your empirically challenged fantasies. They amuse me.
Typical, deny reality and insert your own.
You don't have the first fucking clue who's carrying guns. Women are the fastest growing demographic.
It's instructive that you're not intent on rebutting the points laid out. The vast majority of women are NOT carrying guns, and they do not want to carry guns, which is wholly consistent with women being the "fastest growing demographic." Are you innumerate? If one woman carries, and then another decides to follow suit, then that's a 100% increase. Again, look at international comparisons in police taking lives (on a per capita basis). Look at intimate partner violence. You rely on bogus intuition instead of empiricism.
shareThe real question is did the current administration or the upcoming administration send the shooter and why? The shooter is most definitely a Euro perhaps Russian or Ukrainian. If it was just Joe Blow who got denied coverage he would have been caught.
shareI wonder how many deaths he was responsible for through due to denial of coverage.
share