all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 69 points 6 months ago*

its too on-the-nose. historians are gonna be like: "many think Kirk was talking about gun control when he was shot but consensus is that this was ai generated"

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago*

    People downplay gun violence all the time tho when it comes to either of those two things:

    • Police violence
    • Violence that happens in "the hood" (or whatever racist term people pull out)

    Like, a lot of gun control is just made to protect those who aren't victims of either of those and are instead affluent suburban whites. The obsession with certain types of firearms, the obsession with the idea that ANY LAW no matter how bad it is will save at least one person, and all of those laws giving the police exemptions to own what liberals call "weapons of war" for free while regular people aren't allowed to have them are clear examples of it.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago

    Not even after. He was in the middle of talking when circumstances prevented him from saying any more.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago* (9 children)

    Right in the larynx.

    Turned out to be left-leaning, ultimately.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

    Turned out to be left-leaning, ultimately.

    Gun nut with a trans-baddie gf who decided to shoot up a school event out of a toxically masculine sense of righteous pride? How is that left-leaning?

    Sometimes I think people work really hard to put this or that fringe figure somewhere on the Left/Right divide, when this guy was just armed, online, and easily ahem triggered. You could say the same thing about Luigi Mangione or Thomas Matthew Crooks. None of them fit neatly into a partisan bucket. The plurality of Americans don't fit neatly.

    Unlike with Charlie, this shot went over my head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah what the other guy replied to you.

    Not my joke, originally though. But yeah, it's a joke. Ofc he wasn't in any way politically leftist.

    Also I agree with you and would describe myself an advocate of non-partisan politics but in this day and age I do mostly identify as a leftist in most contexts, because I'm not gonna do the whole "both sides" shit when the world looks like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    I’m not gonna do the whole “both sides” shit when the world looks like this.

    I think there is a real and genuinely positive inclination among people to look at the state of the world in horror and say "We have to all band together to do something about it". But I also can't help notice that some of the people in the room claiming "We're here to help" are wearing Raytheon lanyards and Palantir branded backpacks and Crypto sweater vests and Israeli flag lapel pins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I think there is a real and genuinely positive inclination among people to look at the state of the world in horror and say "We have to all band together to do something about it".

    Agreed. Which is why I advocate non-partisan politics.

    But in general conversation, I'm gonna heavily condemn the right, because cmon, gestures vaguely at everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I advocate non-partisan politics.

    Okay, but what if I've got a group of friends, we all agree on a course of action, and we plan to pursue our political interest collectively as a party? Should we just... not?

    But in general conversation, I’m gonna heavily condemn the right, because cmon, gestures vaguely at everything.

    I think the modern Republican Party has openly embraced fascist rhetoric in a country where liberals and conservatives alike have become all too accepting of fascist policy. The end result has been anti-fascists initially piling into liberal partisan organizations (particularly under Obama) only to discover them totally unresponsive to public pressure unless the person making demands was a mega-donor or corporate chief.

    When you look at governors like Gavin Newsom openly flirting with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, while senators like Chuck Schumer continue to defend and even outright endorse genocide of colored populations from Algeria to The Philippines, its very hard to see where "the right" in this country ends and "real liberalism" begins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Should we just... not?

    If you live in a country with partisan democracy, you absolutely should.

    What I advocate for and what is actually feasible atm are two different things. Like I'd possibly advocate for a world government, given some things were properly fixed. But since they aren't, and I don't see everyone getting suddenly enlightened, I realise national defence policies are still a thing.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    In other words, I'm a conditional pacifist. I advocate for peace, but I would also take up a gun if I deem it necessary for defending my country from invaders. (And I am actually a trained sergeant in the reserves, so that's not just me saying it, me doing that would be enforced by the MP's even if I didn't want to go)

    I think the modern Republican Party has openly embraced fascist rhetoric in a country where liberals and conservatives alike have become all too accepting of fascist policy. The end result has been anti-fascists initially piling into liberal partisan organizations (particularly under Obama) only to discover them totally unresponsive to public pressure unless the person making demands was a mega-donor or corporate chief.

    Which is very much why I condemn them. And from a European POV, even your left is pretty right a lot of the times, especially on social and economic policies.

    The Philippines, its very hard to see where "the right" in this country ends and "real liberalism" begins.

    Yeah well that's sort of the issue, and which is why I can't currently identify as a non-partisan. Even though I'm not even American, but like in general discourse, especially when a lot of it's happening online where American is a context usually.

    If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

    — Desmond Tutu

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    It was just so.....justified.

    And well documented.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Literal and figurative right man leaning left.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    The tent with the banner saying "PROVE ME WRONG" just frames the scene so perfectly

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    ERIKA did have a WWE style celebration of his funeral.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (20 children)

    Based on what I've heard, the shooter was using a type of gun that's only effective over longer distances. I do wonder how they were able to time the shot so perfectly. Although I have no idea how guns work

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 6 months ago

    Life is stranger than fiction. We’ve all experienced moments in real life that would be considered bad, cheesy writing if we wrote them ourselves.

    As far as “only effective over longer distances” is concerned, that’s just not a thing. Like, sure, I wouldn’t bring a hunting/sniper rifle to a close-quarters situation, and it would mean the overall setup would be pretty ineffective, but the weapon itself does not have an “effective minimum distance”.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    There isn't a gun that works worse at close range.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Do grenade launchers count as guns?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    You could absolutely shoot somebody point blank with a grenade launcher and get them. Might get you to, but it would work just fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Actually, no. Weapons like the RPG only arm a certain distance away from the launcher, to protect the operator in the event the warhead detonates prematurely.

    Of course, the blunt force impact would probably do the job alone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    There might be some edge cases where a round going fast enough to exit a target would impart less energy than a shower round that completely stops inside the target

    Probably not the case with a hunting rifle though

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    There isn’t a gun alive that works worse at close range.

    FTFY

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    There isn't a gun "alive" in the first place. Bad faith argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    Eh. There IS a gun that works worse at close range, but it is very much not in production and its ammo is very, very hard to source.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

    In that sense, you could say it's a dead gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Wiki says it's a rocket launcher. That's not the same thing as a gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    This isn't Battlefield. Guns don't have a specific range where they're more deadly, in fact every bullet fired gets weaker over distance the moment it leaves the barrel. From there the thing that matters is projectile drag, barrel length, type of rifling, and the gunpowder load.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    That type of gun is called a "rifle", and it's typically considered most effective at distances greater than ~3 feet. Any closer and you might need to step back to avoid smacking the target with the barrel.

    Guns don't really have "effective ranges" like is often portrayed. Close range guns are usually close range because they're physically larger, not because of the movement of the bullet. A gun you need to point upwards to carry up stairs is not as good if you might need to fight on stairs. Likewise, if someone is close enough to grab the barrel you probably want a weapon that they can't do that to.
    Weapons with longer barrels can often accelerate a bullet longer, giving it more power and accuracy. That's why they tend to be viewed as distance weapons.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    A gun is just a tiny mechanical cannon. Explosives launch a bit of lead really really fast. Every gun does this, and I promise that lead doesn't care how far or close, if it gets you your gonna have a bad day.

  • source
  • parent