If you are under 18 you are not permitted to submit personal information to us or use this website. If discovered you will be banned.
We will ban and report anyone posting illegal content.
We will ban any forum user who breaks our terms.
Freedom of speech should be wide open as long as it doesn't incite violence.
We have a 15 year old thriving community here with 400,000+ members and hundreds of people online at any given moment, we encourage you to join!, there are 1000's of topics to discuss. Please be aware before registering and read our terms of service and privacy policy.
By dismissing this notice and proceeding, you agree to the above.
It was a good miss, for sure. Professional marksman routinely hit targets the size of a quarter from 1000 yards. This shot was "point-blank" in marksman terms. At this range, a decent marksman could have pierced Charlie's ear and missed everything else.
I see what you did there.
That is punishment to those who shoot at a competitive level or enjoy recreational marksmanship. It's equivalent to banning golf clubs for golfers or knives for chefs. Many peaceful (not harmless, which seems to be the biggest goal, resulting from firearm restrictions, i.e. Chicago/NY) would be stripped of their passion, for the act of a small group of mentally distorted. They're just tools, and it's more nuanced than people make it out to be, because they can't grasp the root of the issue.
I can only speak for myself, but I feel his murder was more impactful because someone murdered him for his political and religious beliefs. It's weird that people aren't more concerned about this very public display of silencing political discourse. I didn't care much for Kirk because he was a shill for Israel, but he did start the noticing right before his death and a person with that big of a platform turning away from the jews would have been catastrophic for the "narrative".
kind of ironic isnt it? didnt he say that the people dying of gun violence is a sacrifice protect the 2nd ammendment?
He's a patsy.
Sure but how many kids in a classroom are you going to kill in two minutes with a golf club or a kitchen knife? It’s the level of risk that is the issue, not the definition of a gun as a tool or a weapon (I don’t care about gun control by the way, just presenting the argument)
The gun didn’t kill Charlie by itself.
You are pissing into the wind here sir.
The killer also didn't run and kill him with his bare hands either, dumbass.
Run along. I don’t argue with communist untermenschen.
Sounds like another bullshit coverup to me
I think if we dig a bit more here, we‘d find many gore that would be because of political or religious beliefs. At the end of the day he was murdered. We can‘t laugh at 100 deaths and then say „oh no, THIS death is too tragic to laugh about“. We‘re not here for political discussions, but to let our dark side out. Like you bring your dog for a walk. A death is a death. And to those calling me leftist (funny word) - I wouldn‘t make a difference between anybody. Hell, if I make it here, I at least hope it‘s worth watching.
You completely misunderstood my point. This WAS NOT a shot made by a pro.
With a large kitchen knife in the hands of someone effective enough, they could essentially get more than some of the other shootings. Like the school where the two only killed one, because when it got real, they couldn't mentally go through with it. So, it's case by case basis, and the most deadly was committed with handguns (Which have been proven to be a constitutionally protected class of firearm) No one's trying to ban shotguns, but are the most destructive device one could use in these close quarter scenarios.
Not sure which shitholes you're referring to, but it's not normal for the US to have politically motivated assassinations.
Fuck off then
