• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    If you pull a gun out you are not threatening, you have declared your intent to kill whatever it’s pointing at.

    It is not a defense tool, it is a “all other options are expired and now someone has to die” tool.

    There is no motive for pointing your gun at someone except to shoot them.

    No matter how much your dumbass might think you’re just trynna scare them a bit.

    It is the same. It is gun violence. It is terrorism without a cause.

    • GBU_28
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m aware of the basics of gun safety, and aware that having a gun elevates the charges on a crime like a robbery. Pointing a gun at anything does indeed make clear your willingness to kill.

      But you dodged the point of my reply, the motive or intent of the crime.

      A robbery is not terrorism, or terroristic in motive. A robbery has a cause and a goal outside of killing. I’m not saying an armed robbery isn’t an inherently violent act, and I never said that shit about “trynna scare them”. Not sure where you gathered that.

      You’ve devolved to name calling, inserting thoughts for others, and dodging the point of what you’re replying to. Seems you’re about spent

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        My point is that involving the gun makes it terrorism by the same principle of escalation.

        It’s not a robery, it’s a near death experience where money might change hands.

        Gun violence is gun violence. It is all attempted murder and terrorism. Fact that some people want money out of it is irrelevant, it is still terrorism.

        • GBU_28
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Words have definitions. Real life has different situations. Those situations have different motives and results, even if they share features. Edit you can’t just declare everything violent terroristic.

          It’s silly to assume that the same actions would have the same impacts on two very different types of crime, despite both of those crimes having a gun.

          For example: red flag laws where family or certain professionals can bring forward action to take guns away from someone or get them certain care. This is triggered by said folks detecting or acknowledging certain concerning behaviors in someone who might carry out a mass shooting.

          This wouldn’t help with someone considering a robbery, as their pattern of behavior (edit and motivation) isn’t the same.

          I am not advocating for red flag laws, or discounting them. That’s not the point.