Charlie Kirk Shooting

[Niya]

What a pathetic way to judge whether to care about something.

How can I care about something I knew nothing about? If you felt it was so important, you could have brought it up anytime since it happened instead of ranting about Trump all the time. The only reason I know about it is because it was convenient for jmc to make a point.

[jmcilhinney]

They are coming from one direction.

Correct... as long as you ignore the ones coming from the other direction.

The right didn't try to assassinate Kamala Harris twice

The left didn't try to assassinate Tramp twice either.

[The right] only mocked the left's high-profile activists with memes instead of shooting them in the neck.

The left didn't shoot anyone. A single person did. He may or may not have been prompted to do so by rhetoric from the left (which is no worse than that from the right anyway) but, based on the right's coverage, there's every chance that he went after Kirk specifically because he was a high-profile and influential transphobe and the shooter loved someone who was suffering as a result of that.

[wes4dbt]

And when you did know about it, this is your response,

Why should I care more about that than you do?

You judge whether to care about people that were murdered on whether you think others care. I find that pathetic.

Edit:
Perhaps pathetic is the wrong word. It's just sad to see someone that doesn't know whether to care about people being murdered and choses not to care because he doesn't see others care. I'm not sure what description to use. It's a foreign concept to me.

[jmcilhinney]

BTW, Vance Boelter killing that legislator in Minnesota being an act of political violence is speculation at best. No one knows why he did it.

Really? Does everyone carry around a long list of people who are either politicians or otherwise demonised by their own side of politics, kill one of them and their spouse, shoot another and their spouse in an attempt to kill them, but it not be politically motivated? I think you're being more than a little bit disingenuous there.

[Niya]

Correct... as long as you ignore the ones coming from the other direction.

The left didn't try to assassinate Tramp twice either.

The left didn't shoot anyone. A single person did. He may or may not have been prompted to do so by rhetoric from the left (which is no worse than that from the right anyway) but, based on the right's coverage, there's every chance that he went after Kirk specifically because he was a high-profile and influential transphobe and the shooter loved someone who was suffering as a result of that.

Really? Does everyone carry around a long list of people who are either politicians or otherwise demonised by their own side of politics, kill one of them and their spouse, shoot another and their spouse in an attempt to kill them, but it not be politically motivated? I think you're being more than a little bit disingenuous there.

It's interesting how you use the facts in these incidents to frame them in a way that fits your own anti-right biases. Just an observation.

[Niya]

And when you did know about it, this is your response,



You judge whether to care about people that were murdered on whether you think others care. I find that pathetic.

Edit:
Perhaps pathetic is the wrong word. It's just sad to see someone that doesn't know whether to care about people being murdered and choses not to care because he doesn't see others care. I'm not sure what description to use. It's a foreign concept to me.

Then lead by example

[jmcilhinney]

you use the facts in these incidents to frame them in a way that fits your own anti-right biases

So, I'm unironically being accused of framing the facts in a way that suits my bias by the guy who decides which bullets count as bullets based on how famous the target is and, coincidentally, the targets on his side are more famous?! Have you been pet-sitting RFK's brain worm?

But lets look at what I said and perhaps you can explain what's wrong with my framing.

Correct... as long as you ignore the ones coming from the other direction.

The facts are that there is political violence on both sides and statistics show that it is more prevalent on the right. You arbitrarily chose to ignore all right-wing violence, including gun violence, because their left-wing targets weren't well-known enough. You also conveniently allowed yourself to ignore the intended torture and murder of Nancy Pelosi, who I'd say is pretty well-known, because it didn't involve a gun. So, what's actually wrong with what I said?

The left didn't try to assassinate Tramp twice either.

Fact. The shooter at The Miracle of the Regenerating Ear was a right-winger. The guy at the golf course had a political history all over the place, including having supported Tramp, if I remember correctly. I'm quite prepared to accept that he was nominally left at the time of that incident though. So, what's wrong with what I said?

The left didn't shoot anyone. A single person did. He may or may not have been prompted to do so by rhetoric from the left (which is no worse than that from the right anyway) but, based on the right's coverage, there's every chance that he went after Kirk specifically because he was a high-profile and influential transphobe and the shooter loved someone who was suffering as a result of that.

This is the one time where I can accept that you're not either lying or projecting, but only because you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Almost universally on the right at the moment, people are basically treating Kirk's death as something that everyone on the left wanted and facilitated but that's simply not the case. It was one person who choice to do something that most on the left have since condemned. Some have been celebrating Kirk's death but the prominent, well-known, famous people on the left - you know, the ones you actually care about - have pretty much universally condemned the killing. You might think that I'm trying to let the left off the hook by blaming an individual but I blame the individuals in every case. I don't think the entire right plotted the deaths of Democrats state reps in Minnesota. The difference is that there's been no widespread condemnation of that on the right. There are plenty of right-wingers who are claiming that he was actually a left-winger, despite the opposite being confirmed. Seems like they know that the motivation was political, or else why tell such a pointless lie? As for the trans angle being a personal motive rather than political, I have no idea if that's actually the case but it's right-wingers who are pushing that trans angle hard, so it's their own logic that makes a personal motive more likely. Without a trans girlfriend to protect, the political motive seems the only likely explanation. So, what's wrong with what I said?

Really? Does everyone carry around a long list of people who are either politicians or otherwise demonised by their own side of politics, kill one of them and their spouse, shoot another and their spouse in an attempt to kill them, but it not be politically motivated? I think you're being more than a little bit disingenuous there.

It's a fact that he had that list. It's a fact that it it was full of nominally left wing names. It's a fact that he had already shot two people on that list. It's a fact that he had the means to shoot the rest. It's a fact that it was just luck that he was caught when he was. Do you really believe that it's anti-right bias to suggest that, if he hadn;t been caught when he was, it's likely that more people on that list would be shot and probably killed? So what's actually wrong with what I said?

[Shaggy Hiker]

You need to be more specific. It seems straight forward to me.

Ah, I see it now. I misread it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

They are coming from one direction. The right didn't try to assassinate Kamala Harris twice and only mocked the left's high-profile activists with memes instead of shooting them in the neck.

The left didn't try to assassinate Trump twice, either. The first shooter had a set of targets that would gain him notoriety. They included Trump, Biden, Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray and even the Princess of Wales. Note that Trump was the only conservative on the list. He was also the most accessible, and aside from Biden, the highest profile, with the Princess of Wales being a close third (though kind of hard to get to).

That bullet wasn't coming from left or right, nor was it headed towards left or right, aside from the vagaries of chance.

[wes4dbt]

Ah, I see it now. I misread it.

You certainly had me doubting myself.

[.paul.]

I didn’t read all of the posts in this thread, and as a UK citizen, it’s really not my business, but to quote Charlie Kirk, to keep your 2nd Amendment freedoms, you’ve got to accept a few gun deaths. Someone in this universe has a sick sense of humour. But in the aftermath nothing changes. No changes in gun laws and your government is practically business as usual. No amount of dead school kids are getting the guns off of the streets, and dead politicians make no difference either.

[wes4dbt]

I didn’t read all of the posts in this thread, and as a UK citizen, it’s really not my business, but to quote Charlie Kirk, to keep your 2nd Amendment freedoms, you’ve got to accept a few gun deaths. Someone in this universe has a sick sense of humour. But in the aftermath nothing changes. No changes in gun laws and your government is practically business as usual. No amount of dead school kids are getting the guns off of the streets, and dead politicians make no difference either.

That same day there was a deadly school shooting. So, your right. If anything it's getting worse. In the last few years more states have legalized open carry or even canceled carry gun laws. It's insane.

[Steve R Jones]

Speaking of more states:

"Florida approved open carry starting September 25, 2025, following a First District Court of Appeals ruling on September 10, 2025, that found the state's ban on open carry to be unconstitutional. The ruling overturned a 1987 law that prohibited openly displaying firearms, leading to guidance from the state's Attorney General for law enforcement to stop enforcing the ban."

Last year ago or so, Florida even did away with needing a Conceal Carry License. Anyone that isn't a criminal can conceal AND OR open carry.

To bad Trump is a Felon.

[wes4dbt]

Must be a nightmare for the police. Glad I live in a state with tighter gun laws.

It only takes 5 minutes on Google to see that states with looser carry laws also have higher gun violence rates. But we've known looser gun laws lead to increased violence for a long time. We've know about the exponential difference between the US and UK homicide rates for a long time.

Like I said, it's insane.

[FunkyDexter]

Just want to say kudos to Erika Kirk saying she forgave the killer and calling for peace. I don't think that was easy for her to say but was an actual Christian take.

[FunkyDexter]

And Kimmel's got his show back. Guess the finances that got it cancelled mysteriously changed.

[Steve R Jones]

And Kimmel's got his show back. Guess the finances that got it cancelled mysteriously changed.

And I can't wait to see what NexStar does....

EDIT:

"Beginning Tuesday night, Sinclair will be preempting ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ across our ABC affiliate stations and replacing it with news programming. Discussions with ABC are ongoing as we evaluate the show’s potential return," the company’s statement read.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sincla...its-suspension

Now we know...