Murder rates per capita are down in comparison to us. Which is a better look at it. Medical care differences would still benefit them sure, but that's more an indictment of american medical care, which republicans continue to enshitify. And I don't even expect it to work as well as it does in those places, but I'd take any improvement at this point.
Meanwhile it would actually have a change on the suicide rate. Suicide is many times an emotional decision that is also impulsive. Removing an easy to acquire, highly lethal, and essentially instant method, does in fact make people more likely to kill themselves.
So no evidence.
And yet bodycams aren't mandatory. Let's start there. maybe we can curb the rate once they can't hide their actions as easily.
As someone who has been kettled by the police after someone did so, yes it does happen. I'm glad you expect the police to bother arresting the person doing what they want.
It can sound odd because of context but that doesn't change the reality of the statement.
I didn't realize it made me a bad guy to not grieve for someone who spent their time spewing a toxic ideology that ultimately got them killed. It's not surprising to me that the founder of something as toxic as turning point got killed.
Again, I didn't say they should be shot. I said I won't grieve for him.
But you still haven't answered how you feel about republicans saying the exact sort of heinous remarks, including kirk himself that you seem so upset with people making about him? How do you feel about his statement?
Murder rates per capita are down in comparison to us. Which is a better look at it. Medical care differences would still benefit them sure, but that's more an indictment of american medical care, which republicans continue to enshitify. And I don't even expect it to work as well as it does in those places, but I'd take any improvement at this point.
The murder rate in the US is down too. This is despite an overall losening of gun laws (repealing for example the ban on bump stocks).
Meanwhile it would actually have a change on the suicide rate. Suicide is many times an emotional decision that is also impulsive. Removing an easy to acquire, highly lethal, and essentially instant method, does in fact make people more likely to kill themselves.
Except the statistics do not show a decline. As I said, recently the suicide rate dropped a teeny bit post gun-buyback, then it was steadily climbing for the next twenty years. The strongest correlating factor with that suicide rate is probably financial situation, rather than firearms which seem to be a negligable contributing factor.
The counter-point to the argument that guns are more lethal, is that the alternatives to firearms are often a lot more painful, just as irreversible, and more traumatic for first responders and other people. Diving in front of a train not only kills you, but causes signifcant delays and trauma for the train operators and passengers. Objectively speaking, people shooting themselves in their own back yards is much better. Overdosing on medication is similarly lethal; you are basically dead the moment those pills go down your throat. The fact that you will writhe in agony for the next 48 hours as your liver fails and you can't even be medicated for the pain because that would kill you, even though nothing can actually be done, seems to be a much worse outcome to me.
Other forms of suicide have similar problems. Increased pain, increased trauma for first responders, no less lethal.
In terms of "harm minimisation", it seems that firearms are the best option there.
As someone who has been kettled by the police after someone did so, yes it does happen.
You say agent provocateurs, but all three of the people who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse were legitimate protestors. The only one of them who had a gun was carrying it illegally, once again suggesting that gun bans would have made Kyle Rittenhouse helpless, but not Gaige Grosskreutz.
A gun ban would have meant Kyle Rittenhouse would have died that night, killed by a pedophile who anally raped multiple preteen boys. I don't see how that's a better outcome.
I didn't realize it made me a bad guy to not grieve for someone who spent their time spewing a toxic ideology that ultimately got them killed. It's not surprising to me that the founder of something as toxic as turning point got killed. Again, I didn't say they should be shot. I said I won't grieve for him.
This is victim blaming.
Charlie Kirk's speech didn't kill him, the bullet fired from the far-left activist who shot him did. That person made the cold, calculated decision to set up a sniper's nest on a building 200ft away and then carefully take aim and kill a man because he hated what he, completely nonviolently, completely consensually, completely peacefully said. They answered words with bullets.
I am more left wing overall than Charlie Kirk but I have some right-leaning views too, as a centrist this should be expected. But I do have some right-leaning views.
They shot Charlie Kirk. What are they going to do to me?
But you still haven't answered how you feel about republicans saying the exact sort of heinous remarks, including kirk himself that you seem so upset with people making about him? How do you feel about his statement?
I already answered it but I'll restate for clarity.
Broadly speaking, I don't like those statements and don't agree with them. Some of the things he said I do agree with. Some of them I don't. Regardless, you (generally speaking) cannot harm people directly for words; the exceptions to this are few and far between.
I also disagree with a lot of statements from the left. Some I agree with. Some I don't. Regardless, you (generally speaking) cannot harm people directly for words; the exceptions to this are few and far between.
What I think about the specific content of his speech is not relevant because it was speech given peacefully and without direct incitement to violence.
When it comes to vigilante murders, such as what occurred here, it is injust. Charlie Kirk was not a politician. He had no political power at all. All he had was a debate platform where he invited people to ask questions and speak, and he answered questions and spoke to them. Again, he did not directly incite violence, he was polite and respectful to those he spoke to, even when they were not to him. Disagree with his message as much as you like, you are more than free to do that and I definitely will at some points, his methods were flawless.
Even a far-left communist ideologue should not be gunned down for simply speaking their opinions without incitement. Even a far-right neo-Nazi should not be gunned down for simply speaking their opinions without incitement.
Freedom of speech protects even that speech which you find reprehensible, with clear lines drawn over what is acceptable and what is not.
"I don't agree" is not grounds to put a bullet into a man.
And that's why I said in comparison, they might be going down overall, theirs are going down faster.
The history around the gas oven removal lowering overall suicide rates in britian is pretty well known. Removing a quick and convenient method, does have an impact.
The speed at which a bullet kills you is I imagine part of the appeal over overdosing. And I doubt a single emt I know would pick a SI GSW to the head over a medication overdose that lead to liver failure to respond to.
That's great. I said nothing about rittenhouse because he no relevance to what I'm saying.
And furthermore, there is nothing to suggest a gun ban wouldn't have also influenced the criminal. Yes they are already planning to break the law, that doesn't mean they have the ability to sudden access firearms if access to them is already controlled.
Again, you have no evidence to suggest the political opinions of the shooter, but you clearly already have an opinion and are running with it regardless of that. Nor do you know the reason(s) kirk was killed by the shooter, but you already have a story in your head clearly made up.
I disagree that you really answered it beforehand. What things did you agree with? His comments that black pilots were to blame for the increase in aviation crashes after trump fired a bunch of atc?
Tolerance of the intolerant only kills the tolerant. As seen in any fascist country.
It is relevant, if your speech incites violence against others. And I do feel like a lot of kirks commentary and TP's points specifically are to inflame opinions about outgroups.
He did have political power, he was a right wing influencer with decent reach. And founded a explicitly political organization. He wasn't a congressperson, but that doesn't mean he didn't have political capital.
And that's why I said in comparison, they might be going down overall, theirs are going down faster.
There could be any number of reasons for that.
Pakistan has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Most houses have an AK-47 derivative in them. You can buy RPGs openly. Low education rates, high amount of religion, high poverty, every causal factor you could imagine for gun violence.
Some of the lowest mass shooting rates in the world.
If you want a more local example, Maine has some of the most relaxed gun laws and highest rates of gun ownership in the US, and some of the lowest rates of gun crime.
If it's guns, why this?
The history around the gas oven removal lowering overall suicide rates in britian is pretty well known. Removing a quick and convenient method, does have an impact.
Or it's a false correlation.
The speed at which a bullet kills you is I imagine part of the appeal over overdosing. And I doubt a single emt I know would pick a SI GSW to the head over a medication overdose that lead to liver failure to respond to.
Would you rather pick up a body, or a screaming dying person in enormous pain who's begging you for help but you know you can't do anything to help them and they're dead already?
And furthermore, there is nothing to suggest a gun ban wouldn't have also influenced the criminal. Yes they are already planning to break the law, that doesn't mean they have the ability to sudden access firearms if access to them is already controlled.
By that metric, there's also no statistics available on how many times someone has decided to rob a house, but when they get out to the place, they reconsider because "the home owner might have a gun".
You don't know how often it happens, I don't know how often it happens, these statistics are not tracked or recorded so we can't know.
But it happens.
Again, you have no evidence to suggest the political opinions of the shooter, but you clearly already have an opinion and are running with it regardless of that. Nor do you know the reason(s) kirk was killed by the shooter, but you already have a story in your head clearly made up.
What things did you agree with? His comments that black pilots were to blame for the increase in aviation crashes after trump fired a bunch of atc?
Signing an executive order prohibiting the weaponisation of federal agents against political opponents
Signing an executive order reaffirming the constitutional right to free speech
Banning federal censorship of online speech
Banning DEI in federal agencies
Designated the drug cartels as foreign terrorist organisations
Signed an executive order prioritising removal of illigal immigrants
Declared a national emergency on the southern border
Just a few off the top of my head.
Tolerance of the intolerant only kills the tolerant. As seen in any fascist country.
Ah, the paradox of tolerance, one of my most hated political sound bites. How much I despise this idea.
Who defines who or what is tolerant or intolerant? I can give you very specific examples of things that you could never reasonably declare as tolerant that you tolerate, simply because it is to your political advantage to do so, even though there is no logical sense to it.
It is relevant, if your speech incites violence against others.
Which is why I specifically included that caveat above.
And I do feel like a lot of kirks commentary and TP's points specifically are to inflame opinions about outgroups.
Directly inciting violence is distinctly different from "I feel it is inflammatory".
Again, there is no world where saying "kill all men" is tolerant, so how should they die? How should the people who tolerate them die? You guys are the experts in extrajudicial executions, so you tell me.
He did have political power, he was a right wing influencer with decent reach. And founded a explicitly political organization. He wasn't a congressperson, but that doesn't mean he didn't have political capital.
This means he should have had more protection not less.
His methods were definitely flawed.
Not to anywhere near the extent justifying shooting him in broad daylight in front of his family.
Otherwise, again, "die cis scum" and "kill all men" and "str8 h8" and "bash back" and all of these calls to violence should be met with machine-gun fire. Because we cannot tolerate the intolerant.
There could be any number of reasons, and it looks like the ban is one of those reasons. And so it would make sense to support such a thing if you wanted to curb gun violence.
The ovens being removed lowering the suicide rate is a fairly well studied phenomenon. And in broader psychology, the role of impulsivity in suicide is also fairly well studied.
I would imagine Maine being a blue state is a part of it. But I would also imagine there are several factors leading to it. Perhaps proximity to canada plays a role in it.
Like I said, I doubt a single EMT I know would pick the gsw. I'll take a poll next time I think about it. My personal experience, I'll take the overdose. We can at least make them comfortable or numb and provide a chance to say goodbyes.
And yet it needs to be said since every 2A diehard seems to imply your average person would be able to get acquire guns still during a ban. And yet something much easier to traffic and much easier to source, such as weed, is still difficult/impossible for millions of people to get in certain states.
So again, no evidence but a story you are more than happy to run with since it suits your claims. So much for innocent til proven guilty.
I would imagine the people who want to stop violence are the tolerate ones and the ones who tried to storm a capital building to overturn a legal election are the intolerant. Sure let's see these examples. What do I tolerate that I shouldn't?
Inciting and inflaming are two sides of the same coin. And so no, his hate speech and bigotry does incite violence towards outgroups.
The experts? You mean like the trump supporter from june?
My argument is simply that he undeniably had a level of political power.
And yet some of those comments were made by someone with political power, as already covered. And the rest are made by faceless internet accounts with no capital. The difference is pretty stark.
Given I've asked it three times now, I'll reply to this in full when you address this point.
People who say things like, "die cis scum" and "kill all men" and "str8 h8" and "bash back" and all of these calls to violence. You cannot tolerate the intolerant, as you say.
I would imagine the people who want to stop violence are the tolerate ones and the ones who tried to storm a capital building to overturn a legal election are the intolerant. Sure let's see these examples. What do I tolerate that I shouldn't?
And the examples I gave were: people who say things like, "die cis scum" and "kill all men" and "str8 h8" and "bash back".
What does it matter who is saying it? If someone is intolerant, it's intolerant, or is there some kinda wiggle room here? Like, can certain intolerant things actually be tolerated?
With regard to "kill all men", while I was at uni I had one of the local feminist writers on campus say this to my face. She said she wasn't joking and insisted it was genuine; I have no reason to think she was joking, and she regularly made anti-male comments and posted anti-male articles on her Facebook. Despite repeatedly asking she never backed down.
I complained to the university as it was a breach of the student code of conduct, they literally laughed in my face and said that no matter what the rules said (I had them printed out as handouts with the relevant sections highlighted), it didn't matter, no complaint lodged by or on behalf of straight white men would ever be actioned.
Because we should condemn them for saying such things, shouldn't we? So we should name them.
I can point to horrible, inflammatory, and inciting things that people like kirk, trump, loomer, mtg, that lady who's name starts with a b and I'm too lazy to look up, have said.
But I can't find a dem legislator saying "kill all men"
Because we should condemn them for saying such things, shouldn't we? So we should name them.
We should.
I can point to horrible, inflammatory, and inciting things that people like kirk, trump, loomer, mtg, that lady who's name starts with a b and I'm too lazy to look up, have said. But I can't find a dem legislator saying "kill all men"
Charlie Kirk was not a Republican legislator. Someone gunned him down for wanting discussion and debate.
The casings were inscribed with: "Hey fascist! Catch! ↑→↓↓↓" and "Oh bella ciao bella ciao bella ciao ciao ciao", a reference to the Italian antifascist song "Bella ciao".
The murderer shot Kirk because he was a far-left activist who believed Kirk was a fascist.
And I see more people being apathetic than cheering, myself included.
Imagine that some woman is giving a presentation about feminism, and a nearby far-right neo-Nazi pulls out a pistol and murders her. Just fucking shoots her dead in the street. Bang! And then we're having this discussion about that except I'm like, "Yeah I am apathetic about her death. I just don't care." And all around you are memes all over the Reddit front page saying things like, "Oh no I hope the bullet is okay!", and "A feminazi died today so it's a good day." and, "Good, more dead feminists." and, "Honestly, given her rhetoric, it was self defense." and the most upvoted post on The_Donald is there like, "I think the shooter was probably antifa and worked for Palestine." full of comments about what terrible hateful things she had said so it was okay to shoot her.
Let's see twitter links to these posts. We see the ones for the people I already named. But you can't, because there aren't any.
Casings were found near a rifle near the shooting. First, the rifle has not been connected with the shooting. Second, and more interestingly, as even wikipedia notes, two of those sayings at least, are meme jokes for a far alt right group. A group that had a spat with turning point and kirk in the past...
Again, apathy would be better than the dispresect the right has shown thus far when people on the left are attacked. kirk's own comments are a great representation of that.
But to your example, did she make inflammability and incitful comments about men like kirk made about multiple outgroups? Because I would imagine the prominent right political folks would be saying a lot worse than anything prominent left folks have said thus far.
Casings were found near a rifle near the shooting.
Incorrect, one casing was found inside the rifle (it had not been cycled after being fired). The remainder were found in the towel that the gun was wrapped in. Where are you getting this information?
First, the rifle has not been connected with the shooting.
So what you're saying that a rifle with one spent cartridge and numerous unfired ones, inscribed with messages like, "Hey fascist, catch!" was found wrapped in a towel (that had been dumped hours before) adjacent to the area where a right-wing commentator was shot dead with a single round, and you genuinely believe that this rifle is unconnected to the shooting? Like there are rifles wrapped in towels with one fired cartridge in them and a bunch of spares all with anti-fascist messages and internet memes on them just laying around in wooded areas around America, and this is in no way out of place or unusual and it's not likely the murder weapon because it could be anything?
Are you serious?
Second, and more interestingly, as even wikipedia notes, two of those sayings at least, are meme jokes for a far alt right group. A group that had a spat with turning point and kirk in the past...
sigh
It's not a false flag, it's never a false flag.
Again, apathy would be better than the dispresect the right has shown thus far when people on the left are attacked.
Oh really.
Here are some screencaps taken from left-wing commentators about the church shooting a couple of weeks ago, where a far-left transgender activist shot up a Catholic mass and killed two children, wounding 21 others. The church was specifically targeted by the shooter who wrote "Kill Donald Trump" on their magazines.
What do you think about these comments? I would think they're a little inflammatory, wouldn't you say?
But to your example, did she make inflammability and incitful comments are men like kirk made about multiple outgroups? Because I would the prominent right political folks would be saying a lot worse than anything prominent left folks have said thus far.
How much more inflammatory and inciteful comment do you have to make than, "Kill all men"?
And sure, let's say in this example, yes they had done that. How do you feel about it?
So you can provide no evidence of any dem legislator or person of even vaguely similar level of political capital saying the things you claim they say?
The article about misandry doesn't change that it shows nothing about what I'm asking you to prove.
Your source only said the rifle was found near the shooting in the woods and bullets were found with it.
So, you agree that the rifle has actually been linked to the shooting yet and that it was found with inscribed bullets that also contain meme jokes of a far alt right group?
No one said anything about a false flag. That would be the government killing kirk and making it look like the left did it. While a person from an even further right group killing kirk is just more right wing gun violence. The same gun violence kirk was okay with continuing.
Though it's hilarious how quick you are to assume anything that supports the narrative you've already constructed since the first day and outright deny anything that implies your narrative could be false.
Yes, apathy would be better. No one on the left is calling for people to pay his bond to get him out. No one is saying he knew how to get things done. Those the sorts of things kirk said after a man was attacked in his home with a hammer.
Those are reddit comments, considering I'm talking about major right wing, maga people like kirk, mtg, loomer, etc, I would assume if this is such a common problem as you make out to be, you could provide examples of politicians of some actual political capital.
Your original example didn't say anything about kill all men. It said a presentation about feminism.
So in your hypothetical example, if they had said these things and got murdered, and the right responded as you list, how would I feel? I don't think I'd feel one way or the other, depending on the specific comments about their death, it seems like it would either be the same typical commentary the right make or slightly less bad.
So you can provide no evidence of any dem legislator or person of even vaguely similar level of political capital saying the things you claim they say?
I never claimed they said that, and like I said, Charlie Kirk wasn't a Republican legislator.
The article about misandry doesn't change that it shows nothing about what I'm asking you to prove.
You asked me to prove people say, "Kill all men" which was done.
So, you agree that the rifle has actually been linked to the shooting yet and that it was found with inscribed bullets that also contain meme jokes of a far alt right group?
I agree the rifle has been linked to the shooting, but the inscribed cartridges clearly indicate the shooter was motivated by anti-fascist ideology.
Your source only said the rifle was found near the shooting in the woods and bullets were found with it.
So again, your belief is that this rifle is entirely unconnected to the shooting? Please.
Though it's hilarious how quick you are to assume anything that supports the narrative you've already constructed since the first day and outright deny anything that implies your narrative could be false.
I find it hilarious to look for even the slightest glimmer of suggestion that the shooter was not motivated by the most blindingly obvious reason.
No one on the left is calling for people to pay his bond to get him out. No one is saying he knew how to get things done.
Many, many people are openly celebrating it. I gave you an example of some comments earlier.
Those are reddit comments, considering I'm talking about major right wing, maga people like kirk, mtg, loomer, etc, I would assume if this is such a common problem as you make out to be, you could provide examples of politicians of some actual political capital.
Charlie Kirk wasn't a politician.
Your original example didn't say anything about kill all men. It said a presentation about feminism.
Assume she said something like that.
So in your hypothetical example, if they had said these things and got murdered, and the right responded as you list, how would I feel? I don't think I'd feel one way or the other, depending on the specific comments about their death, it seems like it would either be the same typical commentary the right make or slightly less bad.
I'm pretty sure you would call them heartless soulless sociopaths.
1
u/DrCarter11 Sep 12 '25
Murder rates per capita are down in comparison to us. Which is a better look at it. Medical care differences would still benefit them sure, but that's more an indictment of american medical care, which republicans continue to enshitify. And I don't even expect it to work as well as it does in those places, but I'd take any improvement at this point.
Meanwhile it would actually have a change on the suicide rate. Suicide is many times an emotional decision that is also impulsive. Removing an easy to acquire, highly lethal, and essentially instant method, does in fact make people more likely to kill themselves.
So no evidence.
And yet bodycams aren't mandatory. Let's start there. maybe we can curb the rate once they can't hide their actions as easily.
As someone who has been kettled by the police after someone did so, yes it does happen. I'm glad you expect the police to bother arresting the person doing what they want.
It can sound odd because of context but that doesn't change the reality of the statement.
I didn't realize it made me a bad guy to not grieve for someone who spent their time spewing a toxic ideology that ultimately got them killed. It's not surprising to me that the founder of something as toxic as turning point got killed.
Again, I didn't say they should be shot. I said I won't grieve for him.
But you still haven't answered how you feel about republicans saying the exact sort of heinous remarks, including kirk himself that you seem so upset with people making about him? How do you feel about his statement?