The murder of Charlie Kirk

"Black men"

You can nit pick a rounding up or down but Black men aren't near 15 percent

But you knew this. You're just a little off balance as usual. Try to take a few deep breathes to manage your emotions

You are right, overinflating black crime statistics so you can justify being terrified is certainly a grounded and rational take and listing hard numbers is being overly emotional

It's amazing how difficult it is for you to follow along.

Poster makes a snarky antagonistic comment about being afraid to see a black man on the street. I chime in to cite actual crime data because I know that will get leftist panties in a bunch (accomplish what mr snark was attempting). What do you do? Show up with your panties in a bunch and try to correct my accurate statement

Here's gemini

I guess now you'll point out that this is violent crime and people could be scared walking down the street when they see someone who has cheated on their taxes etc

Why is everything so difficult for you?

AI slop isn't allowed

Sure. The state is free to use rob's rationale for why it is not self-defense and see if a jury is dumb/biased enough to buy it. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit....

But that's not exactly what Rob is doing here since he's fabricating, either on purpose or because he's misinformed (probably the latter), how the situations unfolded at the moment the shootings occurred.

I mean, this is a dude who said that anyone who carries a firearm for protection is not carrying it for protection but is just hoping for a situation where they get to kill someone, so of course his scope of what he believes self-defense to be is extremely narrow.

Saw this on a meme the other day.

"When Mr Rogers died no one had to explain that he was really a nice guy who was just quoted out of context".

Like I said, it was fabrication by being misinformed.

What does the above have anything to do with this quote below, which I was referencing?

You think that checkraisdraw misinformed me? Then feel free to correct him.

It has to do with your specifically mentioning that I said something about people carrying a firearm specifically "for protection". I had actually not said that. I didn't say anything about the reason for anyone carrying one, and neither had anyone else.

I don't believe they're literally hoping to get to kill someone, for killing someone's sake. Like a thrill kill or whatever they call that. I think the overwhelming majority of people who carry firearms in public aren't doing so primarily for protection. I think they're "just hoping for a situation where they get to" be a hero. I mean did the guy carrying in Walmart think he had a high likelihood to be murdered 'in' Walmart? Nah. What he wants is what he got from those who "feel safer" with him around.

No, he corrected your misinformation, which made no difference.

You said "Everyone who carries a gun to anything other than a hunting trip..." which of course includes carrying for protection.

Why tf do you think a law-abiding person carries a firearm outside of hunting trips if not specifically for protection? Is this gaslighting shiit usually successful for you?

What are you basing this on?

Eh, with the amount of mass shootings in America, it's not a high likelihood but it certainly is possible.

But I agree that fukktards who open carry are likely doing it mostly for the reasons you state. However, most people who carry a firearm in public, like the vast majority, do so concealed.

Gaslighting?

You find it impossible to believe that I still don't think he should qualify for self-defense after knowing all the relevant information? I guess you just think everyone should agree with you.

As I pointed out, anyone carrying for protection is making a mistake.
So I suppose it is possible that some who carry don't fantasize admit killing someone but are just idiots.

Regardless, I wouldn't trust anyone who regularly carries a weapon, and I wouldn't want to be around them. It doesn't match my values.

Says the Nazipig who worships murderers and child molesters lmao.

Nothing concrete. Just an opinion. But I feel confident people imagine various scenarios where they would use the gun before they get their permit. And I do recall hearing about spikes in permit applications after shootings.

Hey moron, turn on your other braincell and realise that not every account is an alt. And I ignored it after Victor said it, but since you also mentioned it: What in the **** is UP?

Oh, and eat ****, idiot.

Yes, this is exactly correct. I don’t think we should compare Charlie Kirk to Martin Luther King. I think instead of assuming Charlie Kirk broke the law in regards to the j6 situation, we should give him a bro pass on that one.

He wouldn't have liked being compared to MLK anyway. CK said he was a bad man.

I don’t find that suprising. I guess it’s a win win then.

I didn't know Kirk tweeted about sending 80 buses to the white house on January 5th. Wild stuff.

Yup. We're celebrating an insurrectionist traitor. Just like we did after the civil war.

Miller has worked in government his whole life. How many MAGA live off the government in one way or another when you consider the military or this other make-work-for-useless-males program called ICE? And all these tech bros being given credit for tech innovations are just sucking on the government teat too, taking tech from government and commercializing it.

Hardly anything creative comes from conservatives. It's in the name. They just copycat what they see that has already made money. No conservative could come up with Star Wars or paint like Van Gough. Conservatives paint inside the lines at all times and are notoriously uncreative. The most annoying thing about this era is shameless hypocrisy on display everywhere. Miller can't just give a speech promoting conservatism's low risk, coin focused ideology. No. He has to claim exactly what the other side has as his own virtue. Or sit there and say Israel is the world's leading human rights country while they are slaughtering children daily.

It would be better if we had a civil war than listening to these people. I know they want to fight because they have the guns and they think we are pussies. But geographically we just aren't setup for it like before. So instead of fighting, the Right is just going to make themselves intolerable to look at or listen to, just be obnoxious to the point of making communication totally worthless, even though there is no hope of us slaughtering each other.

If conservative are dumb enough to go this route.... again, and we know they are, then they are about to find out why the South lost so bad last time.

Blue states have most of the large cities, universities, industries that train engineers, doctors, tech workers, etc. The ability to mobilize skilled personnel would matter hugely. Blue states also have disproportionate shares of advanced manufacturing, high tech, machine tools, semiconductors, software, R&D, etc. Control of these sectors means control of production of weapons, drones, communication, logistics. Additionally, the U.S. federal government, financial markets, central banking, money supply, and credit systems are concentrated in or deeply tied to institutions in blue states (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, etc.).

I could go on... but let's hope it doesn't come to this. All I see is Putin cheering at the rhetoric the right keeps putting out on the daily.

Yes. The part where you tried to assert that you never implied you were talking about people who carry for protection when you said "Everyone who carries a gun to anything other than a hunting trip," when you damn well know the biggest reason why any law-abiding person carries outside of a hunting trip is for protection.

No, I think that's fine. But like I said earlier, it's grounded in emotion, which is also fine. However, as you've clearly demonstrated several times, you don't know all the relevant information.

I'm sure the trial is still on YouTube and you can watch it if you're really interested in knowing all the relevant information, but that would mean removing bias/emotion and going based on evidence and law, which you've said you're clear you don't want to do, and I don't blame you.

You're fully entitled to that opinion, but it has no relevance to anything we were talking about and I'm not sure why you brought it up to begin with except to say: "Guns bad, mkay?" Okay, cool.

Yeah, sure. Just not sure what that has to do with anything since there's not a single person here that doesn't think Rittenhouse is a complete fukktard for cosplaying as military at a riot. He should have been home sleeping for school the next day. The sad part for him is none of this experience has caused him to do any thinking.

A spike in permit applications after shootings indicates people want to carry for protection (whether based on real risk or risk only in their head), so yes, people think about what they would do in x y z situations and whether carrying would be wise.

No one should own a gun if they didn't think about what the ramifications would be if they needed to use it, but that's different than the scenarios of I'm a badass cowboy that's itching to stop a mass shooting or look cool to Walmart shoppers that you were talking about earlier.

Keep in mind that when anyone says carry, I'm thinking about concealed carry. I don't take anyone who open carries seriously and laugh at them every time I see them because they are idiots who draw attention to themselves.

The sad part is that people are largely unable to celebrate Charlie Kirk for who he was.

He as a provocateur and hatemonger, and particularly adept at engaging the young. There is nothing illegal about that, and you certainly don't deserve to be shot for that. If society can't handle a bullshit-peddler peacefully, then honestly; it should just give up. However, this wasn't enough for his supposed supporters after his murder. They refuse to celebrate him for who he was, so instead they invent a caricature that never even existed.

Now, obviously it isn't unique to put a bit of shine on someone who died, we often tread more gingerly around the dead. However, to completely reinvent them before you hold them up as your personal martyr is completely insane. That's not celebrating somebody, that's forgetting who they were.

Also look to how the entire MAGA eco-system lept to take advantage of the hysteria. From Trump to pundit, they lied, swindled and exaggerated in order to induce rage and pass blame. Those who genuinely liked Charlie Kirk or appreciated him should be furious about that, and honestly so should most people.

Then there are those who celebrate his death. They're idiots as well. There is nothing to celebrate in a political celebrity being killed. There exists places in this world where politics is mainly decided by bullets and violence, and if there is one thing they have in common it is that they're all ****ty places to live.

You certainly may be correct about the reason, but it never crossed my mind at all. Possibly because it's such a stupid reason. I've no idea why you think I would know that. I've never even personally known anyone who carries a gun to anything but a hunting trip (or if they did carry, I didn't know that fact about them).

And I certainly wasn't meaning to refer only, or even mostly, to "law-abiding" people. Most people who routinely carry a gun are anything but law-abiding.

Regarding another of your points - a few people here have said KR was right in doing what he did and that there should be more people like him. So obviously not everyone here things he is a fukktard.