To the extent you believe there is more political violence today (which is very hard to statistically demonstrate), and to the extent you believe polls, there is now a new reality of many more Americans willing to undertake, support, or excuse political violence, and you need look no further than posts in this thread. The two main political parties and media in their move away from the middle have triggered a variety of social events and perspectives that purposefully ignite or rationalize violent partisan political behavior. And as aways is the case here, another discussion dominated byTrump.

There was another school shooting yesterday that was lost in the news regarding the Kirk shooting. As is always the case here, there seems to be a discussion about gun reform around these events, which remains just that, discussion. Especially on a national level. It is pretty clear than local bans in selling guns or ammunition due very little other than maybe drop the local suicide rates, and may not be constitutional. Moreover it is generally constitutional to transport firearms or ammunition across state or city lines (you must comply with each jurisdiction's law regarding possession such as storage regulations), which renders local laws impotent. I'm not an expert in the area, but it seems that any laws that would effectively impact assassins or school shooters basically runs afoul of how SCOTUS currently interprets the constitution, not to mention there is the Federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act, which prevents any local action. This doesn't even begin to look at why the US is such a violent society (okay, Bearister may want to stop toxic male behavior). That goes way, way beyond just gun culture. But it is easy to see how this is happening looking at this thread.

Not just another school shooting yesterday, but again today at a high school in Colorado.
As I recall, Charlie Kirk commented that this was "a prudent deal" in order to protect the Second Amendment.

"I think it's worth it. It's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That's a prudent deal. It is rational,"



Authorities say a student is dead after shooting 2 peers and then himself at Colorado high school - TheGrio

tequila4kapp said:

---

It is easy (normal?) to have those feelings. But they are wrong. Kirk's entire thing was words not weapons; that we have to talk to each other; lack of dialogue leads to violence.

---

Bravo.
I have MAGA cousins in TX. One of them carries with him wherever he goes.
F'ing idiot.
He told me circa 2011 that Obama shouldn't be president because he wasn't born in the US. I showed him the evidence. He said it was fake, doctored.

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

MAGA turning up the rhetoric.
As expected.

---

It's interesting that given the comments I've seen here about how much "The Left" is celebrating Kirk's death, I've seen sentiments like the above from the right a lot more often than I've seen anything celebratory from the left.

---

I have yet to see one single celebratory comment.

wifeisafurd said:

---

To the extent you believe there is more political violence today (which is very hard to statistically demonstrate), and to the extent you believe polls, there is now a new reality of many more Americans willing to undertake, support, or excuse political violence, and you need look no further than posts in this thread. The two main political parties and media in their move away from the middle have triggered a variety of social events and perspectives that purposefully ignite or rationalize violent partisan political behavior. And as aways is the case here, another discussion dominated byTrump.

There was another school shooting yesterday that was lost in the news regarding the Kirk shooting. As is always the case here, there seems to be a discussion about gun reform around these events, which remains just that, discussion. Especially on a national level. It is pretty clear than local bans in selling guns or ammunition due very little other than maybe drop the local suicide rates, and may not be constitutional. Moreover it is generally constitutional to transport firearms or ammunition across state or city lines (you must comply with each jurisdiction's law regarding possession such as storage regulations), which renders local laws impotent. I'm not an expert in the area, but it seems that any laws that would effectively impact assassins or school shooters basically runs afoul of how SCOTUS currently interprets the constitution, not to mention there is the Federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act, which prevents any local action. This doesn't even begin to look at why the US is such a violent society (okay, Bearister may want to stop toxic male behavior). That goes way, way beyond just gun culture. But it is easy to see how this is happening looking at this thread.

---

So....I would really recommend (if only because it is such a smartly designed natural experiment test). Jens Ludwig's Unforgiving Places that looks at Crime data from Chicago. It lays out a compelling empirical case for how much violence (not yesterday, not school shootings) is a function of Fast Thinking. Essentially 10 minute windows of people making bad choices in a time of high stress. The neat way they frame this is that these interactions happen at a near similar rate across the two neighborhoods but in one there are conditions that help deescalate more of them and in another those conditions are lacking.

Framed this way - and if the goal is really to decrease murder rates and reduce gun violence - gun "control" as framed may not be the right way. But trigger locks, liability for accidental shootings (thus incentiving gun lockers), eliminating open carry laws, etc. really WOULD be effective because the idea is to reduce chances that arguments and the presence of type 1 thinking escalate.

This is a nice short popular piece that might peak your interest.

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/reducing-gun-violence-requires-thinking-differently

The Left regularly called @charliekirk11 a fascist or
a Nazi (as they do with virtually anyone who opposes them) in order to incite and justify deadly violence against him. And they're still doing it.

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) September 11, 2025

URGENT. FYI.

After Charlie Kirk, on the sky app there are people asking for the next person to be targeted. These include JK Rowling, Matt Walsh, Trump, Ben Shapiro, Libs of TikTok, Elon Musk, and Andy Ngo.

I took as many screenshots as I could. pic.twitter.com/CnZmmJAjvh

— Jennifer 🟥🔴🧙‍♀️🦉🐈‍⬛ 🦖 (@babybeginner) September 11, 2025

Gun violence?

What about left wing violence?

socaltownie said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

To the extent you believe there is more political violence today (which is very hard to statistically demonstrate), and to the extent you believe polls, there is now a new reality of many more Americans willing to undertake, support, or excuse political violence, and you need look no further than posts in this thread. The two main political parties and media in their move away from the middle have triggered a variety of social events and perspectives that purposefully ignite or rationalize violent partisan political behavior. And as aways is the case here, another discussion dominated byTrump.

There was another school shooting yesterday that was lost in the news regarding the Kirk shooting. As is always the case here, there seems to be a discussion about gun reform around these events, which remains just that, discussion. Especially on a national level. It is pretty clear than local bans in selling guns or ammunition due very little other than maybe drop the local suicide rates, and may not be constitutional. Moreover it is generally constitutional to transport firearms or ammunition across state or city lines (you must comply with each jurisdiction's law regarding possession such as storage regulations), which renders local laws impotent. I'm not an expert in the area, but it seems that any laws that would effectively impact assassins or school shooters basically runs afoul of how SCOTUS currently interprets the constitution, not to mention there is the Federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act, which prevents any local action. This doesn't even begin to look at why the US is such a violent society (okay, Bearister may want to stop toxic male behavior). That goes way, way beyond just gun culture. But it is easy to see how this is happening looking at this thread.

---

So....I would really recommend (if only because it is such a smartly designed natural experiment test). Jens Ludwig's Unforgiving Places that looks at Crime data from Chicago. It lays out a compelling empirical case for how much violence (not yesterday, not school shootings) is a function of Fast Thinking. Essentially 10 minute windows of people making bad choices in a time of high stress. The neat way they frame this is that these interactions happen at a near similar rate across the two neighborhoods but in one there are conditions that help deescalate more of them and in another those conditions are lacking.

Framed this way - and if the goal is really to decrease murder rates and reduce gun violence - gun "control" as framed may not be the right way. But trigger locks, liability for accidental shootings (thus incentiving gun lockers), eliminating open carry laws, etc. really WOULD be effective because the idea is to reduce chances that arguments and the presence of type 1 thinking escalate.

This is a nice short popular piece that might peak your interest.

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/reducing-gun-violence-requires-thinking-differently

---

Criminals don't follow laws.

Here is Charlie Kirk in Britain defending the West vs Islam.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOd8KbIjD-p/?igsh=aHpxaG1mb21tYWNh

MinotStateBeav said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

To the extent you believe there is more political violence today (which is very hard to statistically demonstrate), and to the extent you believe polls, there is now a new reality of many more Americans willing to undertake, support, or excuse political violence, and you need look no further than posts in this thread. The two main political parties and media in their move away from the middle have triggered a variety of social events and perspectives that purposefully ignite or rationalize violent partisan political behavior. And as aways is the case here, another discussion dominated byTrump.

There was another school shooting yesterday that was lost in the news regarding the Kirk shooting. As is always the case here, there seems to be a discussion about gun reform around these events, which remains just that, discussion. Especially on a national level. It is pretty clear than local bans in selling guns or ammunition due very little other than maybe drop the local suicide rates, and may not be constitutional. Moreover it is generally constitutional to transport firearms or ammunition across state or city lines (you must comply with each jurisdiction's law regarding possession such as storage regulations), which renders local laws impotent. I'm not an expert in the area, but it seems that any laws that would effectively impact assassins or school shooters basically runs afoul of how SCOTUS currently interprets the constitution, not to mention there is the Federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act, which prevents any local action. This doesn't even begin to look at why the US is such a violent society (okay, Bearister may want to stop toxic male behavior). That goes way, way beyond just gun culture. But it is easy to see how this is happening looking at this thread.

---

So....I would really recommend (if only because it is such a smartly designed natural experiment test). Jens Ludwig's Unforgiving Places that looks at Crime data from Chicago. It lays out a compelling empirical case for how much violence (not yesterday, not school shootings) is a function of Fast Thinking. Essentially 10 minute windows of people making bad choices in a time of high stress. The neat way they frame this is that these interactions happen at a near similar rate across the two neighborhoods but in one there are conditions that help deescalate more of them and in another those conditions are lacking.

Framed this way - and if the goal is really to decrease murder rates and reduce gun violence - gun "control" as framed may not be the right way. But trigger locks, liability for accidental shootings (thus incentiving gun lockers), eliminating open carry laws, etc. really WOULD be effective because the idea is to reduce chances that arguments and the presence of type 1 thinking escalate.

This is a nice short popular piece that might peak your interest.

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/reducing-gun-violence-requires-thinking-differently

---

Criminals don't follow laws.

---

You really are a troll.

The entire point of my post and the study is that thinking about gun violence only in term of type 2 thinking is in error. Their entire point is that most gun violence is not someone waking up, being a criminal, plotting their crime, and then committing murder (Type 2 thinking). It is a kid getting pushed around and a fight escalating to a shooting.

Is that kid a criminal? Absolutely. but the entire point of the study is to show that the usual factors focused on (poverty, segregation, % of males involved with the criminal justice system) are statisically the same across the 2 adjacent neighborhoods. What varies is the kind of physical form Jane Jacobs talked about which creates a great opportunity to deescalate these problems so that a bad 10 minute situation doesn't end in violence.

You are exhibit A what is wrong with out politics - mindless blather without actually trying to learn.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

To the extent you believe there is more political violence today (which is very hard to statistically demonstrate), and to the extent you believe polls, there is now a new reality of many more Americans willing to undertake, support, or excuse political violence, and you need look no further than posts in this thread. The two main political parties and media in their move away from the middle have triggered a variety of social events and perspectives that purposefully ignite or rationalize violent partisan political behavior. And as aways is the case here, another discussion dominated byTrump.

There was another school shooting yesterday that was lost in the news regarding the Kirk shooting. As is always the case here, there seems to be a discussion about gun reform around these events, which remains just that, discussion. Especially on a national level. It is pretty clear than local bans in selling guns or ammunition due very little other than maybe drop the local suicide rates, and may not be constitutional. Moreover it is generally constitutional to transport firearms or ammunition across state or city lines (you must comply with each jurisdiction's law regarding possession such as storage regulations), which renders local laws impotent. I'm not an expert in the area, but it seems that any laws that would effectively impact assassins or school shooters basically runs afoul of how SCOTUS currently interprets the constitution, not to mention there is the Federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act, which prevents any local action. This doesn't even begin to look at why the US is such a violent society (okay, Bearister may want to stop toxic male behavior). That goes way, way beyond just gun culture. But it is easy to see how this is happening looking at this thread.

---

So....I would really recommend (if only because it is such a smartly designed natural experiment test). Jens Ludwig's Unforgiving Places that looks at Crime data from Chicago. It lays out a compelling empirical case for how much violence (not yesterday, not school shootings) is a function of Fast Thinking. Essentially 10 minute windows of people making bad choices in a time of high stress. The neat way they frame this is that these interactions happen at a near similar rate across the two neighborhoods but in one there are conditions that help deescalate more of them and in another those conditions are lacking.

Framed this way - and if the goal is really to decrease murder rates and reduce gun violence - gun "control" as framed may not be the right way. But trigger locks, liability for accidental shootings (thus incentiving gun lockers), eliminating open carry laws, etc. really WOULD be effective because the idea is to reduce chances that arguments and the presence of type 1 thinking escalate.

This is a nice short popular piece that might peak your interest.

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/reducing-gun-violence-requires-thinking-differently

---

Criminals don't follow laws.

---

Gun manufacturers do, though. If laws encouraged them to avoid selling to dangerous people and to prevent their guns from being used in crimes, they would do it.

concordtom said:

---

I read this and am reminded about how Trump just ended the secret service protection for folks like Hunter Biden and Kamala Harris.

I'm not educated in such issues but what would the reaction be nationally if any of these people end up killed?

---

Kamala Harris has nothing to worry about being killed for her political views.. Nobody can decipher her incoherent babbling to figure out what her views are.

concordtom said:

---

A friend wrote this to me.
I think it's a good point which hasn't yet been mentioned here:

Quote:

---

You know what this murder has me thinking? Why is this deplorable firebrand's murder getting 100x the coverage of the two Democratic politicians assassinated in MN this summer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators

All of MAGA just completely sidestepped and ignored those assassinations and yet are demanding some kind of tribute now.

Kirk's murder should be condemned. We don't know why it happened yet or who did it, but it's fair to presume it was political in nature. I don't think it's fair at all to treat this in a vacuum and ignore recent political violence against non-MAGA but I'm going to guess that all the conservatives come out of the woodwork on BI and pretend that everything was going swimmingly until this one killing.

---

Good point.
To the people who have posted in this thread that the left is the party of violence, think more broadly before commenting with pointing fingers.

---

The murderer in MN was a leftist upset at the democrat for voting against Medicare for illegals. He had no kings all over his car

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

MAGA turning up the rhetoric.
As expected.

---

It's interesting that given the comments I've seen here about how much "The Left" is celebrating Kirk's death, I've seen sentiments like the above from the right a lot more often than I've seen anything celebratory from the left.

---

I have yet to see one single celebratory comment.

---

I've seen occasional comments, just out there in the wider internet. It's a big world and you can find anything if you look for it. That said, I don't think there are any prominent politicians or lefty commentators who have been particularly celebratory about Kirk's murder. Even the guy who got fired from MSNBC wasn't really celebrating the event, he was talking about how Kirk's rhetoric might have contributed to it.

Meanwhile, when the state senators got killed in Minnesota, Mike Lee (a sitting US Senator) quickly decided to make jokes about how the killer was associated with Tim Walz (not really true, as it turns out). When Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked, Charlie Kirk called for people to bail out the attacker. So I don't think the MAGA folks should be up on their moral high horses here.

HawaiiBear33 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

A friend wrote this to me.
I think it's a good point which hasn't yet been mentioned here:

Quote:

---

You know what this murder has me thinking? Why is this deplorable firebrand's murder getting 100x the coverage of the two Democratic politicians assassinated in MN this summer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators

All of MAGA just completely sidestepped and ignored those assassinations and yet are demanding some kind of tribute now.

Kirk's murder should be condemned. We don't know why it happened yet or who did it, but it's fair to presume it was political in nature. I don't think it's fair at all to treat this in a vacuum and ignore recent political violence against non-MAGA but I'm going to guess that all the conservatives come out of the woodwork on BI and pretend that everything was going swimmingly until this one killing.

---

Good point.
To the people who have posted in this thread that the left is the party of violence, think more broadly before commenting with pointing fingers.

---

The murderer in MN was a leftist upset at the democrat for voting against Medicare for illegals. He had no kings all over his car

---

Authorities said they believed the "No Kings" signs were because he intended to target people at the protests. I already posted the evidence that his political history showed he was a conservative Republican. It really doesn't matter to you what the evidence shows, though, does it?

tequila4kapp said:

---

Rifle & Ammo have "cultural phrases" scrawled on them
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/charlie-kirk-shot-utah-death-09-11-25#cmffhmf7g002n3b6pn6wtr3p6

Those phrases were Trans and anti-fasicist
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot/card/ammunition-in-kirk-shooting-engraved-with-transgender-antifascist-ideology-sources-pdymd1sXXMSlVRhpvR4b
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2025/09/11/report-alleged-charlie-kirk-assassins-ammo-engraved-transgender-messages/

---

If I was going to assassinate someone, I'd probably put phrases on my ammunition that were the opposite of my actual beliefs to encourage investigators going in a false direction. Putting your actual beliefs on ammo is what crazy people do. I'd wager that the person that did this is not crazy in the sense of having actual mental health issues, though almost certainly a political extremist at best and in the employ of a foreign government at worst.

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

It is easy (normal?) to have those feelings. But they are wrong. Kirk's entire thing was words not weapons; that we have to talk to each other; lack of dialogue leads to violence.

---

I would suggest that our current President is the complete antithesis of Kirk's ethos.
He does not know how to unify like George Bush did after 9/11.
Trump only knows how to divide.
There is no Trump 2.0

---

You laud Bush? OMG

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

MAGA turning up the rhetoric.
As expected.

---

It's interesting that given the comments I've seen here about how much "The Left" is celebrating Kirk's death, I've seen sentiments like the above from the right a lot more often than I've seen anything celebratory from the left.

---

Mods shut down the thread early showing the start of thousands of liberals celebrating the assassination…

Left-wing activists hold gathering to CELEBRATE Charlie Kirk being killed.

“We got Charlie in the neck.”

pic.twitter.com/88JowXOyPV

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) September 11, 2025

If you only look at liberal controlled propaganda you might not see these

But bears here have been reasonable…gooskie borderline

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

MAGA turning up the rhetoric.
As expected.

---

It's interesting that given the comments I've seen here about how much "The Left" is celebrating Kirk's death, I've seen sentiments like the above from the right a lot more often than I've seen anything celebratory from the left.

---

I have yet to see one single celebratory comment.

---

They are all over X and they are incredibly vile.

Cal88 said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

Just watched what I can only assume was a Trump supporter due to the white pickup truck with an American and Trump flag flying in the bed of his truck pull up to the front of a local grocery store. This individual had a gun on his hip and walk into the store at 8:00 am. Given his look he was not law enforcement or with any federal agency. Last time I looked California allowed open carry in a few instances. He looked like he would start shootings if anybody said boo to him.

Question: Would you report this individual to police?

---

I would report him to the Bear Insider moderators.

---

Edited By Staff would erase that guy's entire existence within minutes, including the truck.

Patel and Bongino flying to Utah. It appears the next update is being delayed for their arrival. Reports indicate rapid developments but the attacker is still at large.

Thank you liberal bears for mostly being on the just side of these stats:

Charlie has been talking about how the left has embraced assassination. https://t.co/O2MosowsoV

— Johnathon Densmore (@TheJohnnyDee7) September 10, 2025

Did Kirk deserve a minute of silence?

As conservatives, we requested a minute of silence in the European Parliament to honor Charlie Kirk. The left, calling themselves democrats, naturally refused. They are the same everywhere… Even in the face of death, they are incapable of showing human compassion. Therefore, I… pic.twitter.com/2o9vUljGLA

— Dominik Tarczyński MEP (@D_Tarczynski) September 11, 2025

There was much more political violence in the 1960's and 70's. Two Kennedys, MLK, Wallace. Plus domestic bombing by political groups. In the 1970's 50-60 bombings per year peaking with 460 in 1970. Targets were US House, State Dept, Pentagon and many more.

Kirk's thing is trivial and a social media murder. . Twitter rhetoric is viscous and inflammatory. It's also divorced from reality. If you're putting out all this venom, you should be aware in a nation long on guns and mental derangement, that there is a reasonable possibility someone is going to shoot you. Think about it more

Anarchistbear said:

---

There was much more political violence in the 1960's and 70's. Two Kennedys, MLK, Wallace. Plus domestic bombing by political groups. In the 1970's 50-60 bombings per year peaking with 460 in 1970. Targets were US House, State Dept, Pentagon and many more.

Kirk's thing is trivial and a social media murder. . Twitter rhetoric is viscous and inflammatory. It's also divorced from reality. If you're putting out all this venom, you should be aware in a nation long on guns and mental derangement, that there is a reasonable possibility someone is going to shoot you. Think about it more

---

Scalise, Trump x2 attempts, Kirk, plus fire bombings of cities in LA, Ferguson, Portland, DC, New York and various other locations. Seems more like the 60s and 70s than you want to admit.

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Gun violence?

---

There was a school shooting yesterday and another one in Colorado earlier this morning.
But you don't care.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Scalise, Trump x2 attempts, Kirk, plus fire bombings of cities in LA, Ferguson, Portland, DC, New York and various other locations. Seems more like the 60s and 70s than you want to admit.

---

You sound like Donald Trump.

For some reason, YOU and HE conveniently left out the political assassination of Minnesota State Legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband in June. The suspect was also accused of shooting and injuring another state lawmaker and his wife earlier that same day.

Oh wait.
They were DEMOCRATS.

socaltownie said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

To the extent you believe there is more political violence today (which is very hard to statistically demonstrate), and to the extent you believe polls, there is now a new reality of many more Americans willing to undertake, support, or excuse political violence, and you need look no further than posts in this thread. The two main political parties and media in their move away from the middle have triggered a variety of social events and perspectives that purposefully ignite or rationalize violent partisan political behavior. And as aways is the case here, another discussion dominated byTrump.

There was another school shooting yesterday that was lost in the news regarding the Kirk shooting. As is always the case here, there seems to be a discussion about gun reform around these events, which remains just that, discussion. Especially on a national level. It is pretty clear than local bans in selling guns or ammunition due very little other than maybe drop the local suicide rates, and may not be constitutional. Moreover it is generally constitutional to transport firearms or ammunition across state or city lines (you must comply with each jurisdiction's law regarding possession such as storage regulations), which renders local laws impotent. I'm not an expert in the area, but it seems that any laws that would effectively impact assassins or school shooters basically runs afoul of how SCOTUS currently interprets the constitution, not to mention there is the Federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act, which prevents any local action. This doesn't even begin to look at why the US is such a violent society (okay, Bearister may want to stop toxic male behavior). That goes way, way beyond just gun culture. But it is easy to see how this is happening looking at this thread.

---

So....I would really recommend (if only because it is such a smartly designed natural experiment test). Jens Ludwig's Unforgiving Places that looks at Crime data from Chicago. It lays out a compelling empirical case for how much violence (not yesterday, not school shootings) is a function of Fast Thinking. Essentially 10 minute windows of people making bad choices in a time of high stress. The neat way they frame this is that these interactions happen at a near similar rate across the two neighborhoods but in one there are conditions that help deescalate more of them and in another those conditions are lacking.

Framed this way - and if the goal is really to decrease murder rates and reduce gun violence - gun "control" as framed may not be the right way. But trigger locks, liability for accidental shootings (thus incentiving gun lockers), eliminating open carry laws, etc. really WOULD be effective because the idea is to reduce chances that arguments and the presence of type 1 thinking escalate.

This is a nice short popular piece that might peak your interest.

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/reducing-gun-violence-requires-thinking-differently

---

Criminals don't follow laws.

---

You really are a troll.

The entire point of my post and the study is that thinking about gun violence only in term of type 2 thinking is in error. Their entire point is that most gun violence is not someone waking up, being a criminal, plotting their crime, and then committing murder (Type 2 thinking). It is a kid getting pushed around and a fight escalating to a shooting.

Is that kid a criminal? Absolutely. but the entire point of the study is to show that the usual factors focused on (poverty, segregation, % of males involved with the criminal justice system) are statisically the same across the 2 adjacent neighborhoods. What varies is the kind of physical form Jane Jacobs talked about which creates a great opportunity to deescalate these problems so that a bad 10 minute situation doesn't end in violence.

You are exhibit A what is wrong with out politics - mindless blather without actually trying to learn.

---

If you don't like what I have to say don't read it, block me. You're trying to bring about an explanation for why criminals do criminal things. It's almost always because they had a bad childhood or some people are born with a low tolerance of caring for somebody else. Most of the violence in this country is by the same group of people who are let out of prison early or not jailed at all due to leftist policies. It would be better if we had asylums where these people could be treated, but we don't for all kinds of dumb reasons.

The safety net use to be schools, where students got some form of morality taught to them and real punishment for failing to live up to those virtues. Schools are basically daycares now where everything goes until it's time to graduate them, and no matter how bad a student has acted during their time, they will be passed thru the public school system and called an adult.

DiabloWags said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Scalise, Trump x2 attempts, Kirk, plus fire bombings of cities in LA, Ferguson, Portland, DC, New York and various other locations. Seems more like the 60s and 70s than you want to admit.

---

You sound like Donald Trump.

For some reason, YOU and HE conveniently left out the political assassination of Minnesota State Legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband in June. The suspect was also accused of shooting and injuring another state lawmaker and his wife earlier that same day.

Oh wait.
They were DEMOCRATS.

---

That doesn't disprove what I said, only made it stronger lol.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There was much more political violence in the 1960's and 70's. Two Kennedys, MLK, Wallace. Plus domestic bombing by political groups. In the 1970's 50-60 bombings per year peaking with 460 in 1970. Targets were US House, State Dept, Pentagon and many more.

Kirk's thing is trivial and a social media murder. . Twitter rhetoric is viscous and inflammatory. It's also divorced from reality. If you're putting out all this venom, you should be aware in a nation long on guns and mental derangement, that there is a reasonable possibility someone is going to shoot you. Think about it more

---

Scalise, Trump x2 attempts, Kirk, plus fire bombings of cities in LA, Ferguson, Portland, DC, New York and various other locations. Seems more like the 60s and 70s than you want to admit.

---

2500 bombings in 18 months between 1970-71. That's like 5 per day conducted by organized revolutionary groups trying to overthrow the government.. if this happened now it'd be martial law.

The stuff nowadays is more deranged individuals. This is one of the more violent countries on earth with lots of guns. When idiots on social media proclaim we are in a civil war, why would they be surprised when someone on the other side commits an " act of war" and snuffs them in response

HawaiiBear33 said:

---

Did Kirk deserve a minute of silence?

---

What had he done for the European Parliament to warrant a moment of silence specifically for him? He was a guy who did a podcast and debated college students. The vast majority of his political activity was in the US. You can't have moments of silence for everyone who dies.

I'm not happy he died and his murder is terrible, but no one is required to treat him like a fallen hero just because he had a tragic death either.

HawaiiBear33 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

MAGA turning up the rhetoric.
As expected.

---

It's interesting that given the comments I've seen here about how much "The Left" is celebrating Kirk's death, I've seen sentiments like the above from the right a lot more often than I've seen anything celebratory from the left.

---

Mods shut down the thread early showing the start of thousands of liberals celebrating the assassination…

Left-wing activists hold gathering to CELEBRATE Charlie Kirk being killed.

“We got Charlie in the neck.”

pic.twitter.com/88JowXOyPV

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) September 11, 2025

If you only look at liberal controlled propaganda you might not see these

---

Again, I said I'm sure such people exist but these are just random idiots, not major influencers within the American left.

CIA?

Anarchistbear said:

---

There was much more political violence in the 1960's and 70's. Two Kennedys, MLK, Wallace. Plus domestic bombing by political groups. In the 1970's 50-60 bombings per year peaking with 460 in 1970. Targets were US House, State Dept, Pentagon and many more.

Kirk's thing is trivial and a social media murder. . Twitter rhetoric is viscous and inflammatory. It's also divorced from reality. If you're putting out all this venom, you should be aware in a nation long on guns and mental derangement, that there is a reasonable possibility someone is going to shoot you. Think about it more

---

The main difference between political violence then and now is that previous violence was largely met with disapproval nationwide while today's violence feels justified to a certain group of people, and therefore, celebrated.