Charlie Kirk was shot

@smhwhcoetsloetoeo said in #18:
> Ridiculous. Kirk could have had two guns, an AK-47 and , hell, even a rocket launcher, how do you defend yourself against a sniper?
>
> Besides if your argument was correct, then why does the US have more gun violence (and by far) than literally every country with a comparable socio-economic level?

Because the United States has a broken society. It seems to be more of a cultural problem than a gun problem. That being said (and I believe in the 2nd amendment), if your culture is broken then you have to work extra hard to keeps guns out of the hands of psychopaths/sociopaths + gangs + people that have anger issues or can't control their use of liquor and/or drugs, etc.

@Bobjeff01 said in #29:
> I have my own strong opinions about him, but this is a tragedy, he was a mentor for lots of people. Rip Mr. Kirk

Not only that, some crazy is now likely to target someone on the Left - to 'even the score'.
This can start a vicious cycle. I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this.

Of the killings of which we've seen so many, I don't remember even one that makes somebody a victim because he or she was "on the Left." That doesn't seem to be what actually goes on.

I don't think American moderates and conservatives typically condone violence -- I believe they're hoping to save cities FROM it. They typically view weapons as a means for self-defense, NOT mindless or craven attack.

Sympathy for Charlie Kirk. He was a kindly, brave and good man, who sought to demonstrate and promote civil debate. He didn't preach violence.

I think the vast majority of people --whether liberal, conservative or moderate -- have no sympathy for vicious political violence, and are sick of violence in our cities generally, no matter what motivates it.

@JeremyDunn said in #25:
> Funny how you're not going to mention that he was at a university.... A gun-free zone....
I don't see how this has anything to do with gun controls.

@Noflaps said in #33:
> Of the killings of which we've seen so many, I don't remember even one that makes somebody a victim because he or she was "on the Left." That doesn't seem to be what actually goes on.
>
> I don't think American moderates and conservatives typically condone violence
Maybe you forgot when Paul Pelosi was badly beaten up with a hammer?
> Sympathy for Charlie Kirk. He was a kindly, brave and good man, who sought to demonstrate and promote civil debate. He didn't preach violence.
Back then Kirk urged people to send money to bail out the attacker.

@smhwhcoetsloetoeo said in #34:
> I don't see how this has anything to do with gun controls.
It does. It doesnt matter how much you control guns, criminals will find a way to work around it.

Do you really think that if there were gun controls criminals with guns will stop doing crime with them?
Thats why they are criminals, they dont follow the law nor policies.

@smhwhcoetsloetoeo said in #35:
> Maybe you forgot when Paul Pelosi was badly beaten up with a hammer?
>
> Back then Kirk urged people to send money to bail out the attacker.

Yes, when someone brings a hammer down forcefully on the head of an old man, it really is attempted murder.
At least Trump, always cognizant of the gravity of his office, was very presidential when he talked about that attack:

www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/user-clip-trump-mocks-paul-pelosi-attack/5124885

Good work, @smhwhcoetsloetoeo -- you were able to think of one case where I suppose one might argue that the motivation was political but not against conservatives.

And I read (but can't confirm) that Kirk suggested that the alleged attacker be "questioned" after bail to find out what was going on. I didn't get a sense from my reading that Kirk thought the guy was a hero. But the case is a few years old, and nobody should rely upon my impressions -- but instead, if interested, they may need to look into the available reporting on their own.

It seemed to be an odd and confusing case, so that may take some effort.

But, in any event, I guess many of the Left would agree with many conservatives that high cash bail IS indeed a good idea, when it comes to any perpetrator of such an attack. Or do they actually think that cash bail really should be eliminated altogether?

It's hard to keep track of where political camps stand, sometimes.

Nevertheless, my earlier main point remains -- I don't see conservatives and moderates typically calling for violence. To the contrary -- they typically seem sick of seeing it in the cities. Indeed, isn't that why many DON'T want to see police "defunded"?

@Noflaps said in #38:
> Good work, @smhwhcoetsloetoeo -- you were able to think of one case where I suppose one might argue that the motivation was political but not against conservatives.
>

Yes, 'I suppose one might argue that'

Also, let's not forget:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack

Regarding Kyle Rittenhouse, I think it is fair to use the phrase 'one might argue'.
He made his case for self-defense at his trial, but I think it is fair to argue that
his motivation for going to the protests armed with a rifle was because of his
anti-Left sentiments. This is based upon his subsequent statements after the trial.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse

@Alientcp said in #36:
> It does. It doesnt matter how much you control guns, criminals will find a way to work around it.
>
> Do you really think that if there were gun controls criminals with guns will stop doing crime with them?
It won't stop it, but it will reduce it. Gun control may not reduce the number of wannabe criminals overall, but it reduces the harm that they are able to do.

You can always argue all you want about what would and would happen, or you can just look at the facts. Look at any European country. Look at Canada. Look at Australia. Look at Japan. They all have dramatically less gun violence than the US. Maybe, huh, because guns are not normally allowed there?
An I am sorry but "the USians are just crazy" is really not a convincing argument lol.

With gun control, you can't randomly decide to go buy a gun or an assault rifle and go rob a bank with it, or kill the guy who owed you money, or add your name to the glorious list of US school shootings, or snipe the President, or a podcaster you didn't like.

It is not rocket science. If you reduce the number of guns on the market, you also reduce the access of criminals and future criminals to guns. And before you go on with your "authorized guns" vs "illegal guns", how do you think illegal guns reach the (black) market? They don't appear out of thin air. They started as authorized guns.

As a last point, I would like to mention that the argument of "having guns to defend yourself" is just a terrible idea. When someone holds a gun on you, trying to pull out your own gun is the best way to make sure they WILL shoot you. If guns were an efficient way to defend oneself against crime, the crime rates in the US would not be so high, would it?