Troy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 6:01 pm
Last thing Charlie said in his life was to try to lump the blame of mass shootings to inner city gangs.
He is correct about that. Most mass shootings are gang related, but they don't get coverage for obvious reasons.
The sensationalized or politicized ones are not the majority. And shooting statistics are grossly exaggerated depending on who is covering them (and this goes both ways). For example: CNN (or whomever they use for research) has been very open that they call any incident with a gun within 1 mile of a school, no matter the day/time/season/details, as a school shooting. (We posted that article here years ago.) That's why they'll say there have been hundreds of school shootings in a year when only a few ever make headlines. (And a few is still too many.)
I believe everyone goes by the FBI definition for mass shooting though?
Troy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 8:58 pm
that was before he became a shooting victim, If you were able to ask him, his opinion would likely be different with that knowledge, maybe.
Highly doubtful. Intelligent people aren't reactive like that. They don't blame the hammer when they hit their thumb with it. Steve Irwin wouldn't have demanded we kill all stingrays.
------------------------------------------------------
The rest of this is just a small rant on the Kirk assassination, how it relates to gun control, and just a ramble about why it happened. Feel free to agree, disagree, read it, don't read it, etc. I'm not going to debate. It was just cathartic to express it and I honestly needed that.
------------------------------------------------------
Guns have never been and never will be the issue. Hammers and saws don't build houses.
I forget who said it, and I'm paraphrasing, "If you can take away one right because of the actions of a few, then none of us have any rights at all."
Guns will be first. Speech will come next.
And yes, I know that gun control is different than taking away the 2nd. Hell, go look in this thread and you'll find me advocating for certain gun control. However, make no mistake, the anti-gun folks will never stop. They want ALL guns gone, not just the "assault weapons". For an example of what happens after that, look no further than England where they, mostly, don't have guns, so people there stab one another. So much so that Idris Elba actually proposed, and he wasn't kidding, that pointy kitchen knives are the problem and that perhaps innovation can figure out a way to remove the points. BTW, same country where people are now being given prison sentences for statements (not threats) on social media because it "offended someone". (England is not the only country seeing this scenario play out either.)
Guns will be first. Speech will come next.
Charlie Kirk wasn't shot because of a gun. He was shot because a small minded idiot could not stand to have their beliefs exposed to the light of logic, science, and common sense. He was shot because of reactionary politics that go too far every time they address an issue. He was killed because public trust in scientists, teachers, doctors, the MSM, etc. has never been lower (feel free to speculate on why, but nobody can argue this isn't seen on both sides of the political spectrum). He was shot because social media is awash with hatred and it is proven to be VERY negatively affecting our country's mental health. He was shot because our politicians have amplified their rhetoric to include coded calls for violence. He was shot because everyone who disagrees with whatever things one believes is "literally Hitler, a nazi, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a transphobe, a fascist, evil, responsible for genocide (of what depends on which side you're on), wants to take away all your rights," and every other possible insult one can think up.
Charlie Kirk said, "When discourse ends, violence begins."
He would not have approved of any of the inevitable violence that will result from his death. Violence I truly hope does not come.
He was a man who dedicated his life to simply having conversations with people. He tried to change minds, but he did so through discussion, not force. He welcomed a debate with anyone. He never called for violence. He wasn't Osama bin Laden. He simply wanted to talk to people with differing viewpoints and see if either could change the other's mind. Literally, zero people have been harmed or killed because of Charlie.
For that he had to die?
If anyone doesn't understand how this country is worse off today, they're...I mean, being honest, not very intelligent or are deeply brainwashed. I really have no hatred or anger for the people celebrating his death. I pity them.
If we cannot get back to a place where people with differing opinions can discuss it without childish tantrums, ridiculous hyperbole, or violence, we're doomed, both as a country and a species.
RIP Charlie. I hope your death inspires people to talk again.
