The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

[accelafine]

Assassinations as a rule have huge historical follow-on repercussions. Their assassins become famous as a result. The general public has pretty much forgotten Charlie Kirk already. I would have to ask google what the name of his murderer is. His death has had no more impact than any other shooting in your hell-hole of a country. When you put guns into the hands of loons and imbeciles in a country that's densely packed with loons and imbeciles then people are going to get shot.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Assassinations as a rule have huge historical follow-on repercussions. Their assassins become famous as a result. The general public has pretty much forgotten Charlie Kirk already. I would have to ask google what the name of his murderer is. His death has had no more impact than any other shooting in your hell-hole of a country. When you put guns into the hands of loons and imbeciles in a country that's densely packed with loons and imbeciles then people are going to get shot.

I have a sworn obligation to cure you, Acellafine, but I will need your help.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here is Bret Weinstein and wife talking about Nick Fuentes. Super interesting.

[Immanuel Can]

Assassinations as a rule have huge historical follow-on repercussions. Their assassins become famous as a result. The general public has pretty much forgotten Charlie Kirk already. I would have to ask google what the name of his murderer is. His death has had no more impact than any other shooting in your hell-hole of a country. When you put guns into the hands of loons and imbeciles in a country that's densely packed with loons and imbeciles then people are going to get shot.

Rather than raped in Rotherham, beaten on the streets in Manchester, or stabbed on a train in Cambridgeshire, you mean?

What does it tell us when one allegedly-democratic side of a political debate starts shooting the other side, especially in order to prevent them speaking publicly? And does it mean good things when we forget it?

[accelafine]

Assassinations as a rule have huge historical follow-on repercussions. Their assassins become famous as a result. The general public has pretty much forgotten Charlie Kirk already. I would have to ask google what the name of his murderer is. His death has had no more impact than any other shooting in your hell-hole of a country. When you put guns into the hands of loons and imbeciles in a country that's densely packed with loons and imbeciles then people are going to get shot.

Rather than raped in Rotherham, beaten on the streets in Manchester, or stabbed on a train in Cambridgeshire, you mean?

What does it tell us when one allegedly-democratic side of a political debate starts shooting the other side, especially in order to prevent them speaking publicly? And does it mean good things when we forget it?

I have no clue what your point is re Rotherham rape or what they have to do with it. Just because I say that 'assassination' is the wrong word to use doesn't mean I think he deserved to be shot. If Hitler had been shot it would have been an assassination. The word doesn't make any value judgements about the 'worthiness' of the person involved.

[Immanuel Can]

Just because I say that 'assassination' is the wrong word to use doesn't mean I think he deserved to be shot.

I'm relieved to hear it. But I didn't suggest that you would think that. I was just pointing out that there's nothing special about the situation in America; it's most evidently in the UK as well. And their ban on guns hasn't prevented them from becoming increasingly subject to acts of violence, even if it's managed to prevent victims from defending themselves.

[accelafine]

Just because I say that 'assassination' is the wrong word to use doesn't mean I think he deserved to be shot.

I'm relieved to hear it. But I didn't suggest that you would think that. I was just pointing out that there's nothing special about the situation in America; it's most evidently in the UK as well. And their ban on guns hasn't prevented them from becoming increasingly subject to acts of violence, even if it's managed to prevent victims from defending themselves.

Canada has high gun ownership with nowhere near the gun murder rate of the US. This would seem to indicate that there is a problem with Americans themselves.

[Age]

Just because I say that 'assassination' is the wrong word to use doesn't mean I think he deserved to be shot.

I'm relieved to hear it. But I didn't suggest that you would think that. I was just pointing out that there's nothing special about the situation in America; it's most evidently in the UK as well. And their ban on guns hasn't prevented them from becoming increasingly subject to acts of violence, even if it's managed to prevent victims from defending themselves.

It was this kind of Truly distorted thinking why violence and Wrong just kept on continuing, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, when the creating of, and the use of, weapons was 'trying to' be justified, and 'trying to' be normalised.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

Your opinion is skewed by evident prejudices. And it doesn’t matter if it is called a shooting, a killing, a murder or an assassination. The event — whether you recognize it or not — is within the American sphere one of consequence.

If only — as Bret Weinstein has it — that the vacuum created by Kirk’s assassination opens the field to more radical postures and personages — like Nick Fuentes.

In America today, unquestionably, civil conflicts are roiling and it must absolutely be recognized that one can speak generally of social mental illness and certainly mental illness among individuals.

There is an extraordinary video by someone who knew Lance Twigs (the trans furry lover) which is an “anatomy” of a profound sickness developing — festering — in the culture.

To talk about this requires seriousness and carefulness.

This would seem to indicate that there is a problem with Americans themselves.

What is that problem?

[Immanuel Can]

Just because I say that 'assassination' is the wrong word to use doesn't mean I think he deserved to be shot.

I'm relieved to hear it. But I didn't suggest that you would think that. I was just pointing out that there's nothing special about the situation in America; it's most evidently in the UK as well. And their ban on guns hasn't prevented them from becoming increasingly subject to acts of violence, even if it's managed to prevent victims from defending themselves.

Canada has high gun ownership with nowhere near the gun murder rate of the US.

No handguns allowed, no automatic weapons, and a much smaller and more dispersed population. No similar history of ghettos and racial disparity, either. The Canadians who have guns are generally hunters and farmers, whose firearms are ill-adapted to crime or gang behaviour.

But one would think the UK would be even more free of violence, since they have almost NO guns allowed. However, in the UK, it seems knives have proved just as serviceable to criminals there, and there's no comparable chance for citizens to defend themselves.

[Age]

I'm relieved to hear it. But I didn't suggest that you would think that. I was just pointing out that there's nothing special about the situation in America; it's most evidently in the UK as well. And their ban on guns hasn't prevented them from becoming increasingly subject to acts of violence, even if it's managed to prevent victims from defending themselves.

Canada has high gun ownership with nowhere near the gun murder rate of the US.

No handguns allowed, no automatic weapons, and a much smaller and more dispersed population. No similar history of ghettos and racial disparity, either. The Canadians who have guns are generally hunters and farmers, whose firearms are ill-adapted to crime or gang behaviour.

But one would think the UK would be even more free of violence, since they have almost NO guns allowed.

Why do you believe that guns and violence go 'hand in hand', as some would say?

Just because one may not own a gun does not mean they that one does not hated nor does not want to hurt nor kill another.

your 'logic', here, also seems so far off as well.

However, in the UK, it seems knives have proved just as serviceable to criminals there, and there's no comparable chance for citizens to defend themselves.

If a human being believes that it 'needs' to walk around with a gun to protect "itself" from a human being, then that human being is clearly very mentally ill, or clearly living in the Wrong place, and)or Wrong time.

Also, were you not previously aware that knives were just as serviceable to so-called "criminals", just as stones, sticks, and arms are just as 'serviceable', as well?

[accelafine]

I'm relieved to hear it. But I didn't suggest that you would think that. I was just pointing out that there's nothing special about the situation in America; it's most evidently in the UK as well. And their ban on guns hasn't prevented them from becoming increasingly subject to acts of violence, even if it's managed to prevent victims from defending themselves.

Canada has high gun ownership with nowhere near the gun murder rate of the US.

No handguns allowed, no automatic weapons, and a much smaller and more dispersed population. No similar history of ghettos and racial disparity, either. The Canadians who have guns are generally hunters and farmers, whose firearms are ill-adapted to crime or gang behaviour.

But one would think the UK would be even more free of violence, since they have almost NO guns allowed. However, in the UK, it seems knives have proved just as serviceable to criminals there, and there's no comparable chance for citizens to defend themselves.

Ok. I read that Canada has really high gun ownership, similar to the US. That was a while ago. Govt. policy could have changed that, of course.
It's England where all those stabbings are happening, and it's very densely populated. Lunatic asylums should never have been phased out. That has caused huge social problems everywhere.

[Immanuel Can]

Canada has high gun ownership with nowhere near the gun murder rate of the US.

No handguns allowed, no automatic weapons, and a much smaller and more dispersed population. No similar history of ghettos and racial disparity, either. The Canadians who have guns are generally hunters and farmers, whose firearms are ill-adapted to crime or gang behaviour.

But one would think the UK would be even more free of violence, since they have almost NO guns allowed. However, in the UK, it seems knives have proved just as serviceable to criminals there, and there's no comparable chance for citizens to defend themselves.

Ok. I read that Canada has really high gun ownership, similar to the US.

Considerably less, actually. But practically all of it is hunting long-rifles and shotguns. Only law enforcement and such special cases can carry sidearms, and only the military gets automatic weapons. Ordinary citizens don't own personal guns, for the most part. And the population is very spread out, with only three major urban centers. In those, gun crime is becoming a problem, mostly due to illegal weapons.

It's England where all those stabbings are happening, and it's very densely populated. Lunatic asylums should never have been phased out. That has caused huge social problems everywhere.

I totally agree with you on that. The shutting of mental health facilities has been at total disaster, and the lack of treatment facilities for addiction is a serious problem, as well. Light sentences for serious offenders has made the problems even worse.

But if the criminals have guns, which they do, then there's one thing that can give them pause: the concern that their intended victims may have the means to defend themselves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Very interesting talk on the GrayZone about the Rightwing civil war over Israel.