Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[TSwizzle]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

I think the 15 (mostly Jewish) dead at Bondi Beach etc would probably differ too.

 

[Toni]

Targeting any one group —or several—makes it that much easier to target another group —and another, and another.

Which would include those murdered at Bondi Beach.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

But this thread isn't about Kirk, it is about...

...no wait. It is about Kirk. So I think it is fitting to note that Kirk would have been so pleased that nothing was done in Congress to prevent the next needless collateral killing.

 

[Derec]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Guessing it had to do with someone bringing up crime rates and race (can't imagine who).

You guessed wrong. First mention of Kyle Rittenhouse in this thread was made by Patchy in post #353, all the way back in September. And he said nothing about crime statistics in that post.

Then, on December 15th, Swammerdami resurrected the derail in post #2,108. Still no mention of crime stats.

 

[Derec]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.
Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Freedom always comes at a cost.

 

[TSwizzle]

Targeting any one group —or several—makes it that much easier to target another group —and another, and another.

Indeed, I wouldn’t want to divert your attention away from dangerous white, heterosexual male christians.

 

[Derec]

So you attack someone. The person you attacked starts getting the better of you, so it's okay to kill the person you attacked "in self defense". What a totally fucked up viewpoint this is.

There is no evidence that Z attacked Trayvon. And being followed by somebody is not a justification to open a can of "whoop ass" on him. Even if you think that he is a "creepy-ass cracker".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

But have you ever considered, nuh uh?

 

[laughing dog]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Because are neither designed nor purposed to kill.

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

Freedom always comes at a cost.

Everything comes at a cost. The issue is are the benefits worth the costs?

 

[laughing dog]

Targeting any one group —or several—makes it that much easier to target another group —and another, and another.

Indeed, I wouldn’t want to divert your attention away from dangerous white, heterosexual male christians.

Quiet, piggy.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Targeting any one group —or several—makes it that much easier to target another group —and another, and another.

Indeed, I wouldn’t want to divert your attention away from dangerous white, heterosexual male christians.

You mean like the one that murdered Melissa and Mark Hortman?

 

[Derec]

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Of course there is. For example, injuries on Z's head and corresponding injuries to Trayvon Martin's knuckles. Are you suggesting Z attacked Trayvon by headbutting his fists?

But why are we again talking about this? I guess the Ilk knows it lost on the issue of Ritt's self defense, so they are dredging up another old case to muddy the waters. Pretty soon, y'all will be bringing up Emmett Till.

I mentioned Martin because he was the same age as Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse killed two people and injured another person with a firearm it was not legal for him to have.

First of all, the firearm charge was dismissed by the judge because of a loophole in the law. So it wasn't even illegal for him to have that rifle.
Second, even if it was illegal, it does not abrogate his right to self-defense. When Bernie Goetz shot five yoots who were trying to rob him, he was only convicted of possessing an illegal gun, but not of the shootings themselves.
And just because two cases have people of the same age does not mean they are alike in any way. Rittenhouse self-defense case was already very different than the premeditated murder of Charlie Kirk. The Trayvon Martin case is unlike either of the two. It's just another derail.

White boy was the shooter= AOK. Black boy was dead = AOK. By you, of course.

No, by you. Because you see skin color über alles. In your mind, the only difference between these cases is race. That's an almost pathological obsession with race.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and brought a weapon to ensure he found it.

There is zero evidence Rittenhouse was looking for trouble. All the evidence points to Rosenberg being the one looking for trouble all that night. And boy, did he find it!

Martin was walking home from a convenience store when he was killed by an armed adult. Both shooters had delusions of being essential police auxiliaries.

Z suspected Trayvon of casing houses. Given that he was, back home, caught with burglary tools and jewelry whose provenance he could not explain, I do not think that suspicion should be dismissed as prejudice.

They each got away with killing unarmed people.

Because they both were acting in self-defense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

 

[Derec]

You mean like the one that murdered Melissa and Mark Hortman?

Yes, I mentioned earlier that those murders are a much better analogue to the Charlie Kirk murder than the Kyle Rittenhouse case, where no connection is evident.

 

[Derec]

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing.

No, it's a comparison of principles. If you ban something just because it has some bad consequences, you reduce individual freedoms.
Same goes with overregulation, especially when regulation is designed to be onerous, meant to curb a practice rather than just make it safer. Strip clubs are a good example. Way too many cities approach regulation that way - they ban alcohol if there is nudity, or mandate a 4' buffer between dancers and customers. All that is designed to make strip clubs less fun and lead to their closure.

A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

I understand. And guns can and should be regulated better without sacrificing too much freedom. However, much of the discussion revolves around things like so-called "assault weapons bans", and some on the Left even want to ban all firearms for personal use.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

Another reason I mentioned cars is that I remembered the argument made by German Greens decades ago. They said that cars should be limited to 20 mph or so to avoid traffic deaths. One went even further and suggested that air bags should be replaced with spikes to encourage extra careful driving.
Discussion in the US regarding guns (from the left), weed (from the right) and sex (from both ends of the horseshoe) remind me of that bullshit.

 

[Derec]

I would think anyone worried about such encounters would simply not travel out of state to a riot.

"Out of state" == 20 miles away to a city where his friend lives.
Compare and contrast to Grosskreutz who is a member of a radical organization "The People's Revolution" and travelled twice as far to participate in a riot.

Rittenhouse was not standing guard at some site. He was roaming, looking for trouble.

Ritt left his post, but was not able to return. There is no evidence he was "looking for trouble", unlike your boy Rosenbaum, who spent the whole night doing things like setting a literal dumpster fire and antagonizing everyone around him. Eventually he escalated to a physical attack, and that was the last thing he did.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

I understand. And guns can and should be regulated better without sacrificing too much freedom.

Curious. How?

 

[laughing dog]

I would think anyone worried about such encounters would simply not travel out of state to a riot.

"Out of state" == 20 miles away to a city where his friend lives.

That does not rebut what I wrote.

Compare and contrast to Grosskreutz who is a member of a radical organization "The People's Revolution" and travelled twice as far to participate in a riot.

Is there a relevant point to this whataboutism?

Rittenhouse was not standing guard at some site. He was roaming, looking for trouble.

Ritt left his post, but was not able to return. There is no evidence he was "looking for trouble", unlike your boy Rosenbaum, who spent the whole night doing things like setting a literal dumpster fire and antagonizing everyone around him. Eventually he escalated to a physical attack, and that was the last thing he did.

“My boy Rosenbaum”? I’ve not defended Rosenbaum or Grosskreutz.

Of course there is evidence Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. He travelled out of state to a riot with a firearm that was illegal for him to possess, and he “left his post”.

 

[Toni]

Targeting any one group —or several—makes it that much easier to target another group —and another, and another.

Indeed, I wouldn’t want to divert your attention away from dangerous white, heterosexual male christians.

Interestingly enough, every single person who sexually assaulted me or, in one case, attempted to kill me, plus the guy who wrapped a bicycle lock/chain around my neck and tightened it ( in his mind, I was preventing him from a romantic relationship with a friend who was desperately trying to avoid him) were all white, male and at least nominally Christian. The first guy who sexually assaulted me and attempted to kill me became…a youth minister. Of course. Or tried to. He never was given a congregation.

Do I think that white, male or Christian ( or ‘Christian’) is more dangerous or prone to violence than anyone else? Nope. But in the world we live in, much of society is fairly segregated and white, male and at least nominally Christian described most males I knew.

 

[Toni]

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Of course there is. For example, injuries on Z's head and corresponding injuries to Trayvon Martin's knuckles. Are you suggesting Z attacked Trayvon by headbutting his fists?

But why are we again talking about this? I guess the Ilk knows it lost on the issue of Ritt's self defense, so they are dredging up another old case to muddy the waters. Pretty soon, y'all will be bringing up Emmett Till.

I mentioned Martin because he was the same age as Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse killed two people and injured another person with a firearm it was not legal for him to have.

First of all, the firearm charge was dismissed by the judge because of a loophole in the law. So it wasn't even illegal for him to have that rifle.
Second, even if it was illegal, it does not abrogate his right to self-defense. When Bernie Goetz shot five yoots who were trying to rob him, he was only convicted of possessing an illegal gun, but not of the shootings themselves.
And just because two cases have people of the same age does not mean they are alike in any way. Rittenhouse self-defense case was already very different than the premeditated murder of Charlie Kirk. The Trayvon Martin case is unlike either of the two. It's just another derail.

White boy was the shooter= AOK. Black boy was dead = AOK. By you, of course.

No, by you. Because you see skin color über alles. In your mind, the only difference between these cases is race. That's an almost pathological obsession with race.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and brought a weapon to ensure he found it.

There is zero evidence Rittenhouse was looking for trouble. All the evidence points to Rosenberg being the one looking for trouble all that night. And boy, did he find it!

Martin was walking home from a convenience store when he was killed by an armed adult. Both shooters had delusions of being essential police auxiliaries.

Z suspected Trayvon of casing houses. Given that he was, back home, caught with burglary tools and jewelry whose provenance he could not explain, I do not think that suspicion should be dismissed as prejudice.

They each got away with killing unarmed people.

Because they both were acting in self-defense.

Neither was acting in self defense. Travon Martin certainly was: he was attacked for walking after dark while black.

Interesting that you are all u on my case because I brought up an unrelated case when you do this all of the time. I guess I was encroaching on your style? Didn’t notice a trademark…