• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is killing Americans?

View attachment 67589414
It appears that the right has killed more AMericans than all others combined. I guess those saying the left is the problem might just be wrong!
While true, this is upsetting to our local MAGA so they were reprogrammed to state the opposite. This allows them to feel better about themselves.
 
The Right will martyr Kirk till the next sexy outrage comes along.
Remember how many threads we had about THE EVIL LEFT's attempt to assassinate Trump. It went on for weeks, months.
MOST AMERICANS are not buying it.
The crazed killer may have had leftist leaning, but the Right is quick to dismiss any rightwing leaning crazy when they resort to violence saying that the person was just mentally ill or just one person, not representative of the Right.

What will happen, someone is going to do some killing. The temperature is being turned up way too high. People will be killed. When that happens the Right will again say - hey it was just some crazy, had NOTHING to do with how we riled people up.

While quietly in their secret hearts rejoicing that they got the liberals good.
 
It doesn't matter. MAGA can't be convinced. Faux News won't allow them to be.

Here's what they consume every day:




Gutfeld says they don't care about "both sides" and "that shit is dead".

More right wingers kill people than left wingers. But Faux doesn't care nor does MAGA. You just killed one of their holy men.

They want to go after the left like never before. That's all they have, they know the country's economy is shaky, they need you to live in fear.
 
It doesn't matter. MAGA can't be convinced. Faux News won't allow them to be.

Here's what they consume every day:


View attachment 67589434
Gutfeld and the administration's position which is pretty much in line with sums up their rubbish position. Gutfeld's rationale here is Hortman's death wasn't important because no one had heard of her, yet you have some on the right whinging about those who hadn't heard of Kirk and were indifferent are terrible people. In all of their rhetoric about political violence they have omitted the variety targeted at opposition lawmakers as if those don't count, and this can't be accidental.

This is what we're dealing with:

 
One guy killed another guy.

Why is that special?

There are multiple murders every day where one person kills the other for their own reasons.

Charlie Kirk was just a guy who loved to do podcasts and go to colleges to debate. I watched some of his stuff and he was just a major asshole to me. Not enough to kill him but someone thought so.

That's on the killer. The killer wasn't mind possessed and forced to do it by some group on the left. If he ends up being a lefty, so what?

Do we start a civil war over one guy killing another guy?
 
One guy killed another guy.

Why is that special?
Good question. The killer's motives aren't known yet since he hasn't cooperated with police, but those itching to use this as an opportunity to use the government to silence their opposition don't seem to care or fully consider the precedent. They also fail to realize their glaring hypocrisy since they are framing this as an affront to their tribe alone and not the broader problem of political violence, which by the way, show right leaning groups tend to carry out more frequently.

I agree completely, but the administration doesn't for the reasons I cited above. So far there isn't anything indicating this killing was based on any ideology of a particular political group either.

Do we start a civil war over one guy killing another guy?
I don't, but some are itching for the pretext to make their opponents have a SAD.
 
Why did we exclude 9/11 in this study?

What else did we exclude?
I’m guessing it would make it all scale improperly in contrast making it 9/11 and the rest.
 
Why did we exclude 9/11 in this study?

What else did we exclude?
Because 80+% of all American violence in history occurred on 9/11 by extremists from another country, and the study was more interested in the violence that occurred from and by Americans. It was explained in a post in a different thread.
 
There is also a huge difference that type of rethoritic those on the left can get away with compared to the right.




 
Why did we exclude 9/11 in this study?

What else did we exclude?
For your purposes, it's best to assume that it excluded approximately 95% of all murders committed by the leftist filth. By making this assumption, you can feel reassured that the evil Leftists are mass-murdering innocent conservatives, and this will allow you to feel happy and delighted. If the resultant feelings of pleasure are not sufficient, you can augment the experience with some video of George Floyd's neck being compressed, Donald standing over Hillary during a 2016 debate or some of the Birther stuff. If that still doesn't do the trick, then you're going to have to pull out the big guns and dig up Marjorie's photos on the House floor of Hunter's genitals.
 

This was NOT just a random killing.

It was a political assassination of prominent conservative voice in this country.
 
Why did we exclude 9/11 in this study?

What else did we exclude?
They did include 9/11 in a prior table. The table the OP lists is with that taken out.
 
They did include 9/11 in a prior table. The table the OP lists is with that taken out.
But not in that table...

Kinda the point makes itself...
 
Nah. Just accurate and full data would be fine.

Then we wouldn't need our jump to conclusion mats... we could just see the data...

But it's telling they excluded some data; at least they admitted it so that readers can understand the bias.
 
Every credible source haas found this true for many years.
Of course ignoring you some major issues why are we pretending people don't have any political affiliation minutes not relative to the subject kind of like with Charlie Kirk. People are pretending his killer was right wing so how many times does this happen?
 
Because 80+% of all American violence in history occurred on 9/11 by extremists from another country, and the study was more interested in the violence that occurred from and by Americans. It was explained in a post in a different thread.
But then all these studies should note that any violence they are studying excludes 80+% of violence... and only looks at a very small part of violence... and any changes or actions based on this study would only have a very small effect on violence.

That's kinda important to note...
 
I’m guessing it would make it all scale improperly in contrast making it 9/11 and the rest.
Why? What would be improper about thay scale?

Shouldn't our attention and actions scale with the likelihood of violence?
 
The people who keep saying things that end up on killer's bullets are the ones killing Americans.

 
I think that's rather self-explanatory if looking at the original comparison along with this one, but I agree the OP could have been clearer by providing that context.
 
Why? What would be improper about thay scale?

Shouldn't our attention and actions scale with the likelihood of violence?
You’re not understanding. They are considering 9/11 an outlier statistically. I agree. It’s fine if you don’t.
 
You’re not understanding. They are considering 9/11 an outlier statistically. I agree. It’s fine if you don’t.
Oh. Weird.

I guess if one picks which events to exclude, they can show whatever they want with statistics.

Makes sense.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…