Guns.

mace1229

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Probably doesn't help if everyone around you is pushing of the opposite of what you feel and believe and you think you have nowhere to turn, and then you find some internet group that supports you. 

njhaley1

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

You have tofu for dinner. #notevenonce  

HughFreakingDillon

tempo_n_groove said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Attaway77 said:

This discussion of guns will never end, guns will never go away, that is a fact. It is not the gun that people should be worried about, it's the person in possession of the gun they should be worried about. Very intelligent people here on this forum, some age and life in history we have lived and seen, do we not know this by now? If a human being wants to create chaos, pull the trigger and shoot, they will. it's not complicated, it's reality. How long have guns/weapons been around? it's not the guns, it's the people who choose to create destruction.

I think guns is something people should worry about. Normal ones who actually think anyways

I believe all these countries have better mental health services and health care than we do.

It’s the guns
It’s the culture
It’s mental health

gimmesometruth27

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

be mad that they can't marry multiple people there anymore?

gimmesometruth27

i was just thinking. this shooting happened in utah. on a college campus. done by someone living in utah. why is this a federal case? shouldn't it be a state murder case? the shooter did not cross state lines to commit the felony. he is most likely a lone wolf from what we know as of now. why do the feds even need to be involved? yes, i get that it was a high profile victim, but he wasn't a politician holding office, or even a national candidate. even if it was just some speaker at a college and was not a friend of the president, why would the feds be involved in this?

someone help me understand.

DE4173

How is it a federal case?

mickeyrat

mace1229

gimmesometruth27 said:

i was just thinking. this shooting happened in utah. on a college campus. done by someone living in utah. why is this a federal case? shouldn't it be a state murder case? the shooter did not cross state lines to commit the felony. he is most likely a lone wolf from what we know as of now. why do the feds even need to be involved? yes, i get that it was a high profile victim, but he wasn't a politician holding office, or even a national candidate. even if it was just some speaker at a college and was not a friend of the president, why would the feds be involved in this?

someone help me understand.

Last I heard it wasn’t a fed case. I think Patel or Trump say they want it at the federal level, but I don’t think that has happened yet.
i was curious about this the other day too and read about it. Certain criteria like federal employee, which Kirk obviously wasn’t, are needed. But one possibility is certain hate crimes can qualify or certain computer charges. So if they can throw a hate charge at him for his religion then maybe it qualifies, or if they find he communicated over the internet and was encourage/provoked/helped planned by someone online then it might qualify. 

My guess is, if it actually goes that way, the easier route is the hate crime. If they find messages or comments related to his religious beliefs (abortion, lgbtq views) then maybe they can use that.
Thats all just my best guess.

Bentleyspop

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i was just thinking. this shooting happened in utah. on a college campus. done by someone living in utah. why is this a federal case? shouldn't it be a state murder case? the shooter did not cross state lines to commit the felony. he is most likely a lone wolf from what we know as of now. why do the feds even need to be involved? yes, i get that it was a high profile victim, but he wasn't a politician holding office, or even a national candidate. even if it was just some speaker at a college and was not a friend of the president, why would the feds be involved in this?

someone help me understand.

Last I heard it wasn’t a fed case. I think Patel or Trump say they want it at the federal level, but I don’t think that has happened yet.
i was curious about this the other day too and read about it. Certain criteria like federal employee, which Kirk obviously wasn’t, are needed. But one possibility is certain hate crimes can qualify or certain computer charges. So if they can throw a hate charge at him for his religion then maybe it qualifies, or if they find he communicated over the internet and was encourage/provoked/helped planned by someone online then it might qualify. 

My guess is, if it actually goes that way, the easier route is the hate crime. If they find messages or comments related to his religious beliefs (abortion, lgbtq views) then maybe they can use that.
Thats all just my best guess.

My understanding is that if they take it federal (in addition to state charges) it's an easier path to the death penalty.

gimmesometruth27

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i was just thinking. this shooting happened in utah. on a college campus. done by someone living in utah. why is this a federal case? shouldn't it be a state murder case? the shooter did not cross state lines to commit the felony. he is most likely a lone wolf from what we know as of now. why do the feds even need to be involved? yes, i get that it was a high profile victim, but he wasn't a politician holding office, or even a national candidate. even if it was just some speaker at a college and was not a friend of the president, why would the feds be involved in this?

someone help me understand.

Last I heard it wasn’t a fed case. I think Patel or Trump say they want it at the federal level, but I don’t think that has happened yet.
i was curious about this the other day too and read about it. Certain criteria like federal employee, which Kirk obviously wasn’t, are needed. But one possibility is certain hate crimes can qualify or certain computer charges. So if they can throw a hate charge at him for his religion then maybe it qualifies, or if they find he communicated over the internet and was encourage/provoked/helped planned by someone online then it might qualify. 

My guess is, if it actually goes that way, the easier route is the hate crime. If they find messages or comments related to his religious beliefs (abortion, lgbtq views) then maybe they can use that.
Thats all just my best guess.

that all makes sense. 

i don't see how it can be a hate crime. kirk was a christian. the shooter was raised mormon. do those two faiths have beef? i have no idea. i know certain sects of christianity don't see eye to eye but it would be difficult for a prosecutor to prove that christian sect on christian sect is a hate crime. 

you are right. they are probably looking at the cyber trail, and if he was involved with 8chan and all that stuff there could be evidence to make it a federal case. 

my thinking now is, if patel is releasing all this information normally reserved for trial, such as what they have his dna on, it can be argued that the guy can't get a fair trial. if i am a defense attorney this is what i am looking for. trump and the government tainting the jury pool with social media posts, calling for his execution in speeches and interviews, things like that. 

how ironic would it be if this guy walks on a technicality like that? it would probably be the biggest political own goal in the last century. way bigger own goal than making oj try on the glove.

gimmesometruth27

Bentleyspop said:

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i was just thinking. this shooting happened in utah. on a college campus. done by someone living in utah. why is this a federal case? shouldn't it be a state murder case? the shooter did not cross state lines to commit the felony. he is most likely a lone wolf from what we know as of now. why do the feds even need to be involved? yes, i get that it was a high profile victim, but he wasn't a politician holding office, or even a national candidate. even if it was just some speaker at a college and was not a friend of the president, why would the feds be involved in this?

someone help me understand.

Last I heard it wasn’t a fed case. I think Patel or Trump say they want it at the federal level, but I don’t think that has happened yet.
i was curious about this the other day too and read about it. Certain criteria like federal employee, which Kirk obviously wasn’t, are needed. But one possibility is certain hate crimes can qualify or certain computer charges. So if they can throw a hate charge at him for his religion then maybe it qualifies, or if they find he communicated over the internet and was encourage/provoked/helped planned by someone online then it might qualify. 

My guess is, if it actually goes that way, the easier route is the hate crime. If they find messages or comments related to his religious beliefs (abortion, lgbtq views) then maybe they can use that.
Thats all just my best guess.

My understanding is that if they take it federal (in addition to state charges) it's an easier path to the death penalty.

the pro life party that wants public executions. i can see that as a reason for it.

mace1229

gimmesometruth27 said:

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i was just thinking. this shooting happened in utah. on a college campus. done by someone living in utah. why is this a federal case? shouldn't it be a state murder case? the shooter did not cross state lines to commit the felony. he is most likely a lone wolf from what we know as of now. why do the feds even need to be involved? yes, i get that it was a high profile victim, but he wasn't a politician holding office, or even a national candidate. even if it was just some speaker at a college and was not a friend of the president, why would the feds be involved in this?

someone help me understand.

Last I heard it wasn’t a fed case. I think Patel or Trump say they want it at the federal level, but I don’t think that has happened yet.
i was curious about this the other day too and read about it. Certain criteria like federal employee, which Kirk obviously wasn’t, are needed. But one possibility is certain hate crimes can qualify or certain computer charges. So if they can throw a hate charge at him for his religion then maybe it qualifies, or if they find he communicated over the internet and was encourage/provoked/helped planned by someone online then it might qualify. 

My guess is, if it actually goes that way, the easier route is the hate crime. If they find messages or comments related to his religious beliefs (abortion, lgbtq views) then maybe they can use that.
Thats all just my best guess.

that all makes sense. 

i don't see how it can be a hate crime. kirk was a christian. the shooter was raised mormon. do those two faiths have beef? i have no idea. i know certain sects of christianity don't see eye to eye but it would be difficult for a prosecutor to prove that christian sect on christian sect is a hate crime. 

you are right. they are probably looking at the cyber trail, and if he was involved with 8chan and all that stuff there could be evidence to make it a federal case. 

my thinking now is, if patel is releasing all this information normally reserved for trial, such as what they have his dna on, it can be argued that the guy can't get a fair trial. if i am a defense attorney this is what i am looking for. trump and the government tainting the jury pool with social media posts, calling for his execution in speeches and interviews, things like that. 

how ironic would it be if this guy walks on a technicality like that? it would probably be the biggest political own goal in the last century. way bigger own goal than making oj try on the glove.

That seems fairly normal to me in such high profile cases. People want to know. In those Idaho college murders a couple years ago, we knew way before any trial that he left the knife sheath with DNA at the scene. I can’t remember if it was before or after they caught him, but it was way before the trial. Even more came out as the case closed, but we knew a lot before hand. 

I heard he was raised Mormon, don’t know if he still considered himself religious. He did murder someone in cold blood. Either way, might not matter what his own religion was if he expressed his hatred for the guy based on his views on transgenders, then goes out and murders him. If they’re trying to prove a hate crime anyway. The computer angle would probably be the stronger option if they uncover any connections. But I wouldn’t surprised if they are at least looking at that, and other angles.

Go Beavers

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

HughFreakingDillon

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Lerxst1992

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

njhaley1

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

See you all on the train!

First, they came for the immigrants, but I said nothing, because I am not an immigrant. 

Next, they came for the transvestites, but I said nothing, because I was not a transvestite. 

Then they came for the "radical leftists," and I started to sweat, because I was an occasional poster on AMT. 

The parallels aren't just hyperbole, folks. 

Tim Simmons

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.
Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

I’ve turned down every podcast and interview request that’s come my way in the past few months. Two reasons. First, I have zero interest in making myself the story. Second, and more importantly, I’m not some oracle with instant answers on demand.

Podcasts and debates aren’t designed for real intellectual work. They’re built for entertainment. Serious thinking doesn’t happen in a soundbite. It requires time to wrestle with ideas, to sit with them, to test them against reality. My first reaction isn’t always my best one - and I’m honest enough to admit that. What feels true in the moment often crumbles under reflection. That’s why I’d rather write than perform.

Because while I also make my living from creating content - I refuse to mistake performance for truth."






I completely agree with the "intellectual violence" comment...

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

I don’t care what a partisan governor says. 

We all know that famous political circle graph. Radical left and radical right are pretty close. The only reason I hope ge’s radical right is to shut maga’s mouth about this narrative grow their culture war. 

Otherwise to me it makes no difference. Radical is radical. Radical anything isn’t a part of either of the two “teams”. 

I agree it doesn’t matter. The part I disagree with is it seems like both sides are pointing fingers equally. There’s rumors he’s part of a right wing organization as well has part of the trans community. Seems like everyone is pointing fingers and being like “see, it wasn’t my group!”

I also believe the governor because the truth is coming out, it would be too stupid to lie about it. To say he’s (or the FBI, whoever) spoken with family and friends and claim they say he’s moved one direction politically. All they'd have to do is put out a statement saying that’s not true and he’d look like a huge idiot. Of course they’re talking to everyone who was currently involved in his life and scrubbing all of his social media. It’d be too stupid to lie about the results when it’s going to come out anyway. 

Do you really believe governors never lie?  And you really believe with this whole crazy scenario that there is such a thing as "the truth coming out"?  Those seem like very, very long stretches to me.  

Just saying.  I don't know shit, and in this case, I think it makes sense to say that.  I don't think any of us really know shit about this topic- beyond the actual occurrence on last Wednesday, of course.

I didn’t say governors don’t lie. I said I don’t think they’d lie in such a high profile case that would so easily be disproved. 
I do believe the governor in this instance because there are too many people who knew the shooter. If the governor just blatantly lied about being in touch with them and the information they provided, one of them would say something. I’m sure the family and partner is already be hounded by the media. If they’re making up lies about their son, they’d probably post on X the truth.

I like the Utah Gov...he's a reasonable republican.

But he and some news orgs seem to really stress that the trans bits are coming from the FBI. That is suspect to me. I wouldn't put it past them to put out these "findings" only to later reverse them. trump is all about having the facts match his initial reaction.

But I could be wrong. 

You are not wrong. The WSJ should be ashamed of what they printed in the hours after the shooting about the bullets. That was clearly a political narrative release by whatever law enforcement official they continually quoted. 

What did you expect from a Murdick rag?

Their news division is usually very good. That’s why Trump is suing them.