Guns.

njhaley1

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

wow these texts between the shooter and his roommate tell the whole story....he really thought he was going to get away with it

was more concerned about having to tell his dad that he lost the rifle

Is dad the “responsible” gun owner who allowed his weapon to be used in a murder? He should face criminal charges as an accessory, no? Then be sued for civil damages by the survivors, eh?

Not if the son had no legal restrictions against guns.
If I loan my car to someone who can legally drive, and they get a DUI and kill someone, am I responsible?
If the son had no legal restrictions against gun, could legally own and operate one, it's not the dad's fault if he loaned him a family gun. Now, if he was aware that the son had issues and didn't take basic steps from preventing him from getting it, then I'd agree.

The gun was his grandfather's, given to him as a birthday gift.

As far as issues, this becomes a bit of slippery slope.  It's apparent from the conference that his parents were aware he had a transitioning friend as a roommate.  Is having a transitioning friend/romantic interest an issue worthy of denying someone the 2A privilege of owning a firearm?

I suspect we'll all soon find out.  

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

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...

I mentioned Kirks practices somewhere on here just like this person did.  100% he set things up.  He reminded me of a talk show host who would quickly change the subject to steer the conversation into how they wanted.

yeah like Morton Downey Jr...again, nothing against him and he certainly didn't deserve to be killed but putting him on a pedestal is just ridiculous

I swear that my facebook "friends" that are posting daily about him haven't listened to him as much as they suggest

I have been listening to him and I see how he "wins" his conversations.  I do see a bunch of his stuff taken out of context though too. 

Him saying an Asian slur is a big one.

And Morton Downey Jr... Wow.  I forgot about him.

Tim Simmons

Great piece on Charlie Kirk and the discourse around his death, from Ta-Nehisi Coates

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/charlie-kirk-ezra-klein-tanehisi-coates

Gern Blansten

Pretty obvious that the anti-gay, anti-trans messages that Kirk and maga have been putting out is the culprit. The shooter didn't refer to any far left messaging....he referred to Kirk's hate speech

DE4173

Tim Simmons said:

Great piece on Charlie Kirk and the discourse around his death, from Ta-Nehisi Coates

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/charlie-kirk-ezra-klein-tanehisi-coates

Thank you sir! 🫡

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

wow these texts between the shooter and his roommate tell the whole story....he really thought he was going to get away with it

was more concerned about having to tell his dad that he lost the rifle

Is dad the “responsible” gun owner who allowed his weapon to be used in a murder? He should face criminal charges as an accessory, no? Then be sued for civil damages by the survivors, eh?

Not if the son had no legal restrictions against guns.
If I loan my car to someone who can legally drive, and they get a DUI and kill someone, am I responsible?
If the son had no legal restrictions against gun, could legally own and operate one, it's not the dad's fault if he loaned him a family gun. Now, if he was aware that the son had issues and didn't take basic steps from preventing him from getting it, then I'd agree.

A car’s primary purpose and function is transportation. 

Halifax2TheMax

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

Gern Blansten

Halifax2TheMax said:

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

We do sometimes...depends on the circumstances

There was a school shooting near me in 2018. Student took two pistols from his parent's locked gun safe. They were not charged even though the safe key was easily accessible by the child.

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

We do sometimes...depends on the circumstances

There was a school shooting near me in 2018. Student took two pistols from his parent's locked gun safe. They were not charged even though the safe key was easily accessible by the child.

Buh, buh, buh 2A!!!! 

DE4173

Halifax2TheMax said:

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

James and Jennifer Crumbley
James and Lynda Trent
Peter Lanza
Antonios Pagourtzis

Edit: 

Not Antonios Pagourtzis; found not responsible civilly 

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

Other than the shooter, who was irresponsible?

Halifax2TheMax

DE4173 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

James and Jennifer Crumbley
James and Lynda Trent
Peter Lanza
Antonios Pagourtzis

How have they been held accountable?

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

Other than the shooter, who was irresponsible?

Of which do you refer?

DE4173

Halifax2TheMax said:

DE4173 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

James and Jennifer Crumbley
James and Lynda Trent
Peter Lanza
Antonios Pagourtzis

How have they been held accountable?

1. 10-15 years in prison
2. Pay damages (amount settled confidentially)
3. Settled out of court for undisclosed amounts)
4.Potential 20 year sentence; civil suits by victims' families.

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

wow these texts between the shooter and his roommate tell the whole story....he really thought he was going to get away with it

was more concerned about having to tell his dad that he lost the rifle

seems like a way to lose the case. releasing evidence to the public with no judicial review from defense objections ..

njhaley1

mickeyrat said:

Gern Blansten said:

wow these texts between the shooter and his roommate tell the whole story....he really thought he was going to get away with it

was more concerned about having to tell his dad that he lost the rifle

seems like a way to lose the case. releasing evidence to the public with no judicial review from defense objections ..

The legal system is broke, so it won't. But they'd absolutely love it if it did get tossed out. Extrajudicial public hangings would make a comeback. 

Halifax2TheMax

Halifax2TheMax said:

DE4173 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Why is it that we can’t hold “responsible” gun owners accountable?

James and Jennifer Crumbley
James and Lynda Trent
Peter Lanza
Antonios Pagourtzis

How have they been held accountable?

1. Great! It’s a start.
2. Couldn’t find info on these two. Link please.
3. Couldn’t find information on how he was held responsible but did see where the homeowner’s policy on the mother’s house paid out $1.5M.
4. Acquitted of civil liability in Tejas. It is Tejas so how is that holding them accountable?

Lerxst1992

DE4173 said:

I imagine team blue will be "cheering" against Patel today while team red "cheers" for him. 🤪

Patel was very professional in front of the senate.

something for all Americans to be proud of.

tbergs

Lerxst1992 said:

DE4173 said:

I imagine team blue will be "cheering" against Patel today while team red "cheers" for him. 🤪

Patel was very professional in front of the senate.

something for all Americans to be proud of.

Yes, the exchange between him and Schiff was a master class in civil discourse among public officials.

DE4173

Gotta get that soundbite to feed to your side! 🙄