Charlie Kirks wife forgives the killer

Don't you think you should question why you believe this? Especially when there is no evidence of it. I would be, if I were you.

I am not going to get into the why. I don’t know why.

I just want people to know that that’s the reality of American cities.

It’s not necessarily Dem-controlled cities in Blue states. Boston doesn’t have this kind of crime problem.

Jackson, Mississippi does.

haha. Robert Sampson is about 60, so I'm guessing not.

Whoa!

So, you think black people have a predisposition for violence? Do you have anything to back that claim up?

They use raw data. Do you have an issue with the numbers they use?

Better than some study done in the 1930s in Boston. (That’s the one you referred to?)

That is one guy crunching data. I am looking for peer reviewed studies that look at the nuances beyond the data. It's kind of critical.

There are no peer reviewed studies backing your claim that race is biggest factor behind crime. However, there are several backing mine that crime is down to socio economic factors.

If a view is very widely held then there is probably a good reason for that. It makes little sense to treat huge swathes of the population as "hateful" as many are treating Kirk.

If Kirk's views on gun ownership are hateful and mean we shouldn't mourn his death, then we shouldn't mourn the deaths of most of the victims of US gun violence, who also believed in gun ownership.

If his views on homosexuality are hateful and mean we shouldn't be sad about his death, then we shouldn't be sad about most of the deaths in Gaza, where homophobia is widespread.

This lays the case out nicely

inquisitivebird.xyz/p/race-economics-and-homicide

What rot. The troops were first sent to LA, because there were protests against Trump's policies. A judge later ruled the deployment illegal. Then they were sent to DC, despite DC's crime being on a long-term steady downward trend (except for a pandemic blip that was also coming down). DC is a safe city compared with the 1990s. Then Chicago was threatened. Chicago is a long way down the crime statistics. Far less violent than a long list of cities in red states. Oh yeah - and where do the guns used by criminals in Chicago come from? Neighbouring red states with looser gun laws.

I'm sure you do hear people speak about the UK in disparaging terms. My point was that for CK to use such language after being a guest in the UK was not polite. And to keep repeating 'the left do it too' is no justification in my eyes. I'm not responsible for the behaviour of those you label 'the left'. I'm not even sure who you're including for that matter. I'm talking about the manners of a man people keep singing the praises of as 'polite' when I don't think he was.

Can you back this up with facts rather than feelings?

I'll point you to the Sampson Harvard study. And others if you need it.

What can you point me toward?

Thanks for proving my point that we can improve safety without bans.

Yeah, I don’t believe you.

Hispanics and black Americans have similar poverty rates and educational attainment levels. Stop fooling yourself, just because you feel uncomfortable with those facts.

Vision Zero is very much a thing in the context of road traffic. Helsinki just went 12 months without a fatality. Kirk himself used traffic fatalities as a comparison for gun deaths (guns still kill more) but in Europe we don't consider traffic deaths to be "worth the cost" either. That's why the EU (which has a 25% greater population than the US) has less than half of the number of traffic fatalities, because the issue is taken seriously.

The point I was making was they needed armed guards on the streets because of the level of crime, not because it was some agenda because they had voted dem, the top 10 are all dem led, so it's not like they're avoiding republican led cities, there just isn't the same level of crime

You need to address socio economic divide first. That's the biggest factor.

(Just look it up, if you don't believe me).

@5128gapi think I agree he was arrogant, I thought your original post was about him being hateful which I might have confused with someone else- Personally, I think he was honest and blunt and expressed (and backed up) his opinions. I hear people (particularly on the left) talk about the UK in a disparaging way all the time.

That’s because they have the highest concentration of black people in the US.

It’s a very ugly truth, but don’t hide from it. You actually have to confront if you’ve any hope to stop it.

Didn't Kirk talk about trans shootings? What is the relevance of them?

This is only until 2020 so is going to leave out a lot of BLM violence and some of the trans school shootings.

I would question the viability of having a 'meaningful debate' about something that is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact anyway. You are asking me to provide you with evidence of something that cannot be proven, because whether a person is judged as courteous by another person is subjective, based on their own standards of manners. In that debate, CK failed to meet my standards. He may well have met yours. We have different standards, and that's OK.
(Though I assume we could agree that calling a country in which you have been a guest a 'totalitarian third world hell hole' not worthy of making fun of, depressing, chilling, and stating you wanted to kiss the ground on returning home from there, isn't behaviour one would typically associate with a courteous man?)
I don't believe saying a person is not courteous is 'a very strong feeling' at all. It was a casual observation that I considered the man arrogant and rude.

@MeTooOverHereI see what you’re saying, I’ve seen a few of those and with the added context you can argue either way - I’d probably see them different to you based on many factors. To take the first example - The pilot one was referring to positive discrimination and hiring for quotas. He said just after - “that’s not who I am. That’s not what I believe”. I think it’s difficult to take snippets like that out of context, but it’s more fruitful to actual explore the full idea and context.

I also understand your point about Jesus and what he would do, who he would stand with? I always used to say exactly the same as you. But then I thought, if Jesus came to the West and saw what opportunities and freedoms we have, would he be angry? Would he tell us to do better? There are many instances of rage and anger in the New Testament, and plenty more in the old. I don’t think our context today is the same as it was 2000 years ago - I think it might warrant a different response. Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.

Im agnostic btw if it makes any difference.

Almost all cities are Democrat-controlled so this proves nothing. Cities tend to have more crime than cornfields, given that you need two humans (an offender and a victim) to commit most crimes. The states with the highest homicide rates are (with the sole exception of New Mexico) all in the Bible Belt.

You know why you don't have a problem with tank violence in your country?

Because there isn't 400m tanks in your country.

True story.