Charlie Kirks wife forgives the killer

[strangerandstranger]

To people who said her husband was hateful and what they preached was hateful, she just forgave the killer, as God would. Powerful speech.

The messed up young man who thought shooting man he didn't like was the answer, will go to prison and no longer be with his boyfriend. Erika Kirk no longer has her husband and her children have list their father.

You can’t possibly believe poverty is the sole factor, can you?

That's not realistic, so rehabilitation should be uppermost in your mind.

As it should be in any civilised society.

I don't, no, and have never said as much. But, again, you are arguing with peer reviewed studies, not me.

Did you read the summary? Any thoughts?

It is not realistic to think you can rehabilitate violent men. It is more reasonable to keep them in prison.

There’s nothing to say you can’t try to improve outcomes for upcoming generations. You can actually do both, you know?

Why did you say solely economic reasons here then?

Pls link

I give up. You are very dogmatic and seemingly won't be budged by any amount of evidence that may contradict your feelings.

Let's agree to disagree. But I do hope you educate yourself via that Harvard study.

That's a mistype. Every other time I have referred to socio economic reasons. Refer to those posts if you need to.

I bet you thought you had me. 😁. I'm out. Enjoy your day.

Don't be so naive. The last time that the Republicans enacted protectionist tariffs on this scale it caused the Great Depression and ultimately triggered a world war. Businesses hate uncertainty and TACO has been changing his mind more often than he changes his underpants. The labour and housing markets have been drastically underperforming.

You do know that Biden issued over 4,000 pardons
No he didn't. He issued 80 pardons.

Trump pardoned 1,600 people in one day. Some of whom had very lengthy sentences. Not only that, he's just pardoned a number of wealthy fraudsters who will no longer have to recompense their victims. Apart from the fact that he would be behind bars himself if the Supreme Court wasn't heavily politicised - no other president in history has been granted immunity like this.

If you're not just saying that out of blind loyalty then you're just too stupid to recognise rhetoric from reality.

Crime was dropping in DC already, and it was far from the worst the city has seen in the last 30 years. It was a long way from the worst city in the US too.
www.npr.org/2025/08/19/nx-s1-5506208/dc-crime-trump-explained

You don't seriously think that having a bunch of troops with no law enforcement powers picking litter (and moving away whenever something might happen) made any difference to the crime rate? Meanwhile businesses suffered because tourists were scared off.

If he really cared about crime rates rather than intimidating his opponents, he'd start with Mississippi and Louisiana.

Still, maybe "assault by sandwich" offences are down...

You certainly don't need to amend the Constitution to do it. However you are not going to get a licencing system for as long as the GOP controls the House or the Senate. Nor would you get a revival of FAWA which was very effective at preventing the proliferation of the most lethal forms of firearm.

In the US these days, just about anyone short of Bush is "left-wing" by comparison with the GOP. So you're suggesting that all of these people (starting with the 75 million who voted for Harris) were in favour of attacking the funeral? That is what your sweeping statement implies.

Are you going to come up with some actual evidence? Or just Fox 'News' talking points? Because Fox have argued that they're not actually news and therefore have no obligation to be factual.

They didn’t need armed guards on the streets. There was no war going on in DC. The troops stuck to tourist areas rather than the places where there are actually problems. If there was any sign of trouble they kept well out of the way (literally moving out of sight) and let the actual law enforcement handle it because they knew that they had no law enforcement powers.

Once again, the most dangerous states are Louisiana and Mississippi. Why weren't the NG sent there? Oh yeah, they voted for Trump.

I never suggested an outright ban. No country in the world has an outright ban. What other countries do have however are very strict regulatory environments. You want to own a gun in Germany? Fill out the paperwork detailing your reasons why (hunting, range shooting etc; never 'self-defence') and come back after a cooling off period of a few months. You want to own a semi-automatic rifle in the UK? No chance, there's no reason for you to have one. You can have a hunting rifle, shotgun or air rifle if you pass the background checks and regular police spot checks on how you store them.

No chance the GOP would approve even one of those regulations.

Yes, that's what I said of course 😂 tens of millions of people turned up to protest the memorial 🙄.
The question was something like who is "the left" of which you speak.
I said anyone who claims they are left are left

We have background checks required by the federal government. Where are you getting this idea that America does not do this?

There are other factors, certainly. Racism by police officers for a start - black people in the US get treated far differently, regardless of whether they've even done anything wrong. Far more likely to be pulled over for no reason, far more likely to be shot, in some cases by police who raided the wrong house. Not that police forces in the US have a great reputation for competence in general - like the officer who fired off a load of rounds at random when an acorn landed on his car. Should send American officers to the UK for training, "death by cop" in the UK is incredibly rare and almost all cases where lethal force was used were where the deceased genuinely did pose a threat to life.

You used "the left" to tar everyone with the same brush. No one in the mainstream uses "the right" in the same way.

I guess with guns that even if people have the correct background checks and legally own a firearm, that person can still shoot an 11yo child in the back who was running away after ringing his doorbell.

That country is off the charts crazy if they still fail to see guns as an issue after that!

Background checks don't cover private sales, and 'private sales' can include traders at gun shows. And is anyone checking afterwards? Is there a register of who owns what gun and regular visits by the police to check that they are still at their registered address and stored safely? Nope, thought not.

Washington DC is federally administered so it makes sense they’d start there. But I wouldn’t mind if he did send troops to red cities in red states. Is this your argument?

Also, it’s still really bad: ‘The city's homicide rate in 2024 was roughly around 25 per 100,000 residents — nearly twice the rate in 2012, when it was 13.9 per 100,000 residents, according to an NPR analysis of FBI data’

I would rather compare it to the early 2010s rather than the 1990s, wouldn’t you? This is in living memory, while the early 1990s only to older generations …

Firstly, I did not, someone asked who are "the left" I said anyone can self identify as "the left"
I also didn't make any sweeping statements about "the left" could you show me where I did.
And also the mainstream media, and people on here do refer to "the right" with no nuance at all lol

Crime peaked as a result of the pandemic. It has been on a steady downward trend since. Sending a bunch of troops to pick litter in the safest parts of town does nothing to change that.

By the way, there were federal schemes in place to tackle the root causes of violent crime in the worst neighbourhoods of many cities. Guess whose executive order cancelled the funding?

Many states have closed these loopholes—but since they aren’t a business but individuals who sell their own stuff it is a bit harder to police. But we absolutely should tbh.