you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 4 months ago (35 children)

Wasn't the "bigger" argument that it was trans people? And then there was news about the shooter allegedly having a trans partner (no idea if it was ever confirmed or not).

Almost makes it better honestly

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 96 points 4 months ago* (32 children)

    He was asked what portion of gun crimes were by trans people, and he retorted with "are we counting gang violence?"

    So he was losing an argument about trans people and was trying to shift to blaming black people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Charlie died the way he lived. Spewing bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Equating gang violence with black people is racist as shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Admittedly that dog whistle was an assumption I made. He didn't finish his thought.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    The point he was making is that the vast majority of violence in America takes place in gang warfare, and if you're not in a gang, it is far less of a personal concern than it might otherwise appear. I know this because it's a common one that these kind of people make all the time.

    It's a bad point because it basically implies that gang violence doesn't matter.

    E: downvotes for explanation, I guess?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Indeed. It's a common dogwhistle the conservative talking heads have entrenched in modern discourse. Obviously, white gangs exist, but the act of mentioning gang violence while talking to a predominantly young, white crowd will water the seed in their mind that the other is the problem.

    Take a look at any Fox News segment that covers gang violence. Guarantee any mugshots or arrest videos shown during such segments do not show ANY white detainees. It's deliberate. If they ever show a white person arrested, they will absolutely frame the segment differently, and won't utter that phrase.

    Since the "war on drugs" designed to target minorities is less effective now, they branched out to calling it the war on gang violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    He was asked what portion of gun crimes were by trans people, and he retorted with “are we counting gang violence?”

    All those trans gang members out there committing gun crimes! Why ... there's probably nearly half a dozen of them in the country!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Naw are you serious? Kirk was asked how many mass shootings occurred in the last 10 years and he responded briefly with counting or not counting gang violence bs.

    Regardless, what in the world made you feel the need to gaslight us about it being a trans specific question that preceded the shooting. Also total bullshit on your part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    In the run up to that question they were discussing trans mass shooters, then the questionnaire pivoted to mass shootings in general (to show that trans shooters are a tiny tiny minority) which Kirk then tried deflecting by asking about gang or non-gang related shootings.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Theoretically I'm sure some trans people are in gangs, especially given how v coding probably heavily pressures trans prisoners into prison gangs, but as someone who's known a ton of trans people I feel we're disproportionately likely not to be perpetrating gang violence all else being equal

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -67 points 4 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    I hope it upsets you that I got joy out of watching him die.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 4 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Because the world celebrated when that piece of shit died, and you're still here simping for him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    You're upset that people are happy someone who advocated to the death of trans people, who advocated for school shootings, and wanted more guns in America died to being shot in the neck. Sorry your Internet friend bled out in real time for everyone to see, but the world got a little bit better with his blood spilling out on that Utah concrete.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago

    "counting or not counting gang violence" *proceeds to lean left

    I mean I'm sure he'd be fine with that collateral damage but his whole "gang violence negates white mass shooters" was an argument he repeated often.

  • source
  • parent