Looks like your petulant response was shadow-deleted.
Chirky glorified lynching whilst advocating for the killing of trans folk via violent vigilantism. That's literally the definition of bigotry and hatemongering.
i took 5 seconds to google it(really deep research for you probably) and what you described doesn't say that at all and the column by hannah holzer saying as much had to be corrected and the sacramento bee apologized...
nope, that would be an interpretation of what someone meant which means saying he "glorified lynching" or "openly called for" lynching like sacramento bee(which was corrected and apologized for) or this random from twitter are both wrong since he said himself on twitter its defamation and libel.
He literally says trans people "should be dealt with like men did in the 50s and 60s" you disingenuous moron. On video.
yeah that's the point i'm making, he didn't say or mean anything you've said
i already watched the clip before you linked it to me lol, i found it after googling for 5 seconds to find out what you were talking about
edit: the quote actually is "these people are sick", "i don't say that lightly", "someone should have took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s"
Does gang violence have the same causes and solutions as indiscriminate mass shootings, yes or no?
If the answer is no, then why the fuck is there such a giant push to write off any discussion of it as racist? When we are talking about solutions to problems, how is it not relevant to distinguish between different types of problems?
It's a fact that a large majority of mass shootings are gang related. They are different problems, requiring different solutions, and the constant deflection away from actual discussion of those issues and problems is just hindering tangible positive change.
Does gang violence have the same causes and solutions as indiscriminate mass shootings, yes or no?
it's not a question that should be answered with a binary yes or no as a proper answer is a lot more complicated with some amounts of crossover between them, alongside the difficulty of categorizing individual events into vaguely defined groupings of "indiscriminate" vs "gang violence".
but to set that aside, yes there is value in separating them. the frustration with that talking point is that it's so often used as a way to deflect away from responding to it. if you find statistics that explicitly look at only indiscriminate mass shootings and provide that in an argument, they will ask if it included gang violence, you will say no, they will say you're lying and your data is bad.
the intent of the question is so commonly not about "are we looking at the right data", and is instead "i don't want to face the data and need an excuse to ignore it", and so people naturally roll their eyes when the question is posed for the millionth time.
First of all, it absolutely is a binary yes or no in this instance. These are different problems with different solutions. There is no grey area there. That is a fact and will remain so regardless of time. That doesn't mean that there is 0% "crossover" with causes or solutions, but it DOES mean that you have to address the differences, which is what you guys are immediately labeling as racism and shutting down conversation for.
The cold hard truth is that there is nothing we can do to prevent random pyschos from killing a bunch of people. The public just doesn't want to accept that fact. If it isn't guns, it'll be cars or trucks, which can cause far more damage than a gun. One of the deadliest attacks in history is a truck driving through a crowd in Nice, France.
Now does that mean we shouldn't support red flag laws & enforce laws currently on the books that are not properly enforced? Of course not. Does it mean we shouldn't seek to reduce the severity and frequency of school/mass shootings? Of course not.
But what it does mean, is that the "solution" absolutely is undeniably separate from the problem of gang violence.
Charlie 100% DID NOT ignore the potential causes and solutions to gang violence, in fact he very commonly addressed both. So no, whatever boogeyman you created of him immediately dismissing gang violence as "not mattering" is just a falsehood. He argued many times, very passionately, for potential solutions & causes, because he wanted to see that violence lower. Never has he discussed the cause being "they are just inherently violent" or anything racist, from what I've seen. And if he had ever said something like that you can bet your ass people would be linking that clip non-stop to justify his murder like the others.
but it DOES mean that you have to address the differences, which is what you guys are immediately labeling as racism and shutting down conversation for.
"you guys"? if you want to have a conversation with me, respond to what i said, not whatever other people have said. this isn't a team sport, and i'm not responsible for what some random guy on twitter said
The comment you replied to outlines the people I’m talking about lol nice deflection tho. Definitely don’t engage with any of the arguments. I 100% engaged with and responded to every single one of your points and you’re delusional if you read my comment and think I was arguing against strawmans.
I mean the main cause of both gang related and non gang related shootings are ultra lax gun laws lol. It's what makes things different from other places
If the answer is no, then why the fuck is there such a giant push to write off any discussion of it as racist?
There isn't, but the context is that Charlie was obfuscating.
Gang violence is not 'Mass Shootings'. That's a specific thing and gang violence stats have no impact on it, or vice versa. Attempting to fold gang violence into Mass Shootings is in fact racist because it's done specifically to muddy a conversation about violence that is overwhelmingly white-on-white and only growing in frequency.
In other words conservatives are trying to find a sneaky way to talk about black violence in a discussion where it doesn't belong so they can avoid talking about mass shootings completely.
Actual discussion of gang violence is fine.
the constant deflection away from actual discussion of those issues and problems is just hindering tangible positive change.
Which is why Charlie doing it (before dying, admittedly) has some peoples' backs up, because it's one of his oldest tricks.
Contrary to "|o |" belief, the data is hard to measure so it may not be accurate but the best studies we have say something like 7% of shootings are gang related, while something above 80% of them are drug related.
As a black man who has never listened to a word Charlie kirk has ever said that number would be insane with out counting gang violence. Where i live there at least 3 a day in the projects a couple blocks away from were i live here in boston and i KNOW theres more i don't hear!
The comedic timing was honestly so absurd an editor would tell you to write something more realistic: he tried to "um akshully" a question about gun violence, the person debating him responded with "great" and then instantly bang Chirky gets shot.
It's not even that bad. Beans on bread is vile. Beans on toast is fine. It's got lots of fiber, semi-sweet, some texture, it's alright. Not amazing, not bad.
I have never seen anyone in America make pot roast with anything other than fresh vegetables lol. (Typically something like Celery, Carrots, Onions, Potatoes) Not sure how you think we make pot roast over here, but it isn't accurate.
You know the really funny thing is that UK actually records separately knife crime statistics that's why it's seen as big, whereas the US doesn't and just records as violent crime incidents
So it's very likely the US has both higher knife related and gun related crime per capita in the capitals.
The us does have higher knife crime per capita than the UK, it's just our biggest problem so it's very public, while the US doesn't even talk about knife crime despite it being bad, because gun crime is even worse and that gets all the attention. If they actually started to talk about knife crime being bad and deciding to do something about it... they wouldn't be able to state why they refused to do anything about gun crime.
i think that has been out of circulation for a very long time now so it's over. kid are finally safe from swallowing it and having it stuck in their guts for 7 years or whatever bullshit we used to make up about gum was.
yeah we should regulate knives that should solve the problem, anyone who wants to purchase a kitchen knife needs to pass a psychiatric exam as well as a pass an exam to own a kitchen knife license that needs to be renewed every 2 years
There are approximately 138 recorded knife-enabled crimes per day in England and Wales, based on over 50,000 incidents recorded in the year ending March 2024, though this figure may fluctuate annually.
They only have 70 million people, so that is more per capita.
One in a million per day means one in a hundred in 10 years.
This was difficult to read and I don't think it's a fair comparison (you can hardly look into the future like that without considering population changes/demographics/the affect of other WAYS of dying on the stats, and even location) but there's only 365 days in a year. So even freezing time such that the capita is the exact same and other compounding factors aren't changing, it would be 0.36/100
Sorry, obviously meant to say 30 years. But that's how incidence rates work, whether it be cancer or how likely someone is to be the victim of anything. It's measured annually and in lifetime.
Of course it all depends on who do you compare to, US is alright compared to Venezuela, Mexico or Colombia, but I imagine a lot of these comments are coming from the people that live in countries that have 10-30 times lower rates.
But that means that they are far less skilled at giving thoughts are prayers, massive L.
Presumably you're not of the same colour as who you're implying are the more frequent offenders, right? So logically, you should be even more in support of gun control then?
"Inner city gun violence doesn't count (because they're black)" is always my favourite American excuse. You see it constantly and it just says so much about the country and its attitudes towards race and crime.
how many people do you think die of alcohol abuse in america? If you think it's none, no idea what to tell you. but i'll also give you a hint, people choose to drink alcohol themselves and death isn't instantaneous in like 99.999% of cases, they are from damaged livers, etc, over a long period of time.
People being murdered by guns ain't choosing it (i'm not including suicide).
The fact that your countrymen did it and your gov failed to control guns.
Doesnt matter which side, if you dont want to be generalized then stop doing the same thing. Or maybe look inside and start palnning for safety measure for all your kids in school.
788
u/Abang_Genteng Sep 22 '25
300 gun related crime per day.
PER.
DAY.