Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: And that's important... why?
It might not have been, but many nefarious shootings have been done by transgendered people. Many people think the transitioning drugs are a culprit for such behavior, and lesser serious behaviors.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-17-2025).]
People on Democratic Underground are trying to claim he's a Republican, because both his parents are Republican.
From the background, it seems like he was a totally normal child, with good grades, and a decent upbringing.
It seems that once he went to college, he became radicalized to the left, and dropped out of college. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and not blame the college. I know that permanent mental illness (in males) can typically develop (manifest itself) at any point from the age of 16-25 ... so it's likely this happened, and he just fell prey to propaganda.
He had multiple pro-Antifa quotes written on his ammunition.
Admittedly, it's hard to know what the "full" truth is. But every news outlet seems to be saying the same things. Per his mother, he started changing his politics and attitudes when he left home and went to college. Then he got into a relationship with his roommate and his hate for Mr. Kirk and his political leanings developed. Is that the full story, most likely not. But, it does appear the "Authorities" have their suspect and a huge amount of evidence.
I am concerned that (regardless of where this trial is held) the defense will claim pre-trial publicity tainted any jury pool.
While mentioned previously, anyone else noticed the significant difference between other reactions and this one. The left goes nuts and riots, the right holds vigils and prays. Some claim there's a Civil War coming, while I do recognize there is a lot of civil discourse and views, even fair-minded Democrats are shocked by Mr. Kirk's murder. Unless the Left continues such crime sprees, there will not be a civil war but should this type of thing continue the eventually there will most likely be a reaction.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Chuck Schumer's words may come back to haunt him.
The difference is, we will do it at the ballot box, not in the streets.
I have no doubts that Conservatives and hopefully most Democrats will remember the reactions of those in Leadership positions. But as is true with all intellectual beings, there is a line that anyone can be pushed across. I find it interesting that so many disliked Dems are coming out with statements about how political voices should not be threaten "physically". They fully understand, they could be next.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-17-2025).]
I would suggest that his relationship was a complete contradiction as to how and what Mr. Kirk said and voiced his opinion, and Mr. Kirk had developed a huge following that was apparently growing even larger. A reaction of Silence the Voice and the Message will be Dead thought process. The diametrically opposing views and the suspect's hatred played a key role in why this crime was committed. I'm not qualified to analyze the suspect's mental health but, that seem logical to me.
IIRC correctly, an earlier murder was supposedly committed on a CEO of an Insurance Corp and the shooter's experience with Health Insurance drove his hate and that was why he shot the CEO in the back without remorse. Again, IIRC, the CEO deserved to die in the shooter's mind. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-17-2025).]
Originally posted by cliffw: ... but many nefarious shootings have been done by transgendered people.
You’re kidding, right? Because that is complete and utter bullshit.
Let’s break it down with actual facts - not Facebook memes, not right-wing fear pr0n, not whatever you half-read on Twitter.
First, let’s define "mass shooting" the way media usually do: any shooting where 4 or more people are shot, regardless of whether they die (and that's actually broadening the definition). This is the definition used by the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), one of the most comprehensive trackers of gun violence in the U.S1.
Between 2013 and mid-2025, the GVA recorded 5,748 mass shootings. Of those thousands of incidents, only five involved a shooter who was confirmed to be transgender or nonbinary1,4,5. That’s less than 0.1%. Not even one percent. Not even half a percent. Literally statistical noise. Even if we threw in every rumor, unconfirmed Reddit thread, and wild guess, we’re still talking maybe 10 cases total - and even that’s being absurdly generous. So at most: 0.2%.
By comparison, under the stricter FBI-style definition (4 or more killed), a dataset from 1966–2024 showed exactly one transgender shooter out of 201 cases. That’s 0.5%, in case you don't have your calculator at hand.
Now contrast that with reality: the overwhelming majority of mass shooters are cisgender men2,3. White ones, at that, in many of the deadliest cases. But somehow I don’t see anyone making sweeping generalizations about white cis men. Funny how that works, huh?
So no, transgender people are not "doing many nefarious shootings". That’s not just wrong - it’s laughably, embarrassingly, provably wrong.
In summary, transgender individuals account for a very, very small fraction of mass shooters in the U.S., far below their ~1% share of the general population.
Explain that motive to me. Because you could just as well say "both his parents were MAGA. It defines motive". So again, please explain that motive to me.
Oh, I see. When the data doesn’t support someone's fantasy, we’re moving the goalposts. Suddenly the problem isn’t the numbers, it’s the source. How convenient.
Yes, Gun Violence Archive is rated slightly left-leaning by a site whose entire job is labeling media bias. Slightly. Not radical. Not partisan. Not activist. Slightly.
And even if it were fully left-wing, what exactly is the argument here? That being "slightly left" magically inflates the number of transgender shooters by 1000% (and I don't mean Trump's definition of 1000%)? That facts become fiction when they don’t flatter someone's worldview?
Explain that motive to me. Because you could just as well say "both his parents were MAGA. It defines motive". So again, please explain that motive to me.
In US law, you have both the act of committing a crime, and you have motive for committing a crime.
The act of committing a crime, if proven with proper evidence, only makes you "guilty" of murder. Motive isn't important for a conviction, but it is important for establishing intent, which is often an important aspect for proving guilt and the "context" for which the actions occurred. There's an additional aspect to intent which identifies if it was pre-planned, or a heat of the moment kind of situation (which we know it was not). This is to further refine charges, such as murder in the 1st degree, murder in the 2nd degree, etc.
I don't think I've ever watched a Charlie Kirk video before he was shot, to be completely honest. I've heard people talk about him, but I had no idea who he was. He seemed to have a big following from young people, and also a lot of people from the left (for different reasons). On the left, they viewed a lot of what he said as being "anti-Trans." With the killer having a relationship with a trans person, it significantly reinforces the charge that he was motivated to kill Charlie Kirk because of his supposed views of trans people, and the killer's own love of a trans person.
Oh, I see. When the data doesn’t support someone's fantasy, we’re moving the goalposts. Suddenly the problem isn’t the numbers, it’s the source. How convenient.
Yes, Gun Violence Archive is rated slightly left-leaning by a site whose entire job is labeling media bias. Slightly. Not radical. Not partisan. Not activist. Slightly.
And even if it were fully left-wing, what exactly is the argument here? That being "slightly left" magically inflates the number of transgender shooters by 1000% (and I don't mean Trump's definition of 1000%)? That facts become fiction when they don’t flatter someone's worldview?
Not arguing, providing information. It appears to me that the rest of you are arguing.
