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.
Trump is a Hitler, and so was Charlie ! ' It is so true ! Jimmy Kimmel said so ! They are fascists ! ' ' Actors in Hollywood said so too ! It is so true ! ' [URL=https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/09/19/report-charlie-kirks-alleged-assassin-involved-in-furry-**** -video-games-depictions-of-pedophilia/]Surprise ! Turns out Tyler was into pedophilia, which made him nuts.[/URL] So, It's true then, the boyfriend was involved in the plot to murder Charlie and must be indicted too. No doubt LE will take away his furry fox tail anal plug, a 4", ' You can't take that into the prison system, a potential weapon ! '
[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 09-21-2025).]
More terrorism from the left. Killing the man is not enough. They also had to use threats of violence to take his memorial tribute off the air. Charlie Kirk tribute scrapped by Sinclair after local TV giant got threats against its ABC stations
More terrorism from the left. Killing the man is not enough. They also had to use threats of violence to take his memorial tribute off the air. Charlie Kirk tribute scrapped by Sinclair after local TV giant got threats against its ABC stations
Well, there's always the viewing population to consider for any station. But, in numbers, I would advise the left to not let their asses override their common sense. They are out numbered by a considerable margin. IOWs, don't start something you can't finish.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: You’re kidding, right? Because that is complete and utter bullshit.
Why would I kid ? Are you kidding me ?
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Let’s break it down with actual facts - not Facebook memes, not right-wing fear pr0n, not whatever you half-read on Twitter.
Okay, let's break it down with actual facts.
I don't do FaceSpace, nor twatter, nor right-ring prOrn. I have a varied news menu.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: First, let’s define "mass shooting"....
Why ? Did I mention mass shooting? No. I did not. Buts lets go along for discussion.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: 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%.
Interesting thing about percentages (%), , If my net worth was only one peney, and then I found another on the sidewalk, I would have a 200% net worth.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: 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.
Well, I do compliment your listing of citations. However, when did transgender even become a point of study ?
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: .... 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?
No. Not funny at all. No deadly shootings are funny, nor are the percentages of who shot who.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: So no, transgender people are not "doing many nefarious shootings". That’s not just wrong - it’s laughably, embarrassingly, provably wrong.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: ]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.
Let's go back to percentages. What is the percent of the, less than one percent the transgendered population, doing transitioning drugs, have been involved in nefarious shootings ? Mass shootings ?
Only made it through the first page, so pardon me if this was missed.
I saw Todd mention he went to the underbelly of leftist society for some online comments that he found reprehensible.
Meanwhile… above that same comment…
quote
Originally posted by Valkrie9:
Compile a list of the top twenty Dempartie_Nazi_Hamas_Communists, we shall assassinate them right back, retaliation, twenty to one, totally fair. ' Making right what was left, their sycophants moaning how unfair and terrible war is. Are we at war with the left ? Like, duh.. I'll start, Chuck Schumer, Kamala, Newsom, Adam Schiff, Bernie Sanders, Tim Kaine, Hillary, et al. You know, you know, all the zombies, delirious on drugs, repeating communist slogans without thought. A civil war to purge the left from America, starting with all the Marxists in academia, rounding them up, railing them to Cochise, AZ, the Ellis Island Zones. Millions of illegals, detainees, tents for miles, the blaring air siren waking them at 5am, ' Everyone get up ! Time to work ! ' A gulag, to make Americans from the yearning masses, desperate to escape the communist nations of their origins. ' If you can pass the entrance exams, you can come in ! ' Three weeks to filter the commies from the Zone, sent their way south, fifty miles to Mexico. ' Via con Dios, pendejos ' a bottle of water as a humanitarian gesture. ' The exit is that way ! Move along. ' You may call it intolerance if you like, won't matter at all, their bleating ignored as the grovelling it is. America for Americans, the Constitutional Republic free, the unbelievers, the blasphemers sent their way to their fates, far to the south, Venezuela like. It's Communist in Caracas ! They will love it there, I'm sure. Cuba is lovely, this time of year, ' Havana, here I come ! '
quote
Originally posted by Valkrie9:
.
Shall we begin purging the Dempartie_Nazi_Hamas_Communists from America ? Start this week ? How many of you will put you and yours on the line as Charlie did ? How many of you know of sympathizers of foreign philosophy ? Enumerate them, they number in the millions, create a database, a list of those to be deported or liquidated, depending on their crimes. Communist ? There's the exit, begone or be ended, a simple decision, ' You have five minutes, starting now. ' Murderer ? Ixnay with the pleading aye, You're done for, better start running for the exit, ' You have three minutes. ' Think of it as a National enema, flushing the nasties from the body politic. Certainly, you feel better, now knowing Rosie has split, that turd a stinker. Begin compiling a database today, we shall integrate, amalgamate, concatenate the thousands you post, creating a noc list available to all who wish to participate in the conflict, the civil war, different than the 1917 communist murder spree in Russia, their political opposition unarmed, so very convenient as they took power by hun barrel. You see, America is saturated with Counter Constitutionals, gotta scrape them off, like after a walk on the sidewalks of 'Frisco. ' You're soiling our Nation. ' Demonizing the dempartie is perfectly reasonable, the demon who assassinated Charlie one of them. A paid assassin, a professional hit, may already be out of the country, by private jet charter. The Day of the Jackal '73 TFK, a Trained _ucking Killer. Fire and sword, only what the demons understand.
You all here in this forum ignore your own while denigrating the “other.” This has been a thing for years, maybe decades at this point. You literally have someone here calling for political assassinations, which I’ve quoted, and you ignore it. But it’s the Democrats on some other forum that are a problem. Lol.
Kirk’s shooter was a lefty loon. Everyone I come across in real life says this without pause. Online, about 90% do, and 10% won’t admit it, but whatever, there are a lot of dumbasses out there.
The right has also had some loons. Literally, look at what I quoted. They’ve also carried out political assassinations. If you count number of victims by perpetrator politics, the right has committed more political killings. It’s not a contest, just a fact.
You can’t see how the leadership of this country has contributed to the divisiveness? Give me a break. Trump has never wanted unity. He’s openly spoken the opposite, in fact. Unity, mental health support, and gun control would help resolve these issues. I don’t want gun control, mind you, but it’s a fact that it’s effective (look at Australia). So if we don’t want gun control, like I don’t, at bare minimum maybe work towards some unity. It starts from the top. Our last president understood that.
You didn't say "mass shooting"? Cute. You made a sweeping claim about "many nefarious shootings" by transgender people, with no evidence, no definition, no numbers. When I respond with hard data on the most tracked, relevant kind of "nefarious shooting" - mass shootings - you suddenly get coy and pretend this is all a big misunderstanding over terminology. You got fact-checked, and now you're trying to crawl out of it by arguing over wording. Weak.
Your "penny" analogy is laughable. We're dealing with percentages across thousands of shootings, not playground math. And your flailing about when "transgender became a point of study" is a clumsy attempt to cast doubt where no doubt exists. The point isn't when we started keeping stats. It's that the stats exist now, and they obliterate your claim.
Then you reach peak desperation by shifting the argument to "how many transgender people on transition meds commit shootings?". Seriously? That's a sleazy bait-and-switch, and you know it. Nobody was talking about prescription history - we were talking about confirmed shooters, because that's what your original post implied: that transgender people are disproportionately violent. Which, again, is complete and utter nonsense.
And while you're throwing around nonsense like "transition meds" - do you even know what those are? Because aside from testosterone for trans men, estrogen or androgen blockers for trans women, and maybe some basic post-op painkillers, there's no such thing as a magic category called "transition meds". That term doesn't exist in medicine. What does exist are common, well-understood medications prescribed for a wide range of conditions - not just for transgender people. You're parroting buzzwords you don't even understand. These drugs are not "trans-only". They're not obscure. They're not dangerous. And unless you want to accuse tens of millions of non-trans patients of being secret threats too, your entire argument collapses under its own ignorance.
Your argument boils down to this: you threw out a transphobic dog-whistle, got called on it, and now you're flailing around trying to salvage a narrative that's completely detached from reality.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Your argument boils down to this: you threw out a transphobic dog-whistle, got called on it, and now you're flailing around trying to salvage a narrative that's completely detached from reality.
I did not throw out a transphobic dog-whistle. I am not anti transphobic, nor anti gay. My Sister is gay and has a gay partner, one of many over the many years.
You asked a question.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
... they've already confirmed he was in a romantic relationship with a trans boy
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: And that's important... why?
I merely answered what I have heard. I did not fact check because I don't care if they are transgendered, gay, have face tattoos, listen to what ever music is not my style.
