601
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
601 points (98.7% liked)
Michigan
1573 readers
4 users here now
Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam in braccas mea vide
🫴
✋
Banner photos credits
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Was his motive political? His being a Trump supporter could be related to the shooting, but it doesn't have to be.
I think the point is that whether or not the shooting was politically motivated, it's rarely rabid democrats carrying out these shootings. The right seems more prone to gun violence.
Historically I agree, but there has definitely been more shooters lately who can only be from the left. Regardless, most of the shooters are disturbed people foremost, and political motivation doesn't seem to be the main reason for their actions. Charlie Kirk was probably the most political, and after that it gets less so.
Has there? Definitely?
Do you have a source?
They do not. Whenever i ask occam for a source, all i get in response is crickets and an odd tumbleweed.
Scrolling down to see occams response and find this 😄
Lemmy is awesome because of the lack of users, their user name is familiar enough and I rarely see a rebuttal from them. I was interested to see how they would back this one up
I guess as much as you can definitely say that any of them are from the right. It's always more complicated than simple political motivation.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-data-shows
Yes, and as your article notes, left wing violence is definitely a thing. If it's on the rise as I was saying, then it should be concerning to everyone. Not to say that right wing violence isn't also concerning, but the rise in left wing violence, and even more so the celebration from the left of the Charlie Kirk killing, should be very concerning because it seems to indicate more mainstream left wing acceptance of violence. I'm not speaking for anyone else, but that's what bothers me.
It looked like you were saying that there are more left wing shooters than right wing shooters. I realize now that you're saying there are more left wing shooters than there used to be.
It seems to me that left wing violence tends to target the people on the right who promote violence while right wing violence tends to target innocent people whom the right has deemed unworthy of life.
If you want to reduce left wing violence, eliminate the right wing violence.
I'm less concerned about a rise in left wing violence than I am about the increasing reality that unless the left wing embrace violence, we'll all be killed.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, the increasingly mainstream justification of violence against political opposition. You think right wing extremists don't read comments like yours as a threat and reach the exact same conclusion/ justification? Violence begets violence.
The problem with your argument is the right wing doesn't care if there's a threat or not. If there is no threat, they'll make one up.
If you want to end political violence, you have to start with the people driving it, and that isn't the left in the US by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you referring to the establishment left (democrats) or to the extreme left? Because the extreme left is very much calling for violence.
Edit: you just called for violence yourself, under the pretext that otherwise the right will kill you first. How is that any different?
I didn't actually call for violence. I expressed a concern that it may be an inevitable consequence of the right's insistence on violence.
And now you're adjusting your argument to refer to the extreme left. However, you don't have to look past the establishment right (Republicans) to find examples of stochastic terrorism.
If they are stochastic terrorists then you are as well.
You are not arguing in good faith.
The only person I would consider to be on the "left" would likely be Luigi (allegedly). And his (alleged) attack wasn't political, it was economic/corporatism...which could be argued is basically political in the current climate.
But every other act in the last few years has been from a confirmed conservative.
Get your head on straight.
You would consider the two trans school shooters conservative? Also the Charlie Kirk shooter?
School shooters are children who aren't old enough to even have a political leaning. They have a whole different variety of motivations.
But yes, the Kirk shooter was a republican from a republican family. That's not an opinion, its fact. You can try to "leftify" it as much as you want.
As right wingers like to say, facts don't give a shit about your feelings.
He was from a right wing family, but everything else indicates that he was not a right winger.
Also, the school shooters I referred to where not children.
I swear to God people need to stop blaming the left for violence. Meanwhile people on the right are cheering on political violence all the while the left is denouncing it. This is about the biggest pile of shit ever.
Come on, acting like people weren't cheering about Charlie Kirk
Just like they cheered on 9/11!? Man this garbage old rehashed propaganda is just a sad now as it was back then.
Who the fk cares man, his killer was a right wing nut job, who killed charlie cuz he wasn't right wing enough. Dude got killed by the same camp of people making new shooters every day through stochastic terrorism, and ironically, he got got by the very same tactics he was actively engaging in.
Frankly charly deserves a darwin award.
That conspiracy ran it's course in the first few hours. How are you still believing that
Their argument is that the left is inciting and commiting all the violence. The act doesnt have to be political. Thats not the current state of affairs
No political party has a monopoly on violence, politically motivated or otherwise. But since it can be effectively used to demonize the opposition, it is.
You don’t understand! The left forces the right to commit mass shootings to defend ourselves!
Statistic-wise, the Republicans have a near monopoly, actually. Something like about one quarter Muslim, nearly three quarters Right-Wing, and a slice of three or so percent Leftist.
Republican is not the same thing as right wing by a long shot. I'm assuming you unintentionally conflated republican with right wing extremist, but that confusion illustrates how the statistics can be misleading or represented in different ways depending on what story you want to tell.
In international political comparison, Republicans are right wing extremists. US Democrats are other countries equivalent of conservatives.
I guess if you aren't able to tell the difference between Republicans, libertarians, accelerationists, neonazis, etc then I'm not going to waste energy on you.
The differences are smaller than you obviously think.
Not in the context of this conversation they aren't.
Fair question, but that only matters for a terrorism charge. The administration has been trying to make the left out to be violent terrorists. They removed the DOJ webpage that showed right-wing violence was the worst, by a long shot. This is not helping their case.