[dfghjkl1]

I think when it becomes normal for 10% or more of the citizens of a country to say they wouldn’t be upset if some member of the opposing political party were to die or when it becomes normal for that portion of the people to make fun or celebrate the death of someone from an opposing party or their murderer, everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?” Because these people are not murderers or accomplices, and they are generally good people. These aren’t people that would lynch anyone or burn a cross in someone’s yard.

It’s awful that anyone dies.

Let’s not escalate this on either side. We don’t need another Hitler, and we don’t need a French Revolution either. We just need people that stop trying to outdo each other.

[bigyabai]

> everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?”

It's easy to get sucked into a learned helplessness doing this, though. We know exactly why it happens - Charlie Kirk explained it himself:

  "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense, [...] But I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

America means guns. It's written in our constitution, reinforced through our history, reflected in our multimedia franchises and sold to American citizens as a product. The only way out of this situation is through it - we can't declare a firearms ban in-media-res without inciting even more violence and dividing people further. At the same time, America cannot continue to sustain this loss of our politicians, schoolchildren and minority populations. The threat to democracy is real, exacerbated by the potential for further "emergency powers" abuse we're familiar with from both parties.

When people push for firearms control in America, this is the polemic they argue along. You can say they're justified or completely bonkers, but denying that these scenarios exist is the blueprint for erasing causality.

[agensaequivocum]

No it's not because of the guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe

[orwin]

To be clear: Hitler was not put in power by any election. Von Papen and Hindeberg, under advice from industry leaders, gave him power.

In fact, the Nazi party electoral results were down from the previous election. Both the socialist and communist party were up however, and so the men in power chose Hitler to change that. All of those were killed or politically neutered within 6 months, and honestly, they made their bed.

[flipwassal]

Do you know of whom they are speaking of when they say the 10%?

It could be liberals, conservatives, moderates, expats from Europe, etc.

I cannot believe that people think that violence is a good answer to anything.

I don’t upvote these recent killing of political figures or C-levels at companies that destroy people’s lives.

I sympathize with those that fight injustice and want the world changed for the better. But, there are often non-violent ways to do this.

[nobodywillobsrv]

No the empathy comment is about it being confused with naive sympathy.

Empathy means fully simulating the other person state of mind and world. Empathy is cognitive spend.

Love thy enemy is a short cut because human brains seem to be unable to think properly in anger. You need to simulate your enemy to understand their positions and seek deals.

[idiotsecant]

[flagged]

[NeutralCrane]

The French Revolution was such an abject failure that within a decade they abandoned their republic and willingly made Napoleon a dictator.

[dolmen]

However France has strict firearms control so the scale of violence is still in control and shooting political figures is not common nowadays.