No matter how you spin whatever topic you are trying to gain political points on, when the spin contradicts reality and logic then you have to ignore it. First off, in the UK, knife violence is a significant problem. It doesn't matter that they have no access to guns, they still violently hurt people.

Second and most importantly, this has nothing to do with gun violence. This has to do with someone making the conscience decision to kill someone else. The tool they use means VERY little when there are a LOT of ways to kill someone if someone so chooses. Making this about gun rights only serves to blame the victim and not the criminal. Liberals go nuts when someone says, "She was asking for it" when it comes to rape. Because blaming the victim and not the criminal is very wrong. By saying that a shooting is because, "The person had the right to carry a gun" is no different. The criminal is the one who made the decision to do something bad. You DR lib kids are defending the criminal because you don't like what tool they used to commit the crime. That statement alone means your rhetoric is no better than Kirk. One could logically and rightfully say you support anarchy and all of the violence and death that comes with supporting criminals. Thus, the whole "Kirk supported tyranny and violence" is also what you are doing.

It all boils down to the fact that both sides can blame the other for supporting violence and/or destruction if you spin the information. WHICH IS WHY VIOLENCE AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE WITH A DIFFERENT IDEOLOGY THAN YOU IS WRONG 100%. Very, VERY few politicians in America actually support violence against anyone; they support causes they believe in for the betterment of living in a society. Just because you don't agree doesn't make that person tyrannical, inciting violence, etc. And it definitely doesn't give EITHER side the right to support assassination. But both sides go to the extreme to try to get political points and it's disgusting. A Rep saying they don't want laws that cater to a specific demographic like trans people is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR different than someone saying they want violence against trans people.

A Dem saying they support immigration so people can get away from oppression is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR different than someone saying they are happy immigrants are killing, raping, etc. American citizens. And these are just two example of the extremes both sides go to to try to justify when violence occurs that meets their ideology. And, whether you choose to ignore this or not because I've cited it multiple times, but multiple prominent Dems are on record supporting and encouraging the BLM riots that caused destruction of local businesses and even harmed many people, including several deaths. So, based on how many liberals have responded to Kirk's death, Dems MUST agree that it is OK to kill those Dems because they supported violence and destruction.

The extremists on both sides feel violence is necessary when someone has a different ideology than you. Which is why we are now no better than ME countries ruled by religion who continue to kill each other because "My religion is right and yours is wrong", but in America it's, "My party is right and yours is wrong."

So freaking pathetic. And what's more pathetic are the people in those parties who don't bring down the strongest penalties for acting that way when they do. Instead, they try to justify it to avoid their party looking bad.