Take a stand on political violence

[Bradskii]

Timeline of America's political violence dating back to 2011​

From here: MSN

If you think that ALL political violence is wrong, whichever side of the political fence you are, then just say so. Don't pick and choose. Don't comment on individual examples. Don't rate them or excuse them. Don't blame any one person or group. Just say that it's wrong. Please let's all get on the same page.

Jan. 8, 2011-- 6 killed, 13 others including then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wounded in Tucson shooting​

Six people were killed and 13 others wounded, including then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, during a constituent meeting outside a grocery store in Tucson, Arizona. Giffords, a Democrat, was shot in the head at point-blank range, critically injuring her, before the shooter unleashed a spray of bullets. Giffords survived the shooting.

June 14, 2017 -- Rep. Steve Scalise shot during congressional baseball game practice​

Four people were shot -- including then-House majority whip and Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise -- when a gunman opened fire on Republicans practicing for a congressional baseball game at Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, Virginia.

Oct. 8, 2020 -- 13 men arrested for plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer​

Thirteen members of a militia group were arrested and charged for planning to storm the Michigan statehouse, kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and start a civil war.

Jan. 6, 2021 -- January 6 attack on the US Capitol, pipe bombs at RNC and DNC​

A mob of pro-Trump protestors stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers met to ratify the results of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021.

Feb. 14, 2022 -- Kentucky mayoral candidate targeted in attempted shooting​

While running for office, Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg was the target of an attempted shooting at his campaign headquarters. No one was injured in the incident.

Oct. 28, 2022 -- Paul Pelosi attacked with hammer in his home​

Former Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, was attacked with a hammer in their San Francisco home. David DePape was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in a state trial over the attack. He had broken into the Pelosi home seeking to hold the then-speaker hostage.

Dec. 4, 2023 to Jan. 3, 2024 -- New Mexico state legislature candidate orchestrates shootings, murder for hire​

A New Mexico man who ran for the state legislature as a Republican and lost his bid is serving an 80 year prison sentence for allegedly orchestrating attacks at the homes of four Democratic lawmakers. No one was injured in his attempts.

June 13, 2024 -- 1st attempted assassination of Donald Trump​

Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, after a gunman opened fire from the roof of a nearby building.

Sept. 15, 2024 -- 2nd attempted assassination of Donald Trump​

Trump faced a second assassination attempt at the Trump International Gold Club in West Palm Beach, Florida. Prosecutors said suspect Ryan Wesley Routh allegedly put together a plan, including purchasing a military-grade weapon, researching Trump's movements and using a dozen burner phones in an alleged attempt to kill Trump based on political grievances.

Oct. 6, 2024 -- Kamala Harris campaign office in Arizona shot at 3 times in a month​

An office shared by then-Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign and the Democratic Party in Tempe, Arizona, was damaged by gunfire three times in less than a month, according to police.

Dec. 4, 2024 -- Murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson​

UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson died after being shot multiple times at point-blank range by a gunman outside a Manhattan hotel, according to police. The shooter appeared to have been lying in wait at the hotel where he shot Thompson, authorities said.

April 13, 2025 -- Arson at Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's residence​

A mechanic who has expressed disdain for Democrats on social media was arrested for starting a fire at Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's residence.

May 21, 2025 -- Killing of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C.​

Two Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed while exiting an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C.

June 1, 2025 -- 13 people injured in Colorado firebombing attack, 1 later dies​

A man threw Molotov cocktails during a pro-Israel demonstration in Boulder, Colorado, injuring 13, authorities said. One person later died of their injuries.

June 14, 2025
-- Minnesota lawmaker shootings​

A masked gunman disguised as a police officer shot and killed Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark in their home, Gov. Tim Walz said.

Aug. 8, 2025 -- Shooting at CDC headquarters​

A police officer was killed when a gunman opened fire near the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters and the Emory University campus in Atlanta, authorities said. Suspect Patrick Joseph White had blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him sick and depressed, according to law enforcement. He had increasingly focused on the vaccine as a source of his grievances, they noted. He was found dead after the shooting, officials said.

Sept. 10, 2025 -- Shooting of Charlie Kirk​

Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth activist organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday. President Donald Trump confirmed Kirk’s death on social media.

 

[Yttrium]

That's easy for me, since I have no strong political biases. In my view, for the most part people who commit political violence are just people who are looking to commit violence and searching for a reason. And as for the rest, well, as Isaac Asimov said, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Whatever situation you're trying to solve with violently attacking political opponents, you're just going to make things worse.

Neither side is more prone to violence than the other. People will be people on any side, and people can be stupid at times.

 

[rambot]

Neither side is more prone to violence than the other. People will be people on any side, and people can be stupid at times.

Not sure whether a side is more prone to violence but the right has demonstrably been .more violent over the last 15 years or so when it comes to political violence.

 

[Richard T]

Perhaps we should go back to allowing duels like we did in early U.S. history? It would make public discourse far less hostile. The History of Dueling in America | American Experience | PBS

 

[Tuur]

Perhaps we should go back to allowing duels like we did in early U.S. history? It would make public discourse far less hostile. The History of Dueling in America | American Experience | PBS

Duels were tolerated in some aspects of society but were never allowed. This is why Hamilton and Burr chose a particular site for their duel - they thought it would be in a legal jurisdiction that would look the other way. It didn't, and Burr had to go on the run. It's why the Vidalia Sand Bar Fight happened on a sandbar in the Mississippi with what the participants hoped was a gray area legal-wise. If you killed someone in a duel, you were liable for murder. As simple as that. It's why some accounts of duels are muddy: made prosecutions difficult.

 

[PloverWing]

If you think that ALL political violence is wrong, whichever side of the political fence you are, then just say so. Don't pick and choose. Don't comment on individual examples. Don't rate them or excuse them. Don't blame any one person or group. Just say that it's wrong. Please let's all get on the same page.

All of these acts of violence you've listed are inexcusable. Whether the target is my political ally or my political opponent or the mayor of some city I've never been to, assassinations and kidnapping and assault are terribly, terribly wrong.

 

[Desk trauma]

Perhaps we should go back to allowing duels like we did in early U.S. history? It would make public discourse far less hostile. The History of Dueling in America | American Experience | PBS

Mutual, non lethal, combat can be arranged legally.

 

[Richard T]

Mutual, non lethal, combat can be arranged legally.

That's a good alternative but I think those that are elderly might want to opt for the pistols unless they are in really good shape.

 

[Desk trauma]

That's a good alternative but I think those that are elderly might want to opt for the pistols unless they are in really good shape.

I don’t believe any of the gerontocracy are willing to take that kind of risk.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Does the Brian Thompson killing count as political violence?

 

[Belk]

That's a good alternative but I think those that are elderly might want to opt for the pistols unless they are in really good shape.

Paintball pistols.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I assumed it would be a no-brainer that everyone living in a democratic society should be blanketly rejecting political violence.

...but I think there need to be conversations that delve deeper that both A) clearly define what political violence is (and isn't), and B) addresses the catalysts and mindsets that drive future political violence.

Saying "we should reject political violence" is one of those things that rings kind of hollow if just merely expressed as a broad platitude. It's like saying "please drink responsibly", unless there are some tangible quantifiers associated with that, it's somewhat meaningless if everyone gets to have their own definition of what constitutes it.


When you look at some of the polling about this topic, what's rather interesting is that the largest gaps appear to be drown, not down political, racial, or economic lines, but rather, generational lines.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Citizen-Data_Stockbridge.pdf

The Boomers and Gen-X'ers seem to be less inclined to think it's acceptable (regardless of pollical affiliation)

The reason why I mentioned that there needs to be some clearly defined standards for what is (and isn't) political violence, is because when you have the younger generations thinking "political speech is violence" and "silence is violence", that can create warped mindset about when a violent response is justified.

For example, if someone corners me in a dark alley with a butcher knife, and I pull a gun on them, that's an act of violence on my part, but it's an acceptable one because it's clearly self-defense. (as where if I just randomly pointed a gun at a person in a park for playing their music too loud, that would not be acceptable, despite it being the same physical act by me).

If people reach the conclusion that a person disagreeing with them politically, or even merely remaining silent and declining to openly support them, represents just as big a threat as someone cornering them in an alley with a butcher knife. They're going to give the "cornered by a butcher knife" reaction to that, and be committing offensive violence, under the false impression that what they're actually doing is a defensive action.


In a more broad sense, it's also concerning because it means that the younger generations don't feel like democracy is going to solve the issues they think need solving, so they're more willing to entertain "other mechanisms" for achieving political ends.

Many Gen Z Americans are skeptical of democracy, More in Common study finds | The Democracy Group

The report explores the question, “Is Gen Z giving up on democracy?”

www.democracygroup.org

 

[7thKeeper]

Considering that I remember the Giffords shooting when it happened and reading about it here, time does fly. And yes, naturally against it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In addition to my previous post, I'll toss a curveball in the mix...

I think if we want people to take political violence seriously, and fully understand the gravity of what it entails, people should be encouraged to watch the footage of the incidents where it occurs regardless of their comfort level with seeing that kind of content.

"Reading about it" and "Actually seeing it" are two totally different things.

We've all read about the Salem Witch trials, and read about women being burned and people being "pressed" in order to get them to confess, but actually seeing it happen would have a very different effect on people.


In this most recent incident involving Kirk, there have been so many people who I've seen say "I'm avoiding the video", or "I refuse to watch it, I don't think I have the stomach for it".

Words on paper describing it doesn't "sink in" as much as actually seeing it (no matter how good the author of a piece is)

Actually seeing it is what will make people take the problem more seriously.


"But people may be scarred, and deeply disturbed, and not be able to eat or sleep for a few days and have nightmares if they see something that horrific" -- Good, that's the appropriate response, that means they'll take the problem seriously and not shrug it off when they hear rhetoric that could lead to it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

In addition to my previous post, I'll toss a curveball in the mix...

I think if we want people to take political violence seriously, and fully understand the gravity of what it entails, people should be encouraged to watch the footage of the incidents where it occurs regardless of their comfort level with seeing that kind of content.

"Reading about it" and "Actually seeing it" are two totally different things.

We've all read about the Salem Witch trials, and read about women being burned and people being "pressed" in order to get them to confess, but actually seeing it happen would have a very different effect on people.


In this most recent incident involving Kirk, there have been so many people who I've seen say "I'm avoiding the video", or "I refuse to watch it, I don't think I have the stomach for it".

Words on paper describing it doesn't "sink in" as much as actually seeing it (no matter how good the author of a piece is)

Actually seeing it is what will make people take the problem more seriously.


"But people may be scarred, and deeply disturbed, and not be able to eat or sleep for a few days and have nightmares if they see something that horrific" -- Good, that's the appropriate response, that means they'll take the problem seriously and not shrug it off when they hear rhetoric that could lead to it.

As a consumer of industrial accident videos and NTSB crash reports… you might be on to something. Maybe our next big PSA campaign should be a MADD-like group getting everybody to read WatchPeopleDie.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As a consumer of industrial accident videos and NTSB crash reports… you might be on to something. Maybe our next big PSA campaign should be a MADD-like group

I still recall back in my high school wood shop class, our teacher showed us one of those more "graphic" safety in the shop video that showed aftermath of actual shop incidents. I doubt they're still allowed to do that now -- someone probably complained.
(I remember seeing similar videos in Drivers Ed, where it showed people getting pulled out cars by paramedics... it was called "Red Pavement" or something to that effect)

It was gross, and I wasn't super hungry that lunch period after seeing it... but it did make me more careful and "aware" when I was using the table saw.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I still recall back in my high school wood shop class, our teacher showed us one of those more "graphic" safety in the shop video that showed aftermath of actual shop incidents. I doubt they're still allowed to do that now -- someone probably complained.
(I remember seeing similar videos in Drivers Ed, where it showed people getting pulled out cars by paramedics... it was called "Red Pavement" or something to that effect)

It was gross, and I wasn't super hungry that lunch period after seeing it... but it did make me more careful and "aware" when I was using the table saw.

Our shop/Drivers Ed teacher wouldn't show us those films. (come to think of it, it was the peak of slasher horror...)

 

[iluvatar5150]

I still recall back in my high school wood shop class, our teacher showed us one of those more "graphic" safety in the shop video that showed aftermath of actual shop incidents. I doubt they're still allowed to do that now -- someone probably complained.
(I remember seeing similar videos in Drivers Ed, where it showed people getting pulled out cars by paramedics... it was called "Red Pavement" or something to that effect)

It was gross, and I wasn't super hungry that lunch period after seeing it... but it did make me more careful and "aware" when I was using the table saw.

I don’t have any interest in ever going near a lathe because of The Video.

if you know, you know.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually seeing it is what will make people take the problem more seriously.

Exactly right. I've seen the full footage and when you see something like that that you know isn't cgi or set up for a scene in a film then it is very confronting indeed.

Get people who think that a few deaths are the price that you must pay to protect the 2nd ammendment to watch it. Then ask them if a 5 year old kid getting shot the same way is a reasonable price.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Exactly right. I've seen the full footage and when you see something like that that you know isn't cgi or set up for a scene in a film then it is very confronting indeed.

Get people who think that a few deaths are the price that you must pay to protect the 2nd ammendment to watch it. Then ask them if a 5 year old kid getting shot the same way is a reasonable price.

It'd likely be a mixed bag. Based on an evaluation of "horrible thing happening" vs. utility.

It would most certainly make people think more seriously about universal background checks and some of the common sense measures.


Like with the "red pavement" and wood shop "don't let this happen to you" videos, there's a calculus involved.

Cars and power tools do serve a purpose (and a useful one), so despite seeing bodies getting dragged out of a car or a bloody nub after a run in with the table saw, I still wouldn't advocate for getting rid of cars or power tools.

Even guns themselves still have utilitarian purposes that aren't criminal. If I'm out on a trail and a mountain lion is eyeing me up, I don't want to rely on a rock and sharp stick.


Political violence is different in that it doesn't serve any valid utilitarian purpose.
** speaking strictly of democratic countries here... in countries where democracy is not an available system, violence (unfortunately) can be a necessary utility **