Plenty of Western countries with lots of guns that don't have the same issues with gun violence.
He didn't use "gang violence" as short hand for "black violence." That wouldn't make sense in the context of mass shootings. He said “Counting or not counting gang violence?” more as a shorthand for "Are we counting criminals killing each other?" Whether it's hispanic, white, or black gangs isn't very relevant.
Gangs contribute to the majority of designated "mass shootings," and are often excluded from conversations that want to focus on innocent victims of mass shooting as opposed to cases of criminals killing each other. After all, if all mass shootings were just gangsters shooting each other, people wouldn't care nearly as much as they do now. They care about the mass shootings that don't involve gangs.
EDIT: Seems like many sources explicitly exclude gang violence in their stats. So my statement may be incorrect that gangs contribute to "designated" mass shootings as they are not designation such by many sources.
Using that logic, everyone who supports cops or the military using guns is a supporter of gun violence, and anyone who supports physical self-defense is a supporter of violence. Makes the notion of "supporting violence" politically pointless.
He was willing to accept violent gun deaths in support of his 2a position.
Yeah. Everything has a trade-off. I don't want swimming pools outlawed, so I have to accept that ~350 toddlers are going to drown accidentally in pools every year. That does NOT mean I support toddlers drowning, I just tolerate it as a cost. It's not like Kirk wanted deaths from gun violence.
People are likely projecting their own insincerity. They assume people have political positions strictly because it benefits them, typically because that's the only reason they themselves take a political position. The concept of having principles is absolutely foreign.
"That's racist."
"It may involve a race, but it's not racist."
"That's why you said it involved that race!"
Bizarre logic.
Offensive was the wrong word. I meant that it's not racist. It's unhealthy that one would be offended by acknowledging the existence of gang violence.
I understand that. I'm saying that there is no hidden meaning. Gang violence is understood on its face by everyone.
Peak Gemini moment
No, I don't know that, because it's wrong, or misleading at best. "Qualified" is a spectrum, unless you're talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.
If you're looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for "black woman" as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You'd want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a "qualified" judge, most acting judges technically are, but it's unlikely that she's the most qualified. That's the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.
He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you're including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of "mass murder." However, most people don't care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.
He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.