Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shooter appears to be quite the skilled marksman. Military traIning?

200 is spitting distance for a scoped bolt action rifle with a 100 meter zero.

PP here. Thx for info. I don't know a thing about guns except the rifles we used i. target practice at camp years ago. I know a football field is 120 yds, so 200 yds sounded like a long distance to me.

It’s easy for someone familiar with handling a rifle.

A single kill shot from 200 yd for a wacko who stole his dad’s gun, unlikely. He would have fired several round to make sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another interesting thing - the fbi just rereleased the suspect they had. Back to square one. Why isn’t anyone claiming this? If it was political, we’d be hearing buzz from one side or the other like we did immediately in Minnesota.

They probably can’t figure out who it is. It took what like four days to find Mangione?

Don’t worry they’ll find the “right kind” of suspect. That’s why they let this one get away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MSNBC has APOLOGIZED for “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” comments made on air after Charlie Kirk was shot.

Statement from MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler:

“During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.”

Good. You’d never hear this from Fox.

Fox didn’t disparage him. MSNBC did.

New poster here. Knock off the fake outrage. Matthew Dowd is a political analyst. He's not a reporter. He messed up. The network apologized. He apologized. I guess you've never expressed any strong opinions yourself, eh?

It’s not fake outrage. It was bad enough they issued public apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shooter appears to be quite the skilled marksman. Military traIning?

200 is spitting distance for a scoped bolt action rifle with a 100 meter zero.

PP here. Thx for info. I don't know a thing about guns except the rifles we used i. target practice at camp years ago. I know a football field is 120 yds, so 200 yds sounded like a long distance to me.

It’s easy for someone familiar with handling a rifle.

A single kill shot from 200 yd for a wacko who stole his dad’s gun, unlikely. He would have fired several round to make sure.

No. It's easy for someone who is well practiced. There's a difference. The Trump shooter was apparently not practiced enough, thank goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of my social media is just silent about it more than anything

Same. There's not much to say. It's sad.

On blue sky a lot of people posting about how sad it is, worrying about how the GOP is already talking so openly about “retribution”…

On Twitter, lots of libs talking about how terrible it is, newsy stuff and posts promoted by the algorithm saying really scary stuff about the need to hurt liberals.

So yeah there is some messed up stuff being said online, but I haven’t seen any celebrating.

Politicians are going to have to openly denounce the edge lords online. A small amount of people are destroying it for a lot of other people.

I’m really tired of the right seeing anything that some bot says on Twitter and blaming every liberal for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boomers are getting radicalized on the internet. I’m not even kidding, it’s self-radicalization the same as how young people in the Middle East get recruited to ISIS and Al-Qaida. Check on your boomer parents and their social media usage.

Yeah I was pretty surprised that it was an old man

I’m not deep into this thread yet. Not a chance this was the guy. From that long distance 200 yards it had to be a sniper, clean shot, quick and no one else harmed. Never gonna find her or him.

No US Army rifle qualification range has targets ranging from 50 to 300 meters. No scope. 300 meters takes up the front site post. 200 yard against a standing stationary target very doable with a quality rifle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Inside job. The next election is for a Trump, not Kirk.


“ Mr. Piskadlo said that the setup of the amphitheater struck him as unsafe before the event. Despite a heavy security presence, he noticed “there were a lot of ledges, points where this could happen,” he said. “This seemed really preventable. I’m kind of angry at the organizers.”

-NYT

Cone on.

This is easy to say after the fact. He goes around speaking at colleges. They are not known for tight security. Utah legislators recently voted that guns were allowed on campus.

He is not an ejected official. He went there willingly. It is the society we all live in. Without even the security measures he had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Inside job. The next election is for a Trump, not Kirk.


“ Mr. Piskadlo said that the setup of the amphitheater struck him as unsafe before the event. Despite a heavy security presence, he noticed “there were a lot of ledges, points where this could happen,” he said. “This seemed really preventable. I’m kind of angry at the organizers.”

-NYT

Again, can anyone please provide any evidence that Kirk was considered a potential presidential candidate before these tragic events? Because I am both very online and extremely politically aware and I never saw this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inside job. The next election is for a Trump, not Kirk.


“ Mr. Piskadlo said that the setup of the amphitheater struck him as unsafe before the event. Despite a heavy security presence, he noticed “there were a lot of ledges, points where this could happen,” he said. “This seemed really preventable. I’m kind of angry at the organizers.”

-NYT

Again, can anyone please provide any evidence that Kirk was considered a potential presidential candidate before these tragic events? Because I am both very online and extremely politically aware and I never saw this.

Nothing about him running. This is something they’re saying now to stir stuff up more. He wasn’t running for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inside job. The next election is for a Trump, not Kirk.


“ Mr. Piskadlo said that the setup of the amphitheater struck him as unsafe before the event. Despite a heavy security presence, he noticed “there were a lot of ledges, points where this could happen,” he said. “This seemed really preventable. I’m kind of angry at the organizers.”

-NYT

Again, can anyone please provide any evidence that Kirk was considered a potential presidential candidate before these tragic events? Because I am both very online and extremely politically aware and I never saw this.

Nothing about him running. This is something they’re saying now to stir stuff up more. He wasn’t running for anything.

He was 31, too young to run for President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My teens are very upset, although I had never heard of him before today. I’m in Arlington.

He is very popular with teenage boys, I would go as far to say that is his main demographic.

My younger teen (14) son hadn't heard of Kirk before today. I'm curious if you ask a teen boy, what about Kirk appealed to them. I'm asking genuinely, I would really like to understand.

He didn’t hate teen boys for their identities. That’s it. I don’t even think a lot of his fans necessarily agreed with his politics. They were just so desperate for some political/media figure that didn’t hate them for who they are.

Oh no. Teen boys absolutely agree with his politics. Mine and their friends are prime examples

Some, yes. But he had a lot of teen boy fans that didn’t agree with his politics but just liked him, because he was civil and also didn’t hate teen boys for being teen boys.

He was respectful in conversations with people who disagreed with him. I don’t think teen boys see that happening all that often.

Being respectful that the Civil Rights Act shouldn't have been passed and that women should not vote does not make someone a better person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another interesting thing - the fbi just rereleased the suspect they had. Back to square one. Why isn’t anyone claiming this? If it was political, we’d be hearing buzz from one side or the other like we did immediately in Minnesota.

If it was political, the at-large shooter would have put something out about it.

[Anonymous]

If this was a AOC all the Republicans would be celebrating. Remember after Pelosi was attacked. Not one republican condemned that. They went far an attacked Pelosi.

[Anonymous]

To the people who say their sons idealize mean like CK have them look up Wil Hutchins. Fitness guy , respects women and encourages men to be respectful and take accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Far left politicians such as Barack Obama, Gavin Newsome, and JB Pritzker are rightly condemning this and calling it despicable and sickening, without any hesitation or qualification, and certainly without the sarcasm and giggles that the pathetic sicko's on DCUM are expressing.

They are going to have to start doing more open denouncement of certain behaviors.

Toxic rhetoric needs to be denounced.