Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Do you believe the rifle they found is the rifle used? If well planned assassination, he may have dropped decoys. I personally believe we will never know - mostly because the guy is already enjoying tea in Tel Aviv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

He was not a leader. He was a podcaster.

He had the ear of the POTUS. Stop trying to minimize his importance.

Random podcasters don’t get assassinated for political reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who say Charlie Lirk was a great person, nothing but respectful, only trying to do good in the world…

Do you think it’s a good thing that his organization (Turning Point USA) maintained a “Professor Watch List”? That list has led to people getting death threats and needing security to do their jobs. Would you want to be on such a list? Would that make you feel safe? Do you think putting people on a public list that results in them being targeted by unstable
individuals is a Christian thing to do?

I am really trying to understand how people can sort of paper over documented harmful actions like this. And I don’t wish to hear a whataboutism type argument about something a liberal did because that’s not the question at hand. It just seems to me that people are cherry picking certain actions and words to only paint CK in a good light simply because CK was on “their team”.

Oh and to be clear I am in no way trying to suggest that CK deserved what happened. There is no justification for murder. I am specifically trying to understand the current effort to paint an image that is not the full picture of what CK did and stood for.

When people die, humans have a custom of saying nice things about them rather than listing their shortcomings.

Sure, for people you know personally. But why go out of your way to practically canonize a public figure you have never met in a social media post, when there are documented things that person did which are not Christian?

I don’t think it helps anyone to act like someone never did a single harmful thing in their life and use that to paint one side as all good and one side as all evil.

Well sure. I’m not canonizing the guy, but I understand why people who admired him are. Not sure I understand the purpose of feigning confusion about this.

The only reason to say bad things about him at this point is to justify, excuse, or diminish his murder.

That said, I certainly agree that the current trend of painting the sides (whichever side you may be on) as good/evil is inaccurate and damaging.

A worst people are using his own words against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

Funny because in my neighborhood nobody is talking about this assassination since nobody knows who he was and he didn't hold public office. Of course, it is sad when anybody is killed, especially a parent of young children.

Are you in an assisted living community? Funny that an entire neighborhood can be so clueless and uninformed.

It sounds like if you followed conservative influencers or religious influencers, you would know about him. If you're not in those communities, you might recognize the name, but you're not going to know who he is or look at him as any kind of leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

He was not a leader. He was a podcaster.

He had the ear of the POTUS. Stop trying to minimize his importance.

Random podcasters don’t get assassinated for political reasons.

Well, he DID just break from his talking points and demand the release of the Epstein files. That could have upset some powerful people. Especially Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who say Charlie Lirk was a great person, nothing but respectful, only trying to do good in the world…

Do you think it’s a good thing that his organization (Turning Point USA) maintained a “Professor Watch List”? That list has led to people getting death threats and needing security to do their jobs. Would you want to be on such a list? Would that make you feel safe? Do you think putting people on a public list that results in them being targeted by unstable
individuals is a Christian thing to do?

I am really trying to understand how people can sort of paper over documented harmful actions like this. And I don’t wish to hear a whataboutism type argument about something a liberal did because that’s not the question at hand. It just seems to me that people are cherry picking certain actions and words to only paint CK in a good light simply because CK was on “their team”.

Oh and to be clear I am in no way trying to suggest that CK deserved what happened. There is no justification for murder. I am specifically trying to understand the current effort to paint an image that is not the full picture of what CK did and stood for.

When people die, humans have a custom of saying nice things about them rather than listing their shortcomings.

Sure, for people you know personally. But why go out of your way to practically canonize a public figure you have never met in a social media post, when there are documented things that person did which are not Christian?

I don’t think it helps anyone to act like someone never did a single harmful thing in their life and use that to paint one side as all good and one side as all evil.

Well sure. I’m not canonizing the guy, but I understand why people who admired him are. Not sure I understand the purpose of feigning confusion about this.

The only reason to say bad things about him at this point is to justify, excuse, or diminish his murder.

That said, I certainly agree that the current trend of painting the sides (whichever side you may be on) as good/evil is inaccurate and damaging.

Actually, the only reason not to list all the horrible things he’s done is because jeff asks people to wait 48 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's personality is the root cause of the recent increase in political violence. He sews division and brings out the worst in people.

Right, so Charlie Kirk getting executed in cold blood during a college debate would be Trump’s fault—because his personality rubs people the wrong way?

It very well could be that someone was angry about Kirk’s decision to help silence the Epstein file truth fur trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

He was not a leader. He was a podcaster.

He was an oligarch-funded propagandist who got rich off the suffering of others; ex. Palestinians and poor and middle class Americans.

That too. Yes.

[Anonymous]

TPUSA is bringing in $100M a year. You think that's organic? This boy was propped up with global money to brainwash American youth into being pro Zionist, pro war, pro austerity, and pro big business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

It was with a bolt action hunting rifle, which is why these calls to link this with gun control are absurd. No one is banning bolt action hunting rifles. Even the most radical anti-gun posters would think that’d be impossible to do.

But it's true that most mass shootings occur with weapons that should be banned. I blame the state of Utah and that campus specifically for being lax on security on this instance. There were fewer than 10 officers monitoring this event, and apparently... there wasn't even an ambulance, which protocol dictates should always be on hand for a large group event. This isn't an American thing. Every country that has ambulances knows you put an ambulance at a gathering. It comes automatically when you request a permit for your event.

Now of course none of these things might have saved Kirk, since he was shot directly in the jugular. That was a total fluke shot! But the odds are in favor of survival when police is more numerous and an ambulance is on site.

In short, much of what happened that day was entirely abnormal.

Me again. And because so much of this was abnormal, I'm sure it will give rise to conspiracy theories that Kirk was murdered by someone looking to distract from other domestic scandals, or someone who wanted to handily foment from abroad even more divisions in America.

But I think human incompetence knows no bounds. Think horses, not zebras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who say Charlie Lirk was a great person, nothing but respectful, only trying to do good in the world…

Do you think it’s a good thing that his organization (Turning Point USA) maintained a “Professor Watch List”? That list has led to people getting death threats and needing security to do their jobs. Would you want to be on such a list? Would that make you feel safe? Do you think putting people on a public list that results in them being targeted by unstable
individuals is a Christian thing to do?

I am really trying to understand how people can sort of paper over documented harmful actions like this. And I don’t wish to hear a whataboutism type argument about something a liberal did because that’s not the question at hand. It just seems to me that people are cherry picking certain actions and words to only paint CK in a good light simply because CK was on “their team”.

Oh and to be clear I am in no way trying to suggest that CK deserved what happened. There is no justification for murder. I am specifically trying to understand the current effort to paint an image that is not the full picture of what CK did and stood for.

When people die, humans have a custom of saying nice things about them rather than listing their shortcomings.

Sure, for people you know personally. But why go out of your way to practically canonize a public figure you have never met in a social media post, when there are documented things that person did which are not Christian?

I don’t think it helps anyone to act like someone never did a single harmful thing in their life and use that to paint one side as all good and one side as all evil.

Well sure. I’m not canonizing the guy, but I understand why people who admired him are. Not sure I understand the purpose of feigning confusion about this.

The only reason to say bad things about him at this point is to justify, excuse, or diminish his murder.

That said, I certainly agree that the current trend of painting the sides (whichever side you may be on) as good/evil is inaccurate and damaging.

A worst people are using his own words against him.

I think you need to re-read this thread. People are doing far worse.

And even if what you say is true, what’s the purpose? What does it accomplish?

“I was right and he was wrong and now he’s dead. Ha ha!” Not a good look, imo.

[Anonymous]

This sounds so fake. A transgender person running away from an assassination in Utah would stick out like a giraffe at a dog park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

Funny because in my neighborhood nobody is talking about this assassination since nobody knows who he was and he didn't hold public office. Of course, it is sad when anybody is killed, especially a parent of young children.

Are you in an assisted living community? Funny that an entire neighborhood can be so clueless and uninformed.

It sounds like if you followed conservative influencers or religious influencers, you would know about him. If you're not in those communities, you might recognize the name, but you're not going to know who he is or look at him as any kind of leader.

I never focused on what he said or listened to his podcast but any reasonably educated person in DC knew he founded Turning Points and that was an important figure on the Right.

If you and your neighbors are clueless about who he was, it doesn't mean you are uneducated, it just means you do not have a pulse on the political landscape of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

He was not a leader. He was a podcaster.

He had the ear of the POTUS. Stop trying to minimize his importance.

Random podcasters don’t get assassinated for political reasons.

Well, he DID just break from his talking points and demand the release of the Epstein files. That could have upset some powerful people. Especially Trump.

Actually, in July, he demanded the release of the files.

After a phone call with Trump, he changed his opinion.

Just recently, he said that the signature on the letter was fake.

That could really piss off some MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't gun violence; this was a targeted assassination of a major leader because of political views. If guns were outlawed, they would have poisoned him, run him over, killed him with a knife, bomb, etc

It was with a bolt action hunting rifle, which is why these calls to link this with gun control are absurd. No one is banning bolt action hunting rifles. Even the most radical anti-gun posters would think that’d be impossible to do.

But it's true that most mass shootings occur with weapons that should be banned. I blame the state of Utah and that campus specifically for being lax on security on this instance. There were fewer than 10 officers monitoring this event, and apparently... there wasn't even an ambulance, which protocol dictates should always be on hand for a large group event. This isn't an American thing. Every country that has ambulances knows you put an ambulance at a gathering. It comes automatically when you request a permit for your event.

Now of course none of these things might have saved Kirk, since he was shot directly in the jugular. That was a total fluke shot! But the odds are in favor of survival when police is more numerous and an ambulance is on site.

In short, much of what happened that day was entirely abnormal.

Someone on threads pointed out that all the LE on site, all the concealed carry, didn’t stop this. The instinct, after the shot, was to run and hide. If you listen to the stories this is what happened. It was deeply traumatic for the kids there, which is something we don’t talk about.

It was armed to the teeth yesterday, and that didn’t prevent a gun tragedy.

Thus, maybe we should look at getting rid of guns. The trauma of gun violence is worth it.