Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP who said nobody in my neighborhood is talking about this.

Most of my neighbors are highly educated. But no, like most people, we don't closely follow politics outside of national events and local issues. We don't claim to "have a pulse on the political landscape of the country" - we are busy working and raising our kids.

I'm also busy working and raising kids. I think it's nice you are trying to play with us here but you are obviously out of your league.

So I'm not part of your elite group that heard of this man before yesterday? Yes, I know that! That's what I'm saying!

I'd heard the name and that's about it. There are too many figures in the Trumpverse for it to make sense to keep up. They're like what (little) I understand of Hindu gods--there's a lot of them, and each person picks their favorite. Not sure if there's an equivalent to the Great Lord Trump himself in the analogy but the point should be clear. Or like Catholics having a favorite saint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP


https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot

As the WSJ article states, it is reminiscent of the NYC executioner, Luigee Mangionee in the the ammunition in the rifle used to brutally assassinate Charlie Kirk was found to be inscribed with Antiffa and pro-transg slogans, according to WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot

I don't believe Patel's FBI and that shot was professional.

Need someone that is an amateur hunter to weigh in.

Any amateur hunter can easily make a 200 yard shot with halfway decent equipment. Literally millions of Americans do it every hunting season.

A 5 minute YouTube search proves it.

This amateur teenage girl easily made this shot

+1

It’s a flat out lie when people claim “only a military-grade sniper could possibly make this shot!! herp derp.”

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP who said nobody in my neighborhood is talking about this.

Most of my neighbors are highly educated. But no, like most people, we don't closely follow politics outside of national events and local issues. We don't claim to "have a pulse on the political landscape of the country" - we are busy working and raising our kids.

+1 Again, this describes about 90% of the country. We in this forum who follow politics intensely are by far not the norm. Stop castigating people for not knowing everything or anything about this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

People can peruse his X feed and form their own opinions. I don't understand why people need to be told how to think. Read and form your own opinions.

The problem is that people don’t read or do any research. They go on social media, see posts that do not tell all sides of a story, and become outraged accordingly. Maybe some people who admired this guy would feel a little differently if they were fully aware of all of his actions and not just curated social media clips from events.

And I disagree that to point anything like this out is to justify or diminish what happened. We have a real problem in this country. We’re social media is used to distort or misrepresent the truth or hide certain pieces of information in order to get people all spun up. And I would be saying the same thing if we were talking about say a killing of a black person by the police. It’s a problem if people run to social media and only talk about how that person was a saint when maybe there is more to the story. People are forming opinions without having all of the facts and no one wants to put in any effort beyond scrolling their feeds, which only give them things that reinforce their existing beliefs.

I agree with you that people never go to the source.

But here the source, ie his actual words, and in favor of accepting a few deaths to safeguard the Second Amendment. You can say he's polite and courteous all you want, but that's lipstick on a pig. He espoused views that were extremely discriminatory, against various minority groups and women, and glorified gun violence.

Surely we can separate the content from the delivery? A smooth talker isn't automatically an angel.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Bluesky is going to be turning over a wealth of IP information to the feds. Buckle up.

[Anonymous]

A bulletin from a law enforcement official with unverified information was circulating online Thursday morning that said authorities collected firearm cartridges believed to be from Charlie Kirk’s shooter that were engraved with words “expressing transgender and anti-fascist ideology.”

Two officials said that the bulletin from an officer at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is authentic but that the information within it has not yet been verified. The notes also said that the “spent cartridge was still chambered in addition to three unspent rounds at the top fed magazine.” The .30-06-caliber bolt-action rifle was discovered wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near the Utah campus where the shooting took place, according to the document.

The two officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, said authorities are investigating the contents of that bulletin.

Another person familiar with the ATF said that such memos are routine and typically contain all the information that authorities have collected through interviews and evidence at the crime scene. The person said these bulletins are meant to tell ATF officials across the country what information authorities are collecting. Sometimes, the person said, the information in the bulletins is eventually verified, but sometimes the information turns out to be untrue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-fatal-shooting-investigation-utah/#link-FYENPCET4JCHBGTJWZB2LFIUDA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And how is mass media not the same? It is a corporation and we are its customers. It obviously employs rage-bait.

Obviously people who are not that bright or uneducated can be manipulated but I would think this readership in Washington, DC full of political operatives would be a bit smarter and be able to read in between the lines.
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.

People can peruse his X feed and form their own opinions. I don't understand why people need to be told how to think. Read and form your own opinions.

The problem is that people don’t read or do any research. They go on social media, see posts that do not tell all sides of a story, and become outraged accordingly. Maybe some people who admired this guy would feel a little differently if they were fully aware of all of his actions and not just curated social media clips from events.

And I disagree that to point anything like this out is to justify or diminish what happened. We have a real problem in this country. We’re social media is used to distort or misrepresent the truth or hide certain pieces of information in order to get people all spun up. And I would be saying the same thing if we were talking about say a killing of a black person by the police. It’s a problem if people run to social media and only talk about how that person was a saint when maybe there is more to the story. People are forming opinions without having all of the facts and no one wants to put in any effort beyond scrolling their feeds, which only give them things that reinforce their existing beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He was running a for profit hate machine and said a bunch of horrible things over the years. He displayed complete indifference to the suffering of others.

That’s just a flat out lie. I’d bet good money you’ve never watched more than five minutes of him speaking.

I've watched hours of him debating. He's very well-spoken but that doesn't change the substance of what he says. For example: "If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like 'boy, I hope he is qualified." That's just inexcusable.

Thank you. So true. To think he was influencing young people is horrifying. No more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People knew the name and maybe the name of turning point. Beyond that most have learned about him because of all of this current coverage. So it sounds like he was a leader in these communities but not that well known outside of them.

For people that would like to be educated, who are other "leaders" on the right or left are this level?

Just get your own X account. If you read it like you read the NYT or WaPo, then you will have figured out who the thought-leaders are in about 2-3 days. You really need to spend a little time on your own just reading than waiting for a summary from mass media.

I'm educated and I'm reasonably informed. I know the name and the name of his organization and certainly didn't know a lot more beyond that until all of this coverage. It seems like he was influential but I don't know that I would use the term major leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He was running a for profit hate machine and said a bunch of horrible things over the years. He displayed complete indifference to the suffering of others.

Indifference? Pretty sure he got rich mocking, trolling, cyber-bullying and laughing at everyone beneath him suffering, while he raked in millions and lived like a king. Losing your health care was funny to him. Trapped in student loan usury was funny. Zionist wars and ethnic cleaning were justified. Millionaires and billionaires looting the treasury was righteous, “welfare queen” single moms warranted ridicule.

+1

He may as well have been a Fox or MSNBC prime time host.

[Anonymous]

FFS they are awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sorry, but the guy was a carnival barker for Donald Trump who made a lot of money. He didn't deserve to die for that but what exactly was his meaningful contribution to society? Seems to me he enjoyed sowing hate towards marginalized groups.

The Republicans who are now saying to turn down the rhetoric can shut it. Didn't they make light of the assassinations of the MN politicians? I guess it's all funny ha ha until it's one of your own. Trump is out blaming the left before he even has the facts in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP who said nobody in my neighborhood is talking about this.

Most of my neighbors are highly educated. But no, like most people, we don't closely follow politics outside of national events and local issues. We don't claim to "have a pulse on the political landscape of the country" - we are busy working and raising our kids.

+1 Again, this describes about 90% of the country. We in this forum who follow politics intensely are by far not the norm. Stop castigating people for not knowing everything or anything about this guy.

Then they should not participate in this forum. It's clearly over their head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They didn’t say a transgender person. It was someone that supported anti fa and trans ideology.

This person was smart enough to execute an assassination of a celebrity speaker so I would assume he would be smart enough to blend in.

And I would assume he'd be smart enough not to leave behind a rifle with identifying symbols on it. Unless he wanted to throw people off his trail.

Bingo.

NOT “bingo,” grandma. The NYC gunman left behind similar shell casings he hand-inscribed with similar anti-capitalist writings on them.

And that guy went to an Ivy. Your theory is dumb.

And the Annunciation school shooter, who was an actual transgender person, did not leave any shell casings with messages written on them. So what's your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FFS they are awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Sorry, but the guy was a carnival barker for Donald Trump who made a lot of money. He didn't deserve to die for that but what exactly was his meaningful contribution to society? Seems to me he enjoyed sowing hate towards marginalized groups.

The Republicans who are now saying to turn down the rhetoric can shut it. Didn't they make light of the assassinations of the MN politicians? I guess it's all funny ha ha until it's one of your own. Trump is out blaming the left before he even has the facts in this case.

Isn't Giuliani getting one too? It has no meaning now. It was politicized a long time ago. Biden also gave it out to all his financial backers.