Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

At least we know which side of the aisle will admit to being wrong when presented with facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s very strange that they held a guy that was identified by others as the shooter and it was reported that he said, “i’d do it again,” but then wasn’t the shooter. At least that’s what I saw reported earlier.

Was that all misreporting?

Probably. Reporting after events like this is often terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the result when a wacko lib can’t win an argument

Don't forget about 2A. This is the result of that as well.

2A is the right to own a gun, not the right to kill people you don’t agree with.

But Kirk accepted that this was going to happen - that allowing people to own guns means accepting that people will die by those who own guns.

He lived his belief. Even if he lived, he would not change his stance. That's how crazy gun nutters are.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Trump lower the flag when democratic lawmakers were shot and killed recently?

Wake up.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/honoring-the-victims-of-the-tragedy-in-minneapolis-minnesota/

That was the Catholic school, not the the lawmakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Charlie fan.

This was a professional job. 200 ft away with that precision? Someone with influence wanted him silenced. I don’t think this is going to turn out to be your standard nutty trans activist with a gun.

they take 18 year olds and train them on distances much farther than 200 meters in a matter of days in boot camp. give someone a couple days to practice/zero in and it's not hard at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let this be a step towards gun reform.

I pray for an end to political violence in our nation.

That would be sad if the murdering of 25 5/6 yr olds didn't move the needle on gun control but the death of a man who accepted that deaths were inevitable for owning guns spurs gun control.

But, if it does, I'm all for it. But, I highly doubt it. Kirk didn't want more gun control. This would be spitting in his face, so to speak.

Well, he's gone now. Let's make the world better for his kids, regardless of his position.

I would be happy about that, but do you think his wife would support that knowing her husband's stance on guns?

I’m sure she’s aware on his stance about communication. He was very clear that communicating with those who hold other beliefs is important. He said that’s what keeps us from civil war.

I’m with the PP. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could actually speak with one another instead of flinging hate around? And that goes for both political parties.

PP who suggested we should make the world better for his children (and for ours): I’m in agreement.

-moderate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the result when a wacko lib can’t win an argument

Don't forget about 2A. This is the result of that as well.

2A is the right to own a gun, not the right to kill people you don’t agree with.

Correction: the second amendment is used as an excuse to let a bunch people own guns that should not, and to own weapons that shouldn’t be so easy to get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Trump lower the flag when democratic lawmakers were shot and killed recently?

I said that up thread.. Of course he didn't. He's very partisan and divisive and this is what MAGA supports.

But, somehow, Dems, who also support tighter gun control and help for the mentally ill, are the ones who are evil.

MAGA are truly sick.

He did lower the flag for the MN lawmakers. Why are you lying?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/honoring-the-victims-of-the-tragedy-in-minneapolis-minnesota/

That was the school shooting. The assassinations were in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Kirk was an American hero who tried to engage in peaceful discourse with everyone, regardless of political or ideological differences. What a sad day for this country. I'm heartbroken for his beautiful family.

I won't speak ill of the dead. But it's a bit of stretch to call this talk show guy a hero. It's insulting to real American heroes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let this be a step towards gun reform.

I pray for an end to political violence in our nation.

That would be sad if the murdering of 25 5/6 yr olds didn't move the needle on gun control but the death of a man who accepted that deaths were inevitable for owning guns spurs gun control.

But, if it does, I'm all for it. But, I highly doubt it. Kirk didn't want more gun control. This would be spitting in his face, so to speak.

Well, he's gone now. Let's make the world better for his kids, regardless of his position.

I would be happy about that, but do you think his wife would support that knowing her husband's stance on guns?

I’m sure she’s aware on his stance about communication. He was very clear that communicating with those who hold other beliefs is important. He said that’s what keeps us from civil war.

I’m with the PP. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could actually speak with one another instead of flinging hate around? And that goes for both political parties.

PP who suggested we should make the world better for his children (and for ours): I’m in agreement.

-moderate

That doesn't answer what I asked.

Do you think she would support tighter gun control knowing Kirk's stancew on it?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Kirk was an American hero who tried to engage in peaceful discourse with everyone, regardless of political or ideological differences. What a sad day for this country. I'm heartbroken for his beautiful family.

I won't speak ill of the dead. But it's a bit of stretch to call this talk show guy a hero. It's insulting to real American heroes.

+1
He’s not a hero.

He had a shtick. It was harmful to America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not believe this was a conspiracy. This was an angry, mentally-ill gun nut that never should have been given access to the weapon he used without a thorough vetting.

Why can’t both sides agree on this?

We are all safer when we keep guns out of the hands of violent or crazy or otherwise questionable people.

We are all safer if we make it more difficult for people to buy a gun.

Why not start there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the result when a wacko lib can’t win an argument

Don't forget about 2A. This is the result of that as well.

2A is the right to own a gun, not the right to kill people you don’t agree with.

Guns kill.

Guns are inanimate objects that evil people use to kill.

Do spoons make people fat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Charlie fan.

This was a professional job. 200 ft away with that precision? Someone with influence wanted him silenced. I don’t think this is going to turn out to be your standard nutty trans activist with a gun.

I’m not a Charlie fan, and I disagree there is anything as a “standard nutty trans activist with a gun”, but I do agree that this was likely a professional hit. Trump’s been under insane pressure this week. What better to get the MAGA base in line than knocking off some inconsequential influencer no one really liked?