Charlie Kirk shot at an event in Utah

[BeyondKnowledge]

Trained shooters don’t aim for the neck.
Never.
Ever.
Only a headshot or center mass.
If they were aiming for the neck it wasn’t a well trained person, not a pro.

It has been brought up that the bullet might have bounced off his body armor and then up. Could have been an upper chest shot. 

Killed for words is so sad.

[CriticalStinker]

One of Charlie's most famous quotes was along the lines of "once the talking stops the violence starts" and he went out of his way to talk to any side who wanted to. Thats an admirable trait no matter who you are or where you come from. You don't have to like or even agree with my opinions...and I vise versa...but if we talk long enough I bet we find a lot of common ground...thats what isn't wanted. Left...right...up...down...90% or better of us just want the same main things. We aren't different at all perspectives aside...we are all the same.

He was an interesting individual.

I’d even go so far to say he was an enigma.

He was one of the few on the right who could reach the youth. I don’t think his ideas themselves were extremely unique or profound (not a knock, but for lack of a better terms his ideology was kind of cookie cutter conservatism that we’ve seen with many pundits before him). But what was profound was how he found his niche in talking to the youth, and the type of forum he kind of invented.

Whether or not some of his ideas are divisive isn’t really interesting to me, as some people on social and MSM have tried to lean to. There are divisive ideas everywhere, and I think it’s the ones people don’t like the most that they should try and defend. It’s easy to try and silence voices (one believes) are unpopular. Social media platforms and even the government sometimes tries to use poor excuses to censor certain ideas.

But as we’re seeing, it’s an inch and a mile. You start somewhere that won’t have much resistance, or where you think you can at least justify enough… Then you broaden the scope.

Charlie was pretty mild IMO. There have been far more controversial voices. If this becomes some sort of trend, we’re in real trouble.

[putnam6]

From what it looks like, a few Idahoans from the vigil beat the shit out of the guy... 

What kind of nutjob does that...mentally ill are lashing out ... which is exactly what our enemies domestic and foreign want...

Below, Victor brings up good points. Plenty are calling for higher security for Trump, etc. 

https://x.com/amuse/status/1966034281823719928

 

[MonkMode]

Nobody wants to talk about how Trump’s speech from the Oval Office was AI?

[Chiefsmom]

Ok, made it to page 24 before I had to say this:

People are asking for a solution.  I have a good place to start.

Bring back the big mental institutions first and foremost.

And if you are publicly celebrating the murder of someone, you get a 48 hr mental health eval.
Because there is either something wrong with you, or your just antagonizing people.
The public needs to know which it is, to make sure you are not an actual danger to the public.
This need only apply to the deaths of regular people, not Serial killers and other ilk.

I realize that it would involve a common sense approach, which is limited supply these days.  
But I think it is a more effective solution then:
"AH, BAN ALL GUNS!!!!"
That will never be an option I will submit to.

And as to the BS about a witch putting a spell on him?  Any witch that would do that is A) not a real witch, B) A moron.  Because whatever you put out into the universe, comes back to you.  
Same with most all religions and spiritualities.   Universal law.

[Vermilion]

He was an interesting individual.

I’d even go so far to say he was an enigma.

He was one of the few on the right who could reach the youth. I don’t think his ideas themselves were extremely unique or profound (not a knock, but for lack of a better terms his ideology was kind of cookie cutter conservatism that we’ve seen with many pundits before him). But what was profound was how he found his niche in talking to the youth, and the type of forum he kind of invented.

Whether or not some of his ideas are divisive isn’t really interesting to me, as some people on social and MSM have tried to lean to. There are divisive ideas everywhere, and I think it’s the ones people don’t like the most that they should try and defend. It’s easy to try and silence voices (one believes) are unpopular. Social media platforms and even the government sometimes tries to use poor excuses to censor certain ideas.

But as we’re seeing, it’s an inch and a mile. You start somewhere that won’t have much resistance, or where you think you can at least justify enough… Then you broaden the scope.

Charlie was pretty mild IMO. There have been far more controversial voices. If this becomes some sort of trend, we’re in real trouble.

Well said.

Charlie was one of the nicest of us.
They killed the guy that just wanted to debate.
Now they are going to have to deal with the guy that has no interest in debate at all.
They really chose their target poorly.

[putnam6]

Well said.

Charlie was one of the nicest of us.
They killed the guy that just wanted to debate.
Now they are going to have to deal with the guy that has no interest in debate at all.
They really chose their target poorly.

Not calling you out, but clarify

Who is the "guy"

Or is this just metaphorically because now this side, the conservatives, are righteously enflamed...

Feels a little bit like Uncle Sam's buttons are being pushed...

Channeled the right way, this could be a turning point.

We have to be careful with the rhetoric...

we have to chill our shit and get our shit together

[CriticalStinker]

Well said.

Charlie was one of the nicest of us.
They killed the guy that just wanted to debate.
Now they are going to have to deal with the guy that has no interest in debate at all.
They really chose their target poorly.

The only thing I’d add is I think people should be cautious in “the response”.

I’ve seen a lot of calls to find the broader mechanisms to hold responsible such as MSM and social, or even the broader left like Nancy Mace said.

For one, it’s too early to talk about in my opinion. We don’t even have a suspect. I think it’s a fair gamble to assume why this happened, but it’s just that, a gamble.

The other is I’ve seen many times something tragic happen and people want to go after who they believe stoked the flames. That’s just a far less violent way of doing the same thing someone likely did here. Not the answer.

Its just odd to me that we live in a time where people have more of a voice because of the internet, and yet people struggle to use ideas and words more than when we didn’t have it.

[UltraBudgie]

Nobody wants to talk about how Trump’s speech from the Oval Office was AI?

It did look like it, didn't it? Some weirdness. But, guess what—you can't be sure any more. YouTube is now automatically AI-editing uploaded videos, which makes them, surprise surprise, look AI generated even when they're not:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...ng/683946/

It's pernicious. I'd suspect some kind of agenda to either adapt the populace to accept AI generated characters, or obscure deepfakes. Worth a thread, imho.

It's our Waldo moment.

[PorkChop96]

Its just odd to me that we live in a time where people have more of a voice because of the internet, and yet people struggle to use ideas and words more than when we didn’t have it.

Too many people let words control their lives. Everyone thinks their opinion matters about everything and they can't stand when other people have differing opinions, no matter how eloquently spoken or true/false they are. And, sadly, there are those that let words dig so deep into their souls that they believe they need to go out and stifle the very idea of those words. 

Words are just that, words, they can only hurt you if you let them. So many have forgot that, and it shows.