There was a school shooting on the same day as Kirk's death: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/students-wounded-shooti...

If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms", brushing it aside to be forgotten. He of course did so many times in life, notably in 2023 when he was quoted doing so in the media:

https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...

Kirk's death has already overshadowed the news of that school shooting, which will indeed be forgotten by most long before we stop talking about him.

One final victory for Charlie Kirk, I guess.

▲ johnisgood 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms"

He would have really advocated for violence, or school shootings? That seems odd. It is way different from "gun deaths are worth having the 2nd amendment".

▲ croes 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Did he question the 2nd amendment beacuse of school shootings? If not then school shooting deaths are part of his costs of his 2nd amendment defense.

▲ johnisgood 4 days ago | parent [-]

I should have known better than to reply under this submission. HN is no different from Twitter or Instagram when it comes to anything political.

My question was not answered, and my comment was ignored.

Good job for everyone here for not being able to hold a rational, non-heated conversation.

▲ croes 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The implicit part of your question was answered. I just ignored the part where you misparaphrased parent.

He didn't say Kirk advocated violence but that he was indifferent towards it in favor of the 2nd amendment. Isn't it interesting how a pro-lifer like Kirk didn't care that much about lives if it's about gun ownership?

Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun.

▲ zahlman 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The reason you're getting the interactions you are is because you set up a false dichotomy. Kirk's moral calculus involves accepting that possibly some more people will die, beyond what would happen otherwise, in order to guarantee what he considers an essential right to everyone. This is perfectly compatible with "caring about lives".

It's interesting that you mention driver's licenses. Would you say that intellectual consistency would require a "pro-lifer" to be in favour of nobody being allowed to own a car? After all, sometimes fatal driving accidents occur.

	▲	Nervhq 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Oh wow no reply to your excellent car analogy. This is my shocked face.

▲ nailer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He did care about lives. Allowing some evil from gun deaths is the price of allowing a population to arm themselves. At the time he made the point that allowing some road deaths is worth allowing the population to drive. It doesn’t mean he endorses road death either.

▲ munksbeer 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> the price of allowing a population to arm themselves

It is very hard for someone living in the UK to understand things from the US context. It just comes across as bizarre that people accept that school children will relatively frequently die for this. I do not feel impelled at all to own a gun. It isn't something that I ever think about.

So when you say things like the phrase above, it is very alien to most people from the UK. We just don't understand what the benefits are of owning guns that justify the negatives.

By the way, this isn't an attack, it is just me sharing a state of mind with you.

▲ nailer 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sure. I lived in the UK for 15 years, and have lived in the US for 2.

In London, someone grabs your phone, threatens to take your watch with a machete, or tries to rape your child. In New York someone marches down the street wanting to punch anyone that gets close. You let yourself be victimised and then report it.

In Texas, they generally don't do these things because they might get shot. People defend themselves.

In exchange, we accept there will be some unwanted violence. Kirk made an analogy here: we don't want road deaths, yet we don't ban cars. We don't want school shootings, but we don't ban guns.

South Africans in London have similar perspectives regarding being able to defend themselves.

▲ munksbeer 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

London has got worse, that is true. Or at least, that is the impression you get from the media. Personally, I lived in central London for years and didn't feel unsafe.

But the rest of the UK is extremely safe. Compared to the US? Very! And we don' have guns to defend ourselves. How does that work? And it is the same in many, many countries that don't have guns - a lot safer than the US.

So that argument for guns just doesn't work. There must be something deeper to it. It must really be something that triggers a deeper response in people.

▲ johnisgood 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

London has gotten worse, do you think this is debatable today? Plus I do not think that the "I feel safe" has much merit. It has some, but not that much. What if I told you I did not feel safe in London? You felt safe in some area, I did not feel safe in some other. I do not think this conversation would be fruitful if we focused on this alone.

Check the statistics[1] with regarding to robbing, knife crimes, homelessness, and so on. Perhaps that is a better starting point?

I have been told by many locals to not wear an expensive watch around designer stores, or touristic hotspots because robbery happens on a daily basis, it depends on the time of the day and which day it is, of course.

I have watched many YouTubers visiting London as well and they tell quite the story, too.

[1] See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44914081

▲ nailer 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had two terrorist attacks on my neighbourhood (London bridge) and one on the way to work (Westminster bridge) in fifteen years. If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot.

▲ munksbeer 2 days ago | parent [-]

You're a programmer. You understand statistics. I think your ideology is clouding your ability to talk about this honestly. From the very casual look I took, you're 4 times more likely to die as a result of violent crime in the US than the UK.

So picking these incidents and citing them as a reason for owning guns, while ignoring the whole picture strikes me as dishonest.

▲ johnisgood 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment.

In any case, I think the argument that was brought forward in favor of guns does not hold true universally for every places. For example, in Hungary, you do not need guns as a deterrent.

Perhaps London would benefit from it, I actually have no idea and I do not know if I could have any way of telling.

▲

munksbeer a day ago | parent [-]

> I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment.

It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe. Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK.

I live in the UK. It is objectively safer to live in the UK where we are not allowed to own guns. To us, it is absurd to claim we need guns to be safer when we look at what actually happens in the US as a result of guns.

I don't think this is really a controversial take.

That is why the argument for gun ownership actually happens at a deeper level in the psyche.

▲

johnisgood a day ago | parent | next [-]

It is not a cherry-picked example at all. That is the essence of the mentality. It is used as a deterrent. If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot.

I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now?

I am Eastern European, no guns here either, and as I said, it may not universally apply to all countries, or even cities within one country.

▲

munksbeer a day ago | parent [-]

> I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now?

Sure, I can read English, I can understand the actual English words you're typing and the point you're trying to make. I just think it isn't true, and an honest reading of statistics would show that.

But I don't think we're going to get honesty here.

	▲	johnisgood a day ago \| parent [-]
		You want statistics? Check out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45240145. This does not imply what I said though, it just confirms that more guns does not imply more gun violence. You did not leave an answer to "If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot." though. You wanted to know the mentality behind it, and this is the mentality behind it, so now you know why people say and believe these things. As I previously have said, this probably cannot be universally applied to all countries, but it theoretically could be, especially if we consider the fact that "more guns -> more gun violence" is just simply not true. I have a feeling it is a cultural thing. How come Serbia (among other countries) have lots of guns yet no firearm-related violence? Many other countries have much less guns per 100 people (as per statistics), yet gun violence is through the roof. We have to look at it from many different aspects. We need ask ourselves "why?" or "why that is?", what are the differences? What are the cultural differences? Just to be sure, I am not in favor of guns, but I do believe in that guns can be a deterrent in some places at the very least, and we know that more guns do not lead to more firearm-related homicides, so theoretically it could work in some or many places. I do not know much about Serbia. I wonder how come they have lots of guns yet barely any related crimes.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

nailer a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe.

It obviously makes the argument that Texas isn’t New York or London and has little street crime, as a result of gun ownership. You wanted to understand the mentality? That’s the mentality. No road men in Austin.

> Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK.

Yes you can. That’s a fine argument, I agree with it. I’ve made comments about not wanting to die because someone had a bad day earlier in this thread supporting exactly this argument. You’re arguing with someone else rather than reading my responses.

▲ nailer 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What ideology? I thought we were having a civil discussion of how the UK compares to the US.

The US has a lot of violent cities, I live in NY (in a very good area) and there’s still more street violence than you’d expect in a similar area in London. But that’s a coastal city. People don’t have guns here.

If someone walked down the street in Austin threatening to kill people that wouldn’t happen. Honestly.

▲ munksbeer 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think you're making disingenuous arguments, which is why I attributed it to ideology. But you're correct, this just started off with a casual comment from me, so I don't think I should be going into that territory, apologies.

▲ nailer 2 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write.

I’m not sure if I have an answer one way or the other - I’d like it if I could buy milk in NY without someone threatening violence, and don’t think it’s right for jihadists to stand in the middle of London saying they’ll kill all the jews without the police doing anything, but I also don’t want to live somewhere where someone snaps and they have access to an automatic weapon.

▲ munksbeer a day ago | parent [-]

> Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write.

That the US is safer than other places because it has guns? I guess you can sincerely believe that, but the facts say something else.

	▲	johnisgood a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... Check out both tables and you will see that the facts do not say what you think they say, at all. Homicide rates by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants (2017): `Jamaica - 47.857 United States - 3.342 Serbia - 0.415` Ranking by country for civilian-held firearms per 100 population (2017): `Jamaica - 8.8 United States - 120.5 Serbia - 39.1` Those are just to compare three countries, but you will see a similar trend for all other countries. It shows that Serbia has loads of guns, yet barely any firearm-related homicides, whereas Jamaica has much less guns, yet homicide rates by firearm are way higher than the US. Thus, the statement that "More guns -> More gun-related violence" is evidently false.
	▲	nailer a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲ tim333 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I live in central London. It mostly feels safe although I did get a phone snatched once.

I also visited Austin Texas and spent a night staying in the center on 6th street and didn't feel safe. Aggressive black guys shouting and stuff. I googled that location when I got to the lodging and someone was shot there a year earlier.

I guess it depends the area but I wouldn't say guns have made Texas a haven of peace.

▲ MisterMower a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Bingo. Same logic applies to car jackings or home invasions. Just the fact that the next potential victim could be armed and many states have laws that allow victims to use lethal force to defend themselves has a massive deterrent effect.

▲ croes 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Interesting metaphor because we changed the cars to make them safer, improved the roads, added speed limits and added requirements to get a driver license.

What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns?

According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts but cared about lives. I doubt that he thought like that when it came to road safety.

▲

nailer 3 days ago | parent [-]

> What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns?

Kirk's point was that we do for guns (domestic violence etc red flags). But like cars we don't ban them.

> According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts

No.

	▲	croes 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		So he was pro mandatory weapon training, limits on gun power and capacity? That would be the equivalent of what we did against traffic deaths. Red flags have the disadvantage they come after the damage.

▲ yencabulator 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

	▲	nailer 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		He was really kind to people that didn’t vote his way, consistently, on video. Posting him quoting the bible doesn’t change that. And part of being kind to people is letting them know when they make choices that aren’t in their own interests, which includes trans identifying people.

▲ nativespecies 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲ Yeul 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲ johnisgood 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun.

I do not think that he was against regulation, and keep in mind that criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation.

▲ Nervhq 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh yeah man these guys are all leftwing brainwashed idiots. Never forget

▲ nativespecies 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲ hospes 3 days ago | parent [-]

By all reasonable metrics Charlie Kirk was a moderate republican, just like half of the US. Calling everyone that is at your right on the political spectrum "fascist" is intellectually dishonest.

▲ nativespecies 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah... moderate. This is just a few of his "moderate" comments.

Racial comments targeting Black Americans

    Pilots and qualifications: In a January 2024 episode of his podcast, Kirk said, "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified'". The comment came during a segment criticizing DEI initiatives in the airline industry.

    Customer service: In a January 2024 podcast episode, Kirk remarked, "If I'm dealing with somebody in customer service who's a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?".

    "Prowling Blacks": In May 2023, Kirk claimed on his show that "prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people".

    "Brain processing power": Kirk claimed that prominent Black women like Michelle Obama and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson "lacked the brain processing power" to understand complex topics, and only succeeded through affirmative action.

    George Floyd and Martin Luther King Jr.: He made disrespectful comments about Black leaders. During a 2021 speech, Kirk called George Floyd a "scumbag". In December 2023, he referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "awful" and "not a good person".

    Civil Rights Act of 1964: Kirk repeatedly referred to the Civil Rights Act as a "huge mistake," calling it an "anti-white weapon".

Other controversies involving racism

    White nationalist rhetoric: Kirk promoted the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, which alleges a plot to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants.

    Promotion of extremists: Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the conservative youth organization Kirk founded, has a history of attracting white nationalists and featuring speakers with extremist views. In 2022, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) documented racist and homophobic incidents involving TPUSA members.

    Criticism from within conservative circles: In 2023, Kirk drew criticism from fellow conservatives, including Ben Domenech of The Federalist, over antisemitic remarks. Kirk later attempted to clarify his comments and was given a prime speaking slot at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

▲

johnisgood 2 days ago | parent [-]

> I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?"

Unfortunately this is valid.

This question highlights a real problem with how affirmative action policies work in practice. When we have systems that explicitly consider race in hiring/admissions decisions, it inevitably creates this uncertainty and that is unfair to everyone.

The real issue is not individuals, it is that these policies create systematic doubt that hurts the very people they are meant to help. Maybe we need to rethink approaches that do not put qualified people in this impossible position where their achievements are automatically questioned.

Do you disagree?

	▲	nativespecies a day ago \| parent [-]
		I don't disagree but this assumes he was having good faith arguments. Look at his comments in the broader context of his ideologies. You're cherry picking.

▲ aredox 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲ bigyabai 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	zahlman 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The video does not evidence what the tweet claims it does, and the tweet is completely non-sequitur regardless. And then, hours later, you opted to chastize someone else for "drawing comparisons from the most deliberately-inflammatory portion of the internet."

▲ ChrisRR 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When is there not a school shooting?

	▲	Bost 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Good point. What a great society it must be, where school shooting has become normality - a part of everyday experience.

▲ xtracto 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm very late to this thread, because I just didn't have anything I felt was valuable. But now i have.

At first I also had thr reaction of thinking "he asked for it" , and all that schadenfreude feeling.

However, now I think it was a great loss and hope the killer gets the whole extent of the law.

See, in a society that is tending more and more to the extremes, polarization and radicalism, we NEED people to TALK.

Being from outside of the US, I don't know the ideas this guy was spewing; However, from what I've read, what he did was basically talking and debate. We need that. We need to be open to talk ideas, even if we dont agree. Where are we when someone who speaks his mind gets killed for that?

I am socialist and anti-US-imperialism in general, but I tend to frequent r/conservative and r/ccw and even patriots.win subteddits. Because im interested in a different point of view.

I get sad that most posts in r/conservative block externals, as I would love to interact in some of the posts. But... after this guys assassination... I dont blame them. People should feel safe to talk and discuss their ideas.

I'm to stupid to be able to debate against this guy, or the other guy.that speaks too fast and always looks angry (anti abortion American dude). But ... why isn't someone smarter and with opposing views debating them?. We need it.

▲

BolexNOLA 3 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t disagree with your point overall but the sad reality is that Charlie Kirk was not there to have a discussion. He went around trolling people and provoking big responses at universities so he could farm it out on social media. A huge part of his income was being a troll.

That does not mean he deserved to die. He didn’t. But he did not die undergoing some noble endeavor or engaging in free speech in some profoundly brave way.

▲

xtracto 3 days ago | parent [-]

But that's my point. Where is the guy with the opposing view and sharp tongue that's able to talk back to him? The fact that its monetized is good. Talking should be attractive to people. I'm all in favor of that.

▲

BolexNOLA 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

But it’s not talking it’s rage baiting and selectively clipping your successes, deleting the failures, and using the former to stoke flames online for profit.

▲

thepryz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Modern political commentators and influencers are strategic about who they will engage with and how they engage.

You can see this with Ben Shapiro when he walked out of an interview with conservative BBC host, Andrew Neil. Shapiro was unprepared for a real challenge and his go-to of speaking fast, gish galloping, and calling out the “radical left views” of his opponent didn’t work because the host was a conservative.

https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E?si=GX9TcG7gOgUQH3Bo

If you want a someone who would be an effective counter, look to Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo.

	▲	BolexNOLA 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It always baffles me how indignant people like Shapiro get when you simply read their words back to them. They act like you sprung a bear trap around their ankle and are viciously mocking them while they bleed out on the ground. It’s this performative outrage that is meant to distract you from what they’re outraged about, which again is simply quoting what they said. They depend on being able to try on opinions like hats and discard them when they no longer fit the specific argument they are engaging in in that moment, and they get mad when they can’t swap hats.

▲ lunarboy 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

michtzik 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I've never seen 2k+ comments nor posts about other shootings on HN

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42370622

(also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35448899 was even more discussed, but it was a stabbing)

▲

pxc 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the world was a worse place for Kirk's influence, whatever it amounted to. I think the circumstances of his death and the reporting on it are deeply ironic. But I can't feel joy at his murder. I just feel sick and anxious.

What I feel is nausea about the ongoing destabilization of American life and institutions. What I feel is worry about the danger so many people are in right now, the backlash this event is likely to cause, and the way this will fuel an acceleration of Trump's illegal military occupations of American cities whose citizens or officials Trump finds politically disagreeable. And in the back of my mind I also wonder what will become of Kirk's children, who are very young.

But I can't summon either glee or grief. All I've got is irony and deep unease, at least for now.

	▲	nailer 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I disagree with him about gun ownership, but he didn’t want to disarm in order to prevent all gun deaths. He made the point at the time that we don’t take cars off the road to stop car deaths. It’s a reasonable point. Re: DC national guard, from what I’ve seen rough neighbourhoods in DC were very happy with additional policing, particularly in gang areas, while middle class people who were less affected seemed mainly angry about it.

▲

johnnyanmac 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

dttze 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

nailer 4 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

BolexNOLA 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

And yet for some reason Melissa Hortman and her husband (as well as their dog) continue to be barely acknowledged by the White House/right despite being brutally murdered in their own home - they were democrat lawmakers in MN for those who are unfamiliar with this horrible story.

Kirk made a substantial portion of his living trolling people and fomenting hostility between people of different political ideologies. He said gay people should be stoned to death. He did not deserve to die, I do not celebrate his murder. But I will not celebrate the way he lived his life, let alone indulge this flagrant (and tasteless) attempt by the GOP to make him a saintly martyr.

▲

nailer 2 days ago | parent [-]

> for some reason Melissa Hortman

The reason is Hortman is less known.

> He said gay people should be stoned to death.

No he didn’t.

▲

BolexNOLA a day ago | parent [-]

You’re right, that has been corrected. He did not say that.

Here’s something he did say, however, including a source:

> "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-17000...

Ignoring the ironic typo: is this dialogue? Is this “crossing political divides” for productive discussion? Or is it just bog standard racism/sexism? I’m curious what your thoughts are on that one, which was a pretty typical comment from him mind you.

Charlie Kirk was a cruel person to those he considered outside his tribe. I will not participate in the GOP’s cynical, opportunistic attempt to brand him as a martyr for free speech. It’s whitewashing nonsense.

▲

nailer a day ago | parent [-]

Saying people that *say they were only there because of AA* are obviously only there because of AA is a pretty reasonable point. Linking to the video (with someone’s angry wrapper) directly: https://x.com/alluring_nyc/status/1965931096539017536?s=46

I wasn’t aware they said they were there because of AA, this is worthwhile information.

▲

BolexNOLA a day ago | parent [-]

That is clearly not the assertion/part I am talking about, though I certainly have an opinion on that too.

He literally said the above quote I mentioned. It was sexist/racist. It was wrong. You can weigh in on it or not that’s your choice. But this man was not the saint the right is making him out to be. It’s flagrant revisionist history

Edit: I also forgot to respond to your Hortman comment. That does not matter. She and her husband were brutally murdered in their home for the crime of being democrats and holding office. How is that not worthy of national attention? How is that not the kind of political violence that the right allegedly cares about right now, despite the fact that right wingers are disproportionately the perpetrators of political violence over the last decade? If they had been Republicans we would still be hearing about it and you know it.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/09/12/is-radic...

And since this is a paywalled source, here’s the graph that illustrates the issue: https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250920_WOC...

▲

nailer 21 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

BolexNOLA 13 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

nailer 8 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

lunarboy 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

nailer 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

dttze 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

nailer 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

BolexNOLA a day ago | parent | next [-]

With every update the WSJ’s original article, which largely informs people right now, has fallen apart. It’s so riddled with errors at this point that it should be retracted. I’d go so far as to say it’s deliberate misinformation at this stage.

Any attempts to neatly slot this into “he was left” or “he was right” are a waste of time. He doesn’t fit into that paradigm: https://www.garbageday.email/p/charlie-kirk-was-killed-by-a-...

There isn’t a liberal in the country who follows Nick Fuentes. Dude is clearly a blackpilled 4chaner as described above.

▲

nailer 8 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	BolexNOLA 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Follow as a fan was heavily implied. Also all that reporting is super suspect, especially when some people are so eager to blame the trans community.

▲

computerthings a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

dttze 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

nailer 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

dang 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you keep doing this we will ban you. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45253790.

▲

dttze 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	dang 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines and using HN exclusively for political battle. Those things aren't ok here, regardless of what you're battling for or against. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

▲

diogenescynic 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

lunarboy 4 days ago | parent [-]

You're really trying to convince me people care about kids but we've been having school shooting for 30 years? And that the length or frequency of events makes them okay, or not worth mentioning? So 30 years of more frequent assassinations should be make similar types of events okay? To use "you're probably one of those" and "argue in good faith" in the same comment is pretty wild work.

	▲	diogenescynic 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲ diogenescynic 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

miffy900 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Charlie Kirk is hardly responsible for the 2nd amendment so trying to blame him for public shootings seems grossly unfair. So anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment deserves to be gunned down in public? Where does this end?

Please re-read the post you replied to; literally no one was blaming Kirk for public shootings happening. They were mentioning that Kirk has previously remarked about how shootings are ultimately a necessary trade-off for 2A rights. Seriously, you might also want to read the Newsweek article that the OP linked to; Kirk is quoted:

> "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death," Kirk said at a Turning Point USA Faith event on Wednesday, as reported by Media Matters for America. "That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am—I think it's worth it. "I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."

Kirk SAID THIS; there's video of him saying this as well; I had to double check this myself as, putting aside the irony of his own death, how can anyone rationalise this way? Let alone say it out loud? I never heard of this guy before now and the more I read about him, the more I am astounded in the worst possibly ways.

> The left really needs to get a grip and look in the mirror. I have seen way too many 'normal' democrats mocking his death and implying it was justified because he was a 2nd amendment supporter. So are many of your friends, relatively, coworkers. When they see you express that opinion, we realize you're a sociopath and you're the fascist who thinks anyone who disagrees deserves death.

You are now ranting against a made-up argument that literally NO ONE made, but you.

▲

diogenescynic 4 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

ModernMech 4 days ago | parent [-]

Maddow advocates for universal healthcare. If we get universal healthcare and she dies because she lost private healthcare, that would be deeply ironic and everyone should point that out upon her death, throwing all her words supporting universal healthcare back at her ghost. I would 100% support that.

> The left has become so unhinged that they don't even see republicans as human and don't value their deaths/lives.

Across the left I see calls for gun control. If the left had their way, gun violence wouldn't be the problem that it is in America. The left is just sick of burying dead children with holes in them, there's not sympathy left for literally anyone else, especially Kirk, who advocated for this to continue happening. Thoughts and prayers, whatever. Can we do gun control now? No? Then what are we even talking about, we'll just be here again soon enough.

> This is what 10+ years of calling republicans Nazis does... eventually some mentally ill people are going to take it seriously and start killing people.

Unlike the rest of us, you seem to know who the killer was and why he did what he did. At this stage it's just as likely Kirk was shot by a disillusioned fan based on his reaction to the Epstein files, per Laura Loomer's post. Actually, a priori it's far more likely seeing as the statistics show rightwing shooters are far more frequent than leftwing shooters. So calling out "Nazi rhetoric" as the culprit is premature.

	▲	diogenescynic 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]