Fitting or poetic death?

[unicorn]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o

"Charlie Kirk was one of the most high-profile conservative activists and media personalities in the US and a trusted ally of President Donald Trump. Kirk, 31, who died Wednesday in a shooting at a Utah college, was known for holding open-air debates on campuses across the country. In 2012, at the age of 18, he co-founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a student organisation that aims to spread conservative ideals at liberal-leaning US colleges. His social media and eponymous daily podcast often shared clips of him debating with students about issues such as transgender identity, climate change, faith and family values...". 

This man often spoke against any attempts to limit gun usage, proclaiming that gun deaths were "worth it." A shooter took him out with one shot, and they don't have any suspects as of this time.

So how would you describe his death? Fitting? Poetic? Ironic? Which adjective would you use?

[PeterRS]

Which adjective would I use? Inevitable.

I had never  heard of this guy, not being an American, but I know well there are enough nuts, especially extreme right-wing ones, that at some point someone was going to attempt murder. A huge problem with extremist leaders like Trump is that they only encourage counter extemes. And in a country like the USA where there are more guns than people, the urge for one - or indeed some - to express their beliefs in the most extreme way by resorting to a firearm is in my view inevitable. I am sad for this man's family and loved ones, but I am even more sad for all those innocent people who over the years have been murdered by guns. 

What I now fear most is that we are going to witness more extreme cases of the counter extreme. So far, it seems to me, the war in the USA has ben a a war of words. Now it is a war of death and, again in my view, no amount of increasing protection is going to stop the further violence that will result.  

And to extend the premise a little further, Trump's extremism will not stop at the USA's borders. We have already witnessed the utter madness of the crook Netanyahu bombing Israel's ally Qatar. This tiny nation state has problably - but this is clearly a guess as none of us know the real facts - done more to get Israeli hostages released than any other, a typical Arab state which Israel has traditionally condemned in past decades. It is also a large base for American troops. Now the Prime Minister of Qatar has furiously stated that Israel has "killed all  hope" that Hamas will ever release the remaining israeli hostages.

For how much longer will Israel's moderate population put up with a leader intent on wiping out many tens of thousands of Palestinians, on the utter destruction of the Palestinian State, and continually kowtow to the very small group of ultra-right wing aggressive Orthodox Jews in his country? We all know that the root cause of all the fighting is to keep Netanyahu out of jail. Yet how many have been slaughtered in that process? That the world in general has stood by and allowed this to happen is an atrocity in itself. Have we all gone stark raving mad? Have we lost all sense of proportion, of shame, and of sheer human decency?

[floridarob]

No suspects, no trail… just like clockwork. Almost as if pushing too close to the Epstein files comes with a silencer of its own. Putin would be proud of the lesson learned.

Poetic, if nothing else.

[a-447]

It was not up to Kirk to decide whether or not gun deaths were 'worth it'. 

That's surely a judgement to be made by the victims and their families.

[DelRetiro]

43 minutes ago, a-447 said:

It was not up to Kirk to decide whether or not gun deaths were 'worth it'. 

That's surely a judgement to be made by the victims and their families.

You are misrepresenting Kirk’s stance toward firearms.  He believed that the 2nd Amendment was a necessary firewall to prevent government tyranny.  “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  Compare the constitutional rights we have in the US, most fundamental of which is freedom of speech, then compare that to the tyrannical government of Great Britain where the prime minister boasts about jailing ~30 people a day for “offensive” speech like “immigration is bad for Britain.”

Two notes about American gun violence:  it varies year to year, but between 54-62% of gun deaths are suicides.  Would confiscating all guns prevent those suicides?  Doubtful.  Japan, where individual gun ownership is near impossible, has a higher suicide rate than the US.  Also, at least half (the most conservative estimate, I think it’s probably closer to 75%) of all gun homicides result from narcotrafficking violence.  If you eliminate narcotrafficking homicides, our murder rate is comparable to Belgium’s.

The American Left has grown increasingly violent in recent years, in both word and deed.  They are constantly labeling those who oppose them as Nazis and “worse than Hitler.”  It’s a small leap from that rhetoric to the assasination of Charlie Kirk.  After all, who wouldn’t have killed Hitler in the 1930s to prevent the Holocaust?

Charlie never advocated violence, he always advocated free expression and open debate.  Watch his videos on YT engaging with college students and challenging their leftist indoctrination.  Compare that to college & university speech codes, Britain’s prison sentences for “offensive” speech, and the EU’s rapidly evolving restrictions on “hate speech.”  For all those who support banning hate speech, would you still support such a ban if I were the one who defined what constitutes “hate speech”?

[floridarob]

repeating “the Second Amendment is a firewall against tyranny,” but where are all the self-proclaimed patriots with AR-15s now that a would-be strongman is openly trying to undermine elections, pack the courts, and strip away rights?  the U.S. government seems on the road to tyranny, yet the Second Amendment crowd is doing a whole lot of posting and not much resisting.

Also, your numbers are way off: drug-related gun homicides are a tiny fraction (under 10%), not the 50–75% you claimed. And while yes, suicides are a big share of gun deaths, access to firearms makes those attempts far deadlier. That’s why the U.S. suicide-by-gun rate is sky-high compared to countries like Japan, even if their overall suicide rate is higher.

Meanwhile, the U.K. — “tyrannical” by your definition — has a gun homicide rate nearly 50 times lower than the U.S.

So maybe the real misrepresentation is pretending gun saturation equals liberty, when in practice it’s just meant more dead Americans 🧐

 

[DelRetiro]

3 minutes ago, floridarob said:

would-be strongman is openly trying to undermine elections, pack the courts, and strip away rights?

I assume you’re referring to Trump.  How is he undermining elections?  What rights or freedoms has he stripped away, or even attempted to?  Please be specific and substantiate your claims.

As for “pack the courts,” every president nominates federal judges and SC justices whose judicial interpretations aligns with that president’s vision.  Trump nominates conservative, originalist judges/justices, just as Obama and Biden nominated liberal “living Constitution” ones.

[floridarob]

You want me to “be specific and substantiate my claims”? Cute. It’s almost like you slept through the last 4 years.... or are you trying to play, and be like @Olddaddy?

Undermining elections: Trump pressured Georgia’s Secretary of State to “find 11,780 votes”, pushed fake electors, and tried to strong-arm Pence into tossing out certified results. That’s not democracy — that’s an attempted coup.

Stripping rights: He rolled back LGBTQ protections (trans military ban, healthcare), chipped away at voting rights through DOJ positions and gerrymander-friendly courts, and stacked the deck against reproductive rights.

Packing courts: Sure, presidents nominate judges — but Trump and McConnell rammed through lifetime appointments at record speed, including judges rated unqualified by the ABA, after stonewalling Obama’s nominees (remember Garland?). That’s not normal, it’s stacking the judiciary for minority rule.

 the 2nd Amendment as a “firewall against tyranny,”??

When Trump literally tried to overthrow an election, all those “patriots” with their arsenals didn’t fight tyranny — they enabled it.

[Latbear4blk]

Unjustifiable act, indeed. Any political assassination should be condemned, beyond political signs of victims and murderes.

That said, and talking about poetic irony:

 

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, DelRetiro said:

You are misrepresenting Kirk’s stance toward firearms.  He believed that the 2nd Amendment was a necessary firewall to prevent government tyranny.  “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  Compare the constitutional rights we have in the US, most fundamental of which is freedom of speech, then compare that to the tyrannical government of Great Britain where the prime minister boasts about jailing ~30 people a day for “offensive” speech like “immigration is bad for Britain.”

Two notes about American gun violence:  it varies year to year, but between 54-62% of gun deaths are suicides.  Would confiscating all guns prevent those suicides?  Doubtful.  Japan, where individual gun ownership is near impossible, has a higher suicide rate than the US.  Also, at least half (the most conservative estimate, I think it’s probably closer to 75%) of all gun homicides result from narcotrafficking violence.  If you eliminate narcotrafficking homicides, our murder rate is comparable to Belgium’s.

The American Left has grown increasingly violent in recent years, in both word and deed.  They are constantly labeling those who oppose them as Nazis and “worse than Hitler.”  It’s a small leap from that rhetoric to the assasination of Charlie Kirk.  After all, who wouldn’t have killed Hitler in the 1930s to prevent the Holocaust?

Charlie never advocated violence, he always advocated free expression and open debate.  Watch his videos on YT engaging with college students and challenging their leftist indoctrination.  Compare that to college & university speech codes, Britain’s prison sentences for “offensive” speech, and the EU’s rapidly evolving restrictions on “hate speech.”  For all those who support banning hate speech, would you still support such a ban if I were the one who defined what constitutes “hate speech”?

I find this post total rubbish. How anyone can claim that the 2nd amendment is applicable in 2025 and that guns manufactured for the battlefield can be used on American streets in a country where there are more firearms than people is, in my view, ridiculous! Equally the freedom of speech amendment is total nonsense UNLESS it is accompanied by a whole host of caveats. Charlie Kirk believed in anarchy. Full stop! 

[unicorn]

8 hours ago, DelRetiro said:

...Also, at least half (the most conservative estimate, I think it’s probably closer to 75%) of all gun homicides result from narcotrafficking violence...

 

6 hours ago, floridarob said:

... your numbers are way off: drug-related gun homicides are a tiny fraction (under 10%), not the 50–75% you claimed....

I noticed that neither of you referenced your statistics. I call BS on anyone making claims out of thin air, without backing up such claims. 

[unicorn]

8 hours ago, DelRetiro said:

... For all those who support banning hate speech, would you still support such a ban if I were the one who defined what constitutes “hate speech”?

Such bullshit talk from a Republican, when the Republican Party has passed laws making it illegal to even mention gay people in the classroom, or for physicians to mention reproductive options to their patients. When have Democrats supported passing laws banning free speech? 

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/online/volume-xxiii-online/the-dangerous-consequences-of-floridas-dont-say-gay-bill-on-lgbtq-youth-in-florida/

"In March 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law the Parental Rights in Education bill, better known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill (the Bill) by its opponents. According to the text of the Bill, its aim is to prohibit “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels” in Florida’s primary schools...".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36406660/

https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/3130/files/6602d1ea2bdae.pdf

"...Included among the abortion bans passed are aiding and abetting laws that threaten to punish physicians criminally and civilly for advising pregnant individuals about abortion services. Aiding and abetting laws implicate the First Amendment because they restrict physicians from providing necessary counsel to patients about available healthcare options, both in-state and out-of-state...". 

[khaolakguy]

8 hours ago, DelRetiro said:

 Compare the constitutional rights we have in the US, most fundamental of which is freedom of speech, then compare that to the tyrannical government of Great Britain where the prime minister boasts about jailing ~30 people a day for “offensive” speech like “immigration is bad for Britain.”

You are talking out of your arse. Please substantiate from an independent source just one person being imprisoned in the UK  for stating only that "immigration is bad for Britain".

When you start a post with such unsubstantiated twaddle it renders the rest of your unsubstantiated assertions  meaningless. Then you have the nerve to ask another poster to substantiate their comments! Well let's see your substantiation.

[floridarob]

28 minutes ago, unicorn said:

 

I noticed that neither of you referenced your statistics. I call BS on anyone making claims out of thin air, without backing up such claims. 

The latest I found, but the trend seems consistent:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime?

[unicorn]

5 minutes ago, floridarob said:

The latest I found, but the trend seems consistent:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime?

While @DelRetiro is, as a recent poster observed, talking out of his ass, making unsubstantiated claims, your source merely states "In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs...". That statement does nothing to refute his (unsubstantiated) claim that "...at least half (the most conservative estimate, I think it’s probably closer to 75%) of all gun homicides result from narcotrafficking violence." 

[unicorn]

9 hours ago, DelRetiro said:

... For all those who support banning hate speech, would you still support such a ban if I were the one who defined what constitutes “hate speech”?

And from just today's news, a university professor was fired when she discussed gender identity in the classroom!

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/texas-m-fires-professor-gender-identity-lesson-literature-course-rcna230337

"...Texas A&M University fired a professor Tuesday over course instruction related to gender identity after a Republican state lawmaker shared a video that appears to show a student at the university telling the professor that such instruction was “illegal” due to one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders. The head of the university’s English department and a dean were also removed from their posts due to the incident.

In the now-viral video, shared by state Rep. Brian Harrison on social media Monday morning, a professor can be heard mentioning “gender and sexuality,” and then a student can be heard interrupting and telling the professor, “I’m not entirely sure this is legal to be teaching.” The student then mentioned Trump’s executive order that declares the U.S. only recognizes two unchangeable sexes and prohibits federal funds from being used to “promote gender ideology.”

The professor, identified in multiple local reports as Melissa McCoul, then disagreed with the student, saying, “What we are doing is not illegal.”...".

Even the head of the English Department and a dean were removed from their posts! Talk about controlling free speech. At a university, no less! 😯

[floridarob]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

While @DelRetiro is, as a recent poster observed, talking out of his ass, making unsubstantiated claims, your source merely states "In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs...". That statement does nothing to refute his (unsubstantiated) claim that "...at least half (the most conservative estimate, I think it’s probably closer to 75%) of all gun homicides result from narcotrafficking violence." 

Fair enough — but since you’re disagreeing with both sets of numbers, why don’t you share the data you’re relying on?

The BJS and FBI are the most widely cited sources we have, and they don’t come anywhere close to 50–75%. If you’ve got something better, let’s see it — otherwise, it feels like we’re just playing mental masturbation 🤷‍♂️

[floridarob]

This is a straight forward point of view, saw this online:

 

BREAKING: Journalist and college professor Stacey Patton goes viral by penning a stunningly powerful statement about how she was on Charlie Kirk’s “digital hit list” and recounting the horror that he inflicted on her.
 

We cannot allow this tragic assassination to whitewash Kirk’s legacy…

“I am on Charlie Kirk’s hit list,” Patton wrote to her 215,000 followers on Facebook. “His so-called ‘Professor Watchlist,’ run under the umbrella of Turning Point USA, is nothing more than a digital hit list for academics who dare to speak truth to power. I landed there in 2024 after writing commentary that inflamed the MAGA faithful. And once my name went up, the harassment machine roared to life.”
 

“For weeks my inbox and voicemail were deluged. Mostly white men spat venom through the phone: ‘bitch,’ ‘c*nt,’ ‘n****r.’ They threatened all manner of violence,” she continued.
 

“They overwhelmed the university’s PR lines and the president’s office with calls demanding that I be fired,” Patton wrote. “The flood was so relentless that the head of campus security reached out to offer me an escort, because they feared one of these keyboard soldiers might step out of his basement and come do me harm.”

“And I am not unique,” she added.
 

“Kirk’s Watchlist has terrorized legions of professors across this country. Women, Black faculty, queer scholars, basically anyone who challenged white supremacy, gun culture, or Christian nationalism suddenly found themselves targets of coordinated abuse,” Patton wrote.

“Some received death threats. Some had their jobs threatened. Some left academia entirely. Kirk sent the loud message to us: speak the truth and we will unleash the mob!” she continued.
 

“That is the culture of violence Charlie Kirk built. He normalized violence. He curated it, monetized it, and sicced it on anyone who dared to puncture his movement’s lies,” she wrote.
 

“And now, in the wake of his shooting, there’s all this national outpouring of mourning, moments of silence, yellow prayer hands, and tributes painting him as a civil debater,” Patton continued. “But the truth is that Kirk and his foot soldiers spent years terrorizing educators, trying to silence us with harassment and fear!”

“And now the same violence he unleashed on others has come full circle.”
 

“But what i find especially jarring is the dissonance in public mourning for a smug white man whose life work was actively hostile to certain groups,” she continued. “Kirk spent years demonizing LGBTQ people, mocking gun survivors, spewing racism about Black folks, and pushing policies that literally shorten lives.”
 

“It is so revolting to watch a bipartisan wave of grief sweep over this hateful racist as if he was a neutral community servant,” she concluded.

This is pure unvarnished truth from Patton. Charlie Kirk did not deserve what happened to him, but nor did his victims deserve the hell that he unleashed on them.

If Americans are going to build a more peaceful future for ourselves we must condemn political violence while also condemning the hateful, bigoted rhetoric that made Kirk a multimillionaire.

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, floridarob said:

Fair enough — but since you’re disagreeing with both sets of numbers, why don’t you share the data you’re relying on?

The BJS and FBI are the most widely cited sources we have, and they don’t come anywhere close to 50–75%. If you’ve got something better, let’s see it — otherwise, it feels like we’re just playing mental masturbation 🤷‍♂️

My point was not to suggest particular numbers, but rather to point out that both of you were simply pulling "statistics" out of thing air (or, as another user would have put it, out of your arses). If one wants to know the actual truth of the matter, it doesn't take rocket science to get to an answer. Simple put up the question on a search engine such as Google (the most commonly used one). As it turns out, no such statistics are actually gathered (confirming that both of you were BSing), although it appears that the percentage is probably on the higher end.

 

[unicorn]

Here's a link to the Temple University study, which, while not definitive and only has data through mid-2021, is the closest I could find in my brief search on the subject.

https://news.temple.edu/news/2022-02-25/connecting-dots-between-gun-violence-and-drug-markets

[unicorn]

This 2002 Rochester University study also suggests that the vast majority of murders in the US have some sort of drug connection (not necessarily specifically narcotrafficking).

https://www.rit.edu/liberalarts/sites/rit.edu.liberalarts/files/documents/our-work/2002-01.pdf

 

 

[PeterRS]

22 hours ago, PeterRS said:

And to extend the premise a little further, Trump's extremism will not stop at the USA's borders. We have already witnessed the utter madness of the crook Netanyahu bombing Israel's ally Qatar.

Interesting point made in several of today's media. The presence of American troops in Qatar and its largest air base in the Gulf States with all the intelligence capability surrounding them failed to stop Israel breaching Qatari defences - and by extension US defences. Other Gulf states have noted this very strongly.

[PeterRS]

5 hours ago, floridarob said:

If Americans are going to build a more peaceful future for ourselves we must condemn political violence while also condemning the hateful, bigoted rhetoric that made Kirk a multimillionaire.

As I wrote in another thread, in the USA it all comes down to money. Cash is king. As long as they have their own money or it is being fed to them by the mass of special interests, bigots, liars, cheats, scammers and the whole host of rotten humanity is provided with a platform to spew out their dirt. It's called "free speech" in the USA. And as I wrote yesterday, unless free speech is guarded by a host of caveats, people like Kirk and Bannon and Trump and many, many others - including those calling themselves Christians whose churches happen not to have to pay taxes - have an open playing field. 

We had a thread recently about the televangelists prompted by the death of the loathsome Jimmy Swaggart. These men used the airwaves to con millions to enrich themselves. They did not as a result murder anyone as far as I know. But the crazies in the USA are now basically using exactly the same tools. The result has been murder, and it will continue if @floridarob's peaceful future has any hope of happening.

[floridarob]

2 hours ago, unicorn said:

although it appears that the percentage is probably on the higher end.

 

 I call BS on anyone making claims out of thin air, without backing up such claims. 🧐

[a-447]

On 9/11/2025 at 5:49 PM, DelRetiro said:

He believed that the 2nd Amendment was a necessary firewall to prevent government tyranny.  “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  Compare the constitutional rights we have in the US, most fundamental of which is freedom of speech, then compare that to the tyrannical government of Great Britain where the prime minister boasts about jailing ~30 people a day for “offensive” speech like “immigration is bad for Britain.”

What about all those countries which do not have a 2nd amendment, yet are living in peace?

What about tyrannical Trump who is trying his best to control free speech by using the justice system and trying to have media licences revoked? 

What about those tourists being stopped at the border, having their social media accounts checked and then denied entry into America if any anti-Trump comments are discovered? There goes my planned trip to Hawaii,

Any semblance of free speech died when Trump came to power. He's following in the steps of the dictators he admires so much.

You can forget the 2nd amendment!

And to say that the death of innocent people, including school children, is the price to pay for the amendment is strange indeed, coming from a so-called Christian. I would have thought 'Thou shalt not kill' would take precedence.