Further reflections.

@Notsimilarreally Thank you for commenting.

It is upsetting. Those who rejoice and mock are mad. Immoral. Wrong. It is a dark, savage, empty way to view the world. And deeply myopic. They see it through the lens of politics. The death of friendly, jovial father who enjoys debate? An enemy. They say he supported Trump and Republican party. This makes him fair game in their warped, bestial minds.

@Notsimilarreally Charlie Kirk wasn't having discussions with students. He was a bad faith debater who exploited their emotional investments in political issues and lack of real world or debate experience against them in order to post social media content on how he "owned" them.

He was often confrontational, intentionally undermined and misrepresented his opponents positions, refused to answer questions in favor of pushing his own talking points, he openly spread lies and conspiracies, and selectively edited his content in order to only show the worst of the worst from his speaking engagements.

He was a terrible debater who didn't care about appealing to these students, he just wanted to "win" by any dishonest means possible in order to highlight and promote his brand. He was actively dividing people against each other, not bringing them together

He's reaping what he's sown. If you keep poking the bear, eventually the bear is going to wake up. I hope this serves as a wake-up call for anyone else out there attempting to exploit and further political polarization for profit.

@TinyViolins She doesn't want to engage in the politics. She is an ordinary woman who thinks it is unpleasant that a man has been shot dead.

What bear did he poke? You have no idea who the assassin is.

@TinyViolins Is debating in what you call bad faith and making living from it an offense worthy of murder?

@yestestvennaya
With a name like 'notsimilarreally', she's practically telling you she's not ordinary


He poked a lot of bears, figuratively speaking. Could've been any one of them. Like I said, he made his money by dividing people against each other.


Personally, I fall into the belief that society is better off without certain people. Those who wish to sow disorder and division within society. Those who burn bridges instead of build them. Those who unfairly exploit people for personal profit. Those who defend the murders of terrified schoolchildren in order to protect his own guns.

This is not a person who cared about the well-being and growth of people different from himself, and so people as a whole shouldn't shed any tears or waste time grieving what happened. His murder is a net positive for the world in my opinion regardless of the motive.

If someone shoots a rabid dog, I don't care what reason that person had for shooting them. He could've been protecting himself, his family, his animals, or his neighbors. He might have had a grudge with that dog and maybe didn't even know it was rabid. He might not have wanted to wait for animal control. The justifications are not as interesting as the end result. I can rest easy knowing somebody as toxic as he is is finally gone.

@TinyViolins You don't know the ordinary I speak of.

The division you perceive exists beyond Charlie Kirk. He had little to reap and sow. What about others? Aren't we all sowing division by opening our mouths and typing on our keyboards to comment on matters? I don't think we can draw a line at Charlie, can we? He is all of us. You and I. Have you read what you wrote?

@Notsimilarreally "The people responsible for murder are only making things worse for everyone, not to mention full of evil. ". That's why leftists do it. Their play book is the dismantling of populations.

@yestestvennaya He was a highly influential political figure that defended the murder of children in defense of gun ownership. It's poetic justice that he should meet his end by a gun. He had no problem letting it happen to someone else, why should we care when it happens to him?

@Notsimilarreally If America didn't have a severe fetish with guns, perhaps Kirk (and millions of others) would be alive today.

Kirk said he was a supporter of the 2nd amendment....even though people would die, he was OK with that.

Karma? I don't know, but at east he died for what he believed in.

Oh....on the same day he was killed, there was a school shooting in Colorado. Nobody seems to care about that.

@JSul3 people care about school shootings, it may not be in the spotlight because of Kirk's fame, and how shocking and disgusting this was. Millions of people believe in the 2A. That does not make what happened okay. Murder is never okay.

@Notsimilarreally I never said murder was ok.

Please tell Trump that.

@TinyViolins Was he? Influence is perception. Your perception. Mine is different. What if your followers here are now inspired to put down others you call rabid dogs?

@Notsimilarreally Gun control - even just licensing and registration - reduces the killings. Charlie Kirk understood that fact but opposed common sense gun control; that's why he had to construct a reason for finding the additional deaths acceptable.

Maybe, but not enough to reform our gun laws.

Meanwhile, firearms have been the leading cause of death for US children and teens since 2020, representing 19% of all deaths for children 18 years and younger in 2021.

@ElwoodBlues it doesn't matter. Like so many others you are missing the entire point because you're so wrapped up in your own opinion. The man is murdered. He was entitled to his belief. There is no justifying his public assassination, zero.

@Notsimilarreally Like so many others you are missing the entire point because you're so wrapped up in your own opinion.

The point is saving lives. Gun control does that. The following stats are from Johns Hopkins University
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/guns-remain-leading-cause-of-death-for-children-and-teens

Over 2500 kids per year in the US killed by guns. To me that carries far more weight than the murder of Charlie Kirk. About 2500 times as much.

@ElwoodBlues one of my pinned posts is about school shootings and discussion on what should be done.

Just because gun control is obviously needed does not mean it's okay to kill those that disagree. They are entitled to their beliefs. The man was peacefully debating people. Not hurting anyone. If people's feelings were hurt, they should go out and be the Charlie Kirk of their beliefs, not murder.

@Notsimilarreally I never advocated killing Kirk; please don't try to imply that I did. What I'm saying is that I am about 2500X more concerned about the killing of 2500 children per year than I am about the killing of Charlie Kirk. I value EACH of these tragic losses EQUALLY.