All: if you can't respond in a non-violent way, please don't post until you can.
By non-violent I mean not celebrating violence nor excusing it, but also more than that: I mean metabolizing the violence you feel in yourself, until you no longer have a need to express it aggressively.
The feelings we all have about violence are strong and fully human and I'm not judging them. I believe it's our responsibility to each carry our own share of these feelings, rather than firing them at others, including in the petty forms that aggression takes on an internet forum.
If you don't share that belief, that's fine, but we do need you to follow the site guidelines when commenting here, and they certainly cover the above request. So if you're going to comment, please make sure you're familiar with and following them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
themgt 4 hours ago [-]
But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.
My favorite poem, my -- my favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country ...
We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of [people] in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.
Speech made in April, 1968, assassinated on June 5, 1968. Wild.
ethbr1 2 hours ago [-]
>> Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! [April 3, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee]
Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
So perhaps a better excerpt in light of recent events would be
>> And another reason that I'm happy to live in [the second half of the 20th century] is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today.
ruined 1 hours ago [-]
this is the complete transcript of that excerpted speech, often titled "I've Been to the Mountaintop"
It turns out, at least so far, we can still choose violence.
ethbr1 2 hours ago [-]
His point was that once the physical power individuals/governments hold exceeds a threshold, a pluralistic society cannot coexist with violence being an acceptable option.
In the context of the 1960s, governments and nuclear weapons. But more broadly the same holds true for individuals.
Either we learn to live together despite our differences, or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other.
dfghjkl1 7 minutes ago [-]
I think when it becomes normal for 10% or more of the citizens of a country to say they wouldn’t be upset if some member of the opposing political party were to die or when it becomes normal for that portion of the people to make fun or celebrate the death of someone from an opposing party or their murderer, everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?” Because these people are not murderers or accomplices, and they are generally good people. These aren’t people that would lynch anyone or burn a cross in someone’s yard.
It’s awful that anyone dies.
Let’s not escalate this on either side. We don’t need another Hitler, and we don’t need a French Revolution either. We just need people that stop trying to outdo each other.
bamboozled 3 hours ago [-]
Tragic, what a waste.
tmsh 4 hours ago [-]
The most sustainable vision wins. And this is a great vision. Thanks for posting. Helped clarify how to think about today.
thrance 2 hours ago [-]
The most sustainable vision wins eventually. If history has anything to teach us, is that it's full of extremely unpleasant periods between the stable ones. And things aren't looking like they're improving.
chris_wot 2 hours ago [-]
If that's the case, then the most sustainable vision gradually devolves into unsustainability.
thrance 2 hours ago [-]
That's what's happening. Neoliberalism is slowly drifting into fascism, as it has already done multiple times in the past. Maybe what comes after will be actually stable, and not just metastable.
ahartmetz 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bb88 1 hours ago [-]
Mods: Don't whitewash US history here.
The unfortunate history of the US is that violence tends to win.
Bobby Kennedy made that speech, was assassinated shortly afterwards, and Nixon won, prolonging the Vietnam War for another 6 years. Bobby Kennedy, also made a historic speech in Indianapolis that quelled rioting after the MLK assassination. You might imagine a different history in the 1970's if he had been elected president.
Edited to add: My parents were alive, and it hurt them deeply to see MLK, JFK, RFK assassinated.
Charlie Kirk wasn't old enough to witness the assassinations of the 1960's. I wonder if he'd have a different view if he was.
hamhock666 35 minutes ago [-]
> Slavery was only ended by violence
I don't think this is quite true, it may have ended it faster, but I don't think it would still exist today if the civil war had not happened. Most other countries ended slavery without a violent civil war, especially if you think about the way technology vastly outweighed the usefulness of having slaves.
And then when Charlie Kirk says "Some deaths were worth it...", he is talking about accidents and abuses of guns by shooters. He doesn't mean that violence is the answer to politics, it would be great if nobody died from mass shootings. But he is saying that having the right to bear arms to defend yourself is preferable to the alternative where you have no right to do that.
DetroitThrow 13 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
miltonlost 22 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
bb88 15 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
buildsjets 27 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
cshores 6 minutes ago [-]
The Democrats were the Confederate slave owners and had a KKK member in congress as recent as 2010
DetroitThrow 8 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
kragen 39 minutes ago [-]
As long as some of us are still alive, violence hasn't won.
bb88 34 minutes ago [-]
Life can be made worth unlivable.
lossolo 2 hours ago [-]
That would be a great world if that vision could materialize. But as long as people continue polarizing society, exploiting emotions, and using divide and conquer[1] tactics to gain political power, not much will change, and things may even get worse. Social networks have amplified this dynamic more than ever before.
GP is currently the highest comment, and on other sites I've visited, while too many people cheer this or call for violent retaliation, most of the highly-upvoted comments (both liberal and conservative) condemn it and argue for de-escalation.
Anger and fear are powerful emotions, but so is hope. Barack Obama campaigned on hope and became President, winning his first election with the highest %votes since 1988. Donald Trump also became President in part due to hope; his supporters expected him to improve their lives, while most of Hillary Clinton's and Kamala Harris's supporters just expected them to not make things worse. Now lots of people desperately need hope, and if things get worse more will.
Irrational hope can be dangerous: all the time, people make decisions that backfire horribly, and deep down they knew those decisions would backfire horribly, but they made them anyways out of desperation for an unlikely success. Perhaps this is another example, where the assassin delusionally hoped it would somehow promote and further their desires, but it will almost certainly do the opposite.
But hope can also be rational, and unlike anger and fear (which at best prevent bad things), hope can intrinsically be for causing good things. If a group or candidate that runs on hope for a better world gets enough attention and perceived status, it could turn public perception back to unity and optimism.
Palomides 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
causal 2 hours ago [-]
Source?
Palomides 1 hours ago [-]
I think feelings on immigration show that there isn't a "vast majority" of people who want to "live together" and "abide" each other
35% of americans are happy with how the current administration has been handling immigrants
edit: it's funny to see my post above offended(?) people who want to believe that americans are kind and loving, despite uh being on a post where everyone is arguing about how bad the political violence and polarization situation is in the US
underlipton 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
marcusverus 1 hours ago [-]
Deportating illegals is literally justice.
otterley 1 hours ago [-]
For a very specific and narrowly-held view of justice, perhaps.
skissane 32 minutes ago [-]
A lot of people in the US seem to view deporting illegal immigrants as some far-right move bordering on fascism
Meanwhile, in Australia, it is a bipartisan policy. Read this article about what the centre-left Albanese government just did: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/04/labor... (that article technically isn’t about “illegal immigrants”, it is about a group of people who are predominantly legal immigrants who have had their visas cancelled due to criminal convictions-but they don’t treat the illegal immigrants any better)
otterley 26 minutes ago [-]
We've been deporting illegal immigrants for as long as there has been an immigration policy--and yes, that policy is bipartisan. See the data at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2022/table3... -- and consider who held office when the removal rate doubled in 1997. (2021 is an anomalous year, for reasons you can probably guess.)
The contentious issue is not whether the law is being enforced, but rather how it is enforced. Most first-world countries do it with a certain amount of decorum. We've been doing it since Trump regained office with a shock-and-awe approach that is highly disruptive, violent, and of questionable legality.
bdangubic 3 hours ago [-]
hate wins elections
otterley 1 hours ago [-]
Correction: hate unchecked and amplified by social media wins elections. David Duke and Pat Buchanan, both notorious racists (the former being Grand Wizard of the KKK), ran for President but the mainstream media (which were once the only media most people consumed) constrained their influence.
2 hours ago [-]
rawgabbit 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
4 hours ago [-]
shruubi 42 minutes ago [-]
The fact that we're talking about this using terms like "sides" is the problem. American politics has long since stopped being about policy, but is treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what. It's as though people are incapable of having thoughts on an issue more complex than "does my side think this is good or bad?" and suddenly those who disagree with you are evil, and with partisan media suddenly you see the "other side" as some faceless evil rather than people with differing and complex experiences and views.
I don't agree with a lot of the things Charlie Kirk said, and as someone who is not an American, there was also a lot of things he said I simply didn't care about because they didn't apply to me. I also found that his way of communicating was more geared towards encouraging discussions that would generate views. But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
American politics isn't politics, it's one step short of being like football hooliganism for supposedly smart people.
abustamam 16 minutes ago [-]
I agree with you. There should not be sides in the American political system. Yet here we are, because the people we elect seem to want to create a boogeyman in the other "side" and blame all of society's problems on them. Maybe that's just a reflection on American society.
And the news networks eat that shit up. They love a boogeyman, because it's good for ratings.
csours 5 hours ago [-]
History books can tell you facts that happened, but they can never truly tell you how it feels.
I feel we're riding a knife's edge and there's a hurricane brewing in the gulf of absurdity.
====
Incidentally, I feel like this is why it is so hard to actually learn from history. You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
nancyminusone 5 hours ago [-]
Something I like to remind myself of is that all past wars, even ones thousands of years ago, took place in as vibrant colors and fluid detail as we experience today, not in grainy black and white photos or paintings.
Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.
busyant 1 hours ago [-]
> Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.
As someone whose parents, grandparents, and entire family lived in Italy through WWII (and one grandfather who lost an eye in WWI), nobody liked talking about it.
If they did talk about it, it was usually brief and imbued with a feeling of "thank God it's over. what a tragedy that we were all used as pawns by the political class for nothing more than selfish ambitions."
yibg 4 hours ago [-]
Probably more fluid details than today where someone can push a button and level a building 1000 miles away without seeing the faces of any of the people torn to shreds. Maybe there would be less appetite for war if people had to still physically hack up their enemies with a sword or axe.
0cf8612b2e1e 2 hours ago [-]
There was an idea that the key to the nuclear launch codes should be surgically implanted adjacent to the heart of the president’s assistant. If the president should desire to launch the nukes, they would have to personally cut down a man and pull the key from the man’s entrails.
It was essentially not done because it would be too effective.
stevenwoo 42 minutes ago [-]
It’s John von Neumann’s idea, at least from the biography I read. Before too much praise is heaped upon him, he also strongly argued for a nuclear first strike on Soviet Union before they got their own nuclear weapons because it was best strategy from game theory POV.
tga_d 3 hours ago [-]
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
dawatchusay 20 minutes ago [-]
I think it was Call of Duty 2 (when the franchise was still WW2-based) when they would show, in my recollection, an anti-war message including this one every time your character died. I think this was absent from later incarnations of the franchise.
throwawayoldie 1 hours ago [-]
I suspect that for every grandpa who likes telling war stories, there are probably a hundred who get quiet and sullen when the war comes up and have to go excuse themselves and be alone for a while.
vjvjvjvjghv 3 hours ago [-]
I was at Auschwitz in summer. It was beautiful weather, the birds were singing, flowers everywhere. Hard to connect this to the conditions in a concentration camp. It would have been much easier in winter.
nrjames 18 minutes ago [-]
I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau in February of 1995. It was well below freezing and there was some type of ice ball precipitation, perhaps because it was too cold to snow. I was the only person there.
I walked all the way back from the famous entrance gate, along the train tracks, to the monument at the back. The place was huge and imagining people suffering there during that type of weather was especially heartbreaking. I was luckily able to convince the taxi driver to wait for me. I have some black and white photos I took of it somewhere on my shelves. That visit sticks with me more powerfully than almost anywhere else I've been.
technothrasher 2 hours ago [-]
I was at Dachau a couple summers ago in similar weather. I actually found it worse and hit harder because it was such a pleasant day as I watched people stroll around the grounds, taking selfies, kids running around playing. It made me feel like I couldn't even breath.
ryoshu 1 hours ago [-]
I visited Dachau years and years ago. It was a nice summer day, but a pallor fell over when we went inside the camp. It felt like the sky darkened and the color drained from the entire environment.
jaydeegee 2 hours ago [-]
Much much smaller scale but we did a 'Salem Witch Trails' tour and it was a grey dreary autumn day and I felt it complimented the story.
FridayoLeary 2 hours ago [-]
It might have reflected the experience of the guards. One of the most astonishing facts i heard was that the guards used to get prisoners to play music for them and would even be moved to tears!
It reveals something deep about the human condition. Auchwitz was a perfectly lovely place for many of the employees as long as they disassociated themselves from all the suffering and evil around them.
ForOldHack 2 hours ago [-]
It is so well preserved, because those who were liberated from it, were so horrified at what they witnesses, that they did not want anyone to forget. It was a herculean effort, many wanted to bury it,because of the pain, and many more wanted to bury it, like it never happened.
A personal salute to all those who fought to preserve it.
There is a great video on the Poles who worked to preserve it. A lot of it is ... Unspeakable.
t0lo 3 hours ago [-]
When history becomes prehistory, we have to go through it again
mothballed 5 hours ago [-]
A lot of war stories get embellished and no one is going to challenge it.
There's the story about the guy who says he was the hardest working man in Vietnam, and then when pressed about what he did, he states he was a trucker to the great surprise of anyone listening.
When asked why he thought that, he says "well I was the only one."
RichardCA 4 hours ago [-]
If you're talking about the ones who drove supply trucks during the war years, the hardest working men were women.
The story wasn't actually about the trucker being hard working (or not), though I'm sure he was. He wasn't actually trying to make people believe he literally was the hardest working.
The joke is that everyone else he went to war with was claiming to be something else, so he must have delivered all the supplies himself.
The response is interesting to me, because having fought in a war, though I am not a US veteran -- I instantly got it. And the place I heard it from was more veteran dominated, and everyone instantly understood/appreciated the joke.
lm28469 5 hours ago [-]
We've always been on a knife edge it's just streamed straight into your eyes balls 24/7 now and social media means everyone has to have a black or white opinion about everything.
dylan604 5 hours ago [-]
While that may be true to an extent, the 24/7 nature of it now is the equivalent of constantly red lining the engine. It used to be you'd go to meetings/gatherings of like minded people to get hopped up and your engines revved up like that, but they would for the most part cool back down after getting back home. Now, the engine never gets back to idle and stays red lined. At some point, the engine will break down, only instead of throwing a rod or ceasing up, something non-engine related will happen.
ethbr1 2 hours ago [-]
> It used to be you'd go to meetings/gatherings of like minded people to get hopped up and your engines revved up like that
I would go so far as to say going to meetings physically was also a counterbalance.
When you're around other people, even ones who share your beliefs, and say 'I think we should murder that guy!' then in most crowds someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
It's when you exclusively socially exist in online spaces that the most extreme actions suddenly become encouraged.
Or as Josh Johnson recently quipped, "The internet is all gas no brakes."
dylan604 2 hours ago [-]
> someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
We might be thinking of different types of gatherings/meetings. Specifically, I was thinking of someone with a particular set of extremist ideals that get together for a monthly meeting with others with those same extremist ideals. Someone in that group would likely not say "are you okay" rather they'd say "hellzya brother!" or whatever they'd actually phrase it. These types of meetings are also known to have someone speak intentionally seeking to get a member to act as a lone wolf to actually carry out the comment you're hoping someone would tamper. Now, one doesn't need to go to meetings for that encouragement. They just open up whatever app/forum.
mothballed 2 hours ago [-]
Anything I say on the internet, someone will always have a compelling but sometimes wrong argument as to why im wrong. If you listen to them for confirmation you'd never be able to do anything, and im not exaggerating. I could probably say the earth is round here on HN and some astrophysics PhD would tell me I failed to consider the 4th dimension or something and it's actually unknown if we can call it round.
Where are these people going that they just see encouragement without resistance?
dylan604 7 minutes ago [-]
Being right all the time on the internet is such a curse. Those damned learned people with PhDs thinking they know things going up against such an obviously more intelligent person. They should have their degrees revoked!
lm28469 5 hours ago [-]
From a personal point of view I agree, it's completely unhealthy, but from a global perspective it's always been fucked up all the time, open a wiki page for any year between 1900 and now and you will find loads of assassinations, terrorist attacks, wars, famine, genocides, coups d'états, &c.
TheOtherHobbes 1 hours ago [-]
There aren't many times when there's quite as much happening at the same time.
Over the last week or so we've had: serious riots in France, catastrophic riots in Nepal, a scandal in the UK featuring the ambassador to the US, hostile drone incursions into Poland, the murder of Charlie Kirk, the ICE raid on visiting South Korean workers, soldiers on the streets of DC and a threatened incursion into Chicago, a school shooting, revelations about the biggest paedophile scandal of the century and its links to the rich and famous, including the current president, and Israel attacking most of the countries around it.
In the background is the continuing war in Ukraine, China's increasing militarisation and threatened technological lead over the US, the situation in Gaza, the disassembly of the established US federal system of government, existential and economic dread over the impact of AI, and climate change.
If everyone's feeling a little edgy, there may be good reasons for that.
seanmcdirmid 1 hours ago [-]
Your comment sounds like a new verse in Billy Joel's "we didn't start the fire" song. When Trump was elected, I knew, at least, that the news wouldn't be boring for the next four years.
lazide 4 hours ago [-]
Yup - you’d just never hear about all the ones that weren’t right next to you. At least in gory detail while they happened.
Here, I get to read all about the latest insanity in the last 24 hrs from…. 4 major countries in Crisis?
Tchau, from central Brazil (today).
ForOldHack 2 hours ago [-]
Insanity...
tracker1 4 hours ago [-]
Men of Virginia! pause and ponder upon those instructive cyphers, and these incontestible facts. Ye will then judge for yourselves on the point of an American navy. Ye will judge without regard to the prattle of a president, the prattle of that strange compound of ignorance and ferocity, of deceit and weakness; without regard to that hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
-- James Callender, The Prospect Before Us, 1800
poszlem 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ttoinou 5 hours ago [-]
You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Interesting how this quote can be interpreted in fully opposite ways depending on what "side" you were on during covid
dylan604 5 hours ago [-]
I think COVID proved we're not smarter now in multiple ways and from either side. Human nature is a weird thing that we clearly are still grasping to understand
digdugdirk 5 hours ago [-]
"Either side"? The virus or humanity?
dgunay 4 hours ago [-]
We had the technology to push out a vaccine in less than a year. Modern medicine is of course smarter than it was a century ago.
What went poorly is our society's collective response. From the medical and governmental establishment, there was much hemming and hawing over what measures to take for way too long (masking, distancing, closing of public spaces, etc). Taking _any_ countermeasures against the spread of the virus also somehow became a culture war issue. I'm assuming GP meant "left or right" by "either side" so make of that what you will.
ttoinou 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah but, at least in my bubble in Europe, being for or against covid measures had little to do with left or right. It was about listening to mainstream media or having alternative source of information
FridayoLeary 1 hours ago [-]
I followed the mainstream media exclusively and still realised immediately that nobody actually had a clue what they were doing. My trust in MSM died then. Most alternative sources are even less reliable but i believe spreading a wider net gives me a better judgement. Whatever you do, don't exclusively outsource your opinions and judgement to the MSM. Too often they take up the same wrong narratives. This is easier said then done. Read the opinions and news even from people you despise and be honest with yourself.
whackernews 24 minutes ago [-]
Yeh for me it was about being told I couldn’t go out because there was a cold going around.
alex1138 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
AdieuToLogic 1 hours ago [-]
> All (virtually all, it's not hyperbole) of the "misinformation" during covid turned out not to be that at all
> There was no science behind social distancing, or masks, or the (so called, it's not an actual one) vaccine
These assertions are provably wrong. Regarding "social distancing" specifically:
There was adequate empirical evidence for the effect of
social distancing at the individual level, and for partial
or full lockdown at the community level. However, at the
level of social settings, the evidence was moderate for
school closure, and was limited for workplace/business
closures as single targeted interventions.[0]
As to the science behind "masks" and "vaccines", the former can be trivially shown to limit the distance of oral particulate expulsion and the latter has enough published medical research to make verifying vaccine efficacy a matter of accepting facts.
> Edit: I would like to remind people that downvotes do not, and never will, make me wrong
> depending on what "side" you were on during covid
It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand differing approaches, but it's the extreme polarisation that flabbergasts me.
firesteelrain 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
computerdork 2 hours ago [-]
Hmm, the number found online is that Covid killed 1.2 million in the US, so guessing the shutdown and vaccines probably saved millions. But your take is different. Guessing you disagree with the the 1.2m deaths figure? (not trying to be pushy, just curious on your take)
firesteelrain 2 hours ago [-]
The 1.2m number is what’s reported, but whether shutdowns and mandates prevented multiples of that is something we can’t actually prove. What we do know is that shutting the country down caused deep economic, educational, and mental-health damage that will take decades to unwind.
computerdork 26 minutes ago [-]
I don't disagree with you, but the Spanish Flu killed 50 million. That's twice as much as died in WWI. Seems like it was, overall, a reasonable trade off, to save possibly tens of millions, the world went into a protective state.
And the next time this happens (which it probably will given the statistics), the US will probably handle it much better and the lock down will be less severe. I'm Korean American, and something like 10 years before covid, Korea had gone through an earlier pandemic (swine flu?), so when covid hit, it wasn't that big a deal. They already all knew what to do and the lock down wasn't as severe.
Yeah, our lockdown was overkill in many instances, but it was all so new to us. There's a good chance it'll be a lot better managed the next time.
Graphon1 1 hours ago [-]
We had no idea what we were dealing with. It was unprecedented. People were doing the best they could. All the anger didn't help.
firesteelrain 1 hours ago [-]
I’m not sure it’s right to say we didn’t know what to do. Beaches and playgrounds were closed even though the risk of outdoor spread on surfaces was minimal. Those kinds of choices made the shutdown damage worse without clear public health benefit. We had the science to tell us that viruses don’t survive on beach surfaces for example
acjohnson55 28 minutes ago [-]
It was frustrating to have some of the outdoor ban stuff at a point when it was pretty clear that things were safe in highly ventilated environments. But in my opinion, that was relatively harmless compared to the backlash against common sense precautions, like properly fit N95 masks when sharing enclosed space.
There's a lot of criticism of places that kept schools closed for longer than was necessary, in retrospect. But we really didn't know whether it would always be the case that the risks to children were low. The virus could have mutated in a way that brought more risk. Or there could have been chronic effects that could only be seen after the passage of time. Given the infectiousness of the virus, it could have been so much worse.
I get the vaccine hesitancy. But I think a lot of people were not willing to accept that vaccination is not just about their own safety, but a collective safety issue.
cosmicgadget 26 minutes ago [-]
You can vaguely understand it by looking at hospitals overwhelmed by mass casualty events and then imagine it happening over the course of a year.
fzeroracer 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
firesteelrain 1 hours ago [-]
It’s not about letting people die. The issue is that broad shutdowns caused massive long-term harm, and targeted protection would have been a better balance.
the_gipsy 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
firesteelrain 1 hours ago [-]
I don’t believe that at all. COVID was real and serious, especially for vulnerable people. My point is that shutting down the entire country caused damage in areas like education, mental health, and livelihoods that also cost lives and well-being. Protecting those at risk could have been done without blanket shutdowns that hurt everyone.
kazinator 2 hours ago [-]
If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, you have to engineer the pathogen such that it causes every infected person to melt in a puddle of grease with near 100% probability in about a week, with near 100% probability of transmission via any casual contact with infected persons at any stage of their infection. You just watch everyone scramble to the same side!
whackernews 32 minutes ago [-]
And look. The government doesn’t have to do anything!
kazinator 48 seconds ago [-]
[delayed]
retrocog 43 minutes ago [-]
IMHO, you're correct on many counts.
What's the Pindar quote again?
"War is sweet to those who have no experience of it. But the experienced man trembles exceedingly in his heart at its approach"
stevenwoo 47 minutes ago [-]
We in the USA find it totally acceptable (as in doing the exact opposite of other nations where it happens once) to have a mass shooting at a school two times a week. We have already passed absurdity.
jgalt212 3 hours ago [-]
We know more now, but we're not smarter now.
anon291 3 hours ago [-]
As I've grown older and gone back through history I've realized why so many decisions and actions seem kind of irrational to outside observers. This is why I think study of ancient history is so important, because we have so few connections, that the analysis does not seem personal.
Nevertheless, I realize that it's usually a zeitgeist more than any particular thing that really flows through history.
ngcazz 5 hours ago [-]
I really don't like how interesting these times are.
csours 4 hours ago [-]
I don't like that I'm starting to understand Magical Realism
Yeah, Etsy is funny. On the basis of what I bought I got an ad for a spell to transform into a fox but if they had really looked at what I bought they would have realized I already had the material list.
computerdork 2 hours ago [-]
haha, yes, the president dismissing anyone in the federal government who disagrees with him, and trying to turn the national guard into his own personal police department, and inciting a riot/revolt 4 years ago but the US populace still elects him again, and allowing Elon Musk access to all the federal government which he slashes to bits in less than a couple of months (including science research) and having that same person soon after turn on president and the multiple assassination attempts, successful and unsuccessful... and it's only been 8 months since he took office. Crazy times we live in
whymauri 3 hours ago [-]
On Sunday, I was talking a Mexican friend about how politicians get killed in our countries (Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico). Just in June, presidential hopeful Miguel Uribe was shot and killed in Bogota. In the head, in front of a crowd.
I remember being grateful about how that doesn't really happen in the US (Trump being the most recent, but he survived). I guess I was wrong... and, in that case, Garcia Marquez might agree with you.
yepitwas 2 hours ago [-]
The US had one killed within the last two months, with an attempt on another, and the attacker had a list of other targets.
You could be forgiven for not knowing, since the collective coverage and attention to it since has probably been less, total, than what this received in the last couple hours.
Jensson 2 hours ago [-]
What times were not interesting?
nradov 54 minutes ago [-]
1992-94
chris_wot 2 hours ago [-]
He's semi-quoting the proverb "May you live in interesting times".
hollerith 52 minutes ago [-]
In the US, from about 1975 to 2015. Also from 1897 or so to about 1963.
harambae 3 minutes ago [-]
At least one year in that range where something happened.
davidw 3 hours ago [-]
Yes, I for one am thoroughly tired of living in interesting times.
craftkiller 22 minutes ago [-]
So are all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
jimt1234 5 hours ago [-]
> History books can tell you facts that happened, but they can never truly tell you how it feels.
Great quote. I feel the same way about 9/11 - the feeling of confusion, like "wtf is going on?!" IMHO, only those who lived it can really relate.
pelagicAustral 4 hours ago [-]
Of all the days I've been alive, if I could pin point one that I remember vividly with every bit of detail and emotion, that'd be 9/11... I was 14, and all of the sudden, even that younger version of myself, understood every single thing was about to change...
chasd00 2 hours ago [-]
I can recall that day almost minute by minute starting with learning of the first plane hitting the WTC.
nicce 4 hours ago [-]
I don't live in the U.S but I watched 9/11 live from the television, and I can still feel it and remember it. It was so big deal.
t0lo 3 hours ago [-]
It's time to revisit 9/11 and think about what it means in the modern context
underlipton 1 hours ago [-]
We already did, on October 7th, 2023. Israel did not learn from our example, and they currently find themselves in a quagmire where they're spending billions to kill thousands of the people they're supposed to be saving from an authoritarian, terrorist-harboring regime, with almost no real benefit to their national security, and where they have most of the rest of the world bearing down on them diplomatically for their conduct and alleged war crimes. (This is the most charitable characterization I can muster.)
The response to 9/11 was one of the most foolhardy possible, and it's astounding that any other nature would attempt the same with it still in living memory.
FridayoLeary 47 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
s5300 24 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
ForOldHack 39 minutes ago [-]
Bush threatened the Taliban, and they responded. How many is donald threatening?
The modern context is we have gone from a benevolent nation to a blidgerent nation. Not really progress. But the context is decisive.
whackernews 19 minutes ago [-]
Eh?
ivape 5 hours ago [-]
Why do we think we’re passed an Arch Duke Ferdinand moment? Trump is more than ready to use his secret police.
RIP Charlie Kirk, no human deserves that. The rest of us left are still not necessarily better people after that exact moment, hopefully everyone takes a pause.
JacobThreeThree 4 hours ago [-]
Constantly fear-mongering that every event that occurs is a prelude to a repeat of history's worst atrocities is exactly the type of rhetoric we should avoid.
ivape 4 hours ago [-]
I agree with you.
Do you think we have a Presidency with the same sensibility? They sent the national guard with zero pretense all over the country. This is about to get serious.
NuclearPM 4 hours ago [-]
I don’t think you two agree.
5 hours ago [-]
sporkxrocket 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
spaceman_2020 3 hours ago [-]
Targeted vs untargeted violence. The former almost always comes with a broader message to society at large.
A school shooter isn’t trying to say “shut down all schools”.
But a terrorist flying a plane into one of the most important symbols of your most important city is certainly trying to send your society a message.
Same with this killing
Think about how you would feel if some guys beat you and your friends up in a bar fight, vs someone individually stalking you and beating you up outside your own house. You got beaten up in both cases, but the bar fight beating will unlikely make you feel as vulnerable and scared to leave the house as being stalked and targeted individually
sporkxrocket 3 hours ago [-]
The killing of Palestinians is targeted.
joyeuse6701 3 hours ago [-]
If it is, they are pretty incompetent.
sporkxrocket 3 hours ago [-]
Being totally amoral and incompetent are two different things.
spaceman_2020 3 hours ago [-]
Which is why it feels so much more despicable and awful than all the other conflicts that are currently ongoing in the world.
isleyaardvark 3 hours ago [-]
There was a school shooting in Colorado within about an hour of when Kirk got shot
winwang 3 hours ago [-]
I'm not too caught up with politics, but a (presumably) political shooting has the issue of being disruptive to the government and therefore the nation as a whole, since the USA is built on democratic ideals. And since it's a(/the) global superpower, its issues result in serious international problems as well.
sporkxrocket 2 hours ago [-]
He was a Youtuber, not a politician though.
themaninthedark 56 minutes ago [-]
Martin Luther King Jr. was just a preacher, I don't understand the the big deal about him getting shot. /s
e40 3 hours ago [-]
It's a big deal because he's very important to part of the 30% that supports DJT.
This is the sort of violence that begets more violence.
sporkxrocket 3 hours ago [-]
What about all of the other violence I listed? It's orders of magnitude more severe. We don't know the motive of the shooting, but it could very well be someone who's related to the victims of the violence Kirk endorsed.
e40 2 hours ago [-]
The main reason is that the side he's on his pretty unhinged and they think it's more important than all the other violence listed.
It's like when a conservative person is canceled they throw an absolute fit, then turn around and cancel someone on the left, without making any connection.
incompatible 3 hours ago [-]
The US is already well into this cycle, e.g., the killing of Melissa Hortman.
vjvjvjvjghv 3 hours ago [-]
Events like this have often been used as trigger to implement measures that were already planned. The nazis did that a lot (Reichstagsbrand, Kristallnacht), You could argue that Israel used the October 7 attacks to accelerate efforts to get rid of the Palestinians. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld used 9/11 to invade Iraq which they had wanted to do long before.
I am definitely worried what Trump and republicans will do as a response.
3 hours ago [-]
panarky 3 hours ago [-]
HN has thousands of comments debating the justification for killing tens of thousands of non-combatants in Palestine.
More posts debating the justification for killing 11 people in a boat in the Caribbean who did not pose an imminent threat.
HN rules do not prevent any of these discussions.
But here we have a individual who advocated those killings.
Here we have an individual who publicly justified school massacres by saying those senseless deaths are a worthwhile price to pay for gun rights in the US.
On HN it's perfectly fine to justify all this violence, to argue that the violence is regrettable but necessary, but any equivalent discussion about this one individual is somehow beyond the pale.
averageRoyalty 3 hours ago [-]
> Here we have an individual who publicly justified school massacres by saying those senseless deaths are a worthwhile price to pay for gun rights in the US.
I'm an outside observer, but isn't that the point of the right to bear arms in your constitution? I don't think the people who wrote it were naive enough to not understand guns could be used for evil purposes, so inherently they supported the price of the deaths of innocents as a trade off for the benefits of guns, right?
danudey 3 hours ago [-]
The distinction is:
1. The goal of the second amendment was never "everyone should be able to have as many guns as they have, and if people use a gun to kill a dozen children then so be it", it was "it should be illegal for the government to take away people's weapons because the first step a tyrant would take is to disarm the populace so they couldn't fight back." That goal doesn't hold water anymore in a world where a computer geek working for the US military in a basement in Virginia can drone strike a wedding on the other side of the world. Instead, the NRA has made "guns good" into something that too many people make their whole personality, and the people who are actually trying to destroy society use that as a weapon to prevent any positive change when someone murders a dozen kids by making people feel like the only choice is between "anyone can have guns and children are murdered every day" or "the government takes your weapons and forces any dissidents into siberian-esque gulags".
2. Firearms were far less common, far less accessible, and far less deadly than they are now. Compared to what was available at the time, modern-day weapons like the AR15 are effectively weapons of mass destruction. If you went into a school with a civil war-era rifle and tried to kill as many people as you could, you'd maybe get one shot off which might not even kill someone if you hit them, and then you'd get tackled while you were trying to reload.
gct 2 minutes ago [-]
They were also loose powder hand loaded weapons, you could fire three rounds a _minute_ if you were really skilled. Everyone in town had to store their powder in a (secure) communal location because it was, duh, an explosive.
mionhe 1 hours ago [-]
And yet the founding fathers made it pretty clear that they were all for every able-bodied man having guns, including private citizens owning artillery.
The relative lethality of a particular style of rifle doesn't seem to matter. Better guns than muskets were available at the time, and they didn't seem to think it necessary to limit that amendment.
I don't think your opinions about the history and purpose of the second amendment holds water.
averageRoyalty 3 hours ago [-]
I think you've moved the goalposts here a little. You are making (good) arguments on why the second amendment maybe shouldn't apply any longer and that guns of now are different. You're arguing for gun reform.
However I was speaking in the context of the tradeoffs of danger and the awareness of what blood you get on your hands for agreeing. Although the writers of this bill couldn't forsee AR15s and drone strikes, I'm sure they could forsee that there was a cost to freedom to bear arms.
jebarker 3 hours ago [-]
I think it’s worth posting the actual wording of the 2nd amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There’s endless legal debate how this should be interpreted, but it’s not obvious that there was an assumption that there would be mass individual gun ownership.
ndriscoll 3 hours ago [-]
The Second Militia Act of 1792 clarified that assumption somewhat when it specified all free able-bodied white male citizens must be part of their local militia and are required to own a gun among other things.
What they couldn't have predicted is that the Bill of Rights would also apply to the individual state and local governments since that wasn't true until the 14th amendment almost 100 years later and didn't really kick off until the 1900s. This is obviously important to understand what the original amendments mean.
averageRoyalty 3 hours ago [-]
That's interesting. What is a reasonable alternative interpretation of "the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" than individual gun ownership though?
myko 2 hours ago [-]
"The people" here were the states - the point was that the states could maintain their own militia (the modern day national guard). The 2nd amendment has been bastardized by a radical judiciary that is now unfortunately too entrenched to fix without repealing the 2A.
seanmcdirmid 3 hours ago [-]
The supreme court ruled that the first clause of the 2nd amendment was just flavor text. We aren't going to be Switzerland, which has an actual armed militia where kids take military-issued guns into their community to support it (on the train even! although the bullets are kept somewhere else to reduce a suicide problem they had a few years ago).
jebarker 3 hours ago [-]
I was responding to an assertion that the amendment authors must have known the implications of what they were writing. It’s irrelevant what a subsequent Supreme Court interpretation was to that point.
seanmcdirmid 1 hours ago [-]
The Supreme court formally declared that the amendment authors wrote the amendment with the first clause of the second amendment as meaningless flavor text. It is obviously revisionist and I hope it doesn't hold for more than a few generations or so (assuming the USA survives).
Aeolun 3 hours ago [-]
I think that’s pretty much the only way you can make that work? I’m against gun ownership, but I feel like you really need to stretch things to read that any other way than ‘people shall be allowed to own their own guns’
jebarker 3 hours ago [-]
I almost don’t want to respond since this is well trodden ground, but I would say that “a well regulated militia” casts doubt on the individual gun ownership interpretation. You have to decide who the militia exists to fight and therefore who should regulate them. It’s obviously not obvious though.
3 hours ago [-]
slightwinder 2 hours ago [-]
That constitution was written 250 years ago, after a war. Those people lived in different times, wilder times. How does their opinion matters today?
mionhe 1 hours ago [-]
"Wilder times" is an interesting description of the early days of the country. When I look around at the violence the last several years (mass rioting, looting, uptick in murder pretty much everywhere, etc. etc.), I feel like that description applies pretty well to our times as well.
That being the case, I would say their opinions and beliefs are pretty important to the current national climate.
baby_souffle 1 hours ago [-]
It was also written at a point in time when the absolute peak of firearms technology was a musket.
The logic behind the 2nd amendment doesn't hold once Uncle Sam has nuclear tipped icbms and I'm not allowed to have them. I'm also not allowed to have tanks or rocket launchers or even high rate of fire Gatling style guns.
To paraphrase, "if you think the 2nd amendment is what's keeping the government off your back, you don't understand how tanks work"
panarky 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wordofx 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wordofx 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
golemiprague 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
monero-xmr 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sliq 3 hours ago [-]
I agree to your logic, but scanning social media gives a totally different view: People feel like they need to take action now. The murder of the ukranian girl set a social fire, and the killing of charlie kirk put gasoline over it. You can feel the rage. I've never seen so many upvotes and likes for quite radical opinions like in the last hours on TikTok and X.
Looks like a storm is coming.
dttze 3 hours ago [-]
Just like when Trump got shot, right?
tredeske 4 hours ago [-]
One thing that history shows again and again is people being killed for their beliefs. Charlie always spoke from his heart, from his deeply held intellectual and spiritual beliefs. He died, literally on a stage defending those beliefs.
This seems vague. Can you elaborate on the claim you’re making?
chris_wot 2 hours ago [-]
Funny, back then Americans didn't wear masks for much the same reasons they wouldn't during the last pandemic, and they died in their thousands for much the same reasons.
mionhe 1 hours ago [-]
Which reasons are you referring to? I've never heard this comparison between masking during two pandemics 100+ years apart.
According to that study, 23% approved of the statement "I approve hostile activism to drive change by threatening or committing violence". It's even higher if you only focus on 18-34 year olds.
This week in Nepal, before all the other news hit the fan, GenZ did exactly that, and overthrew the current leadership. 30 lives were lost along the way.
The military took over for security purposes, and asked the leadership of the movement whom they wanted for an interim government. It was not the happy, peaceful democracy we all long for. It was a costly victory. But I feel happy the legitimate grievances the protestors held will lead to change. I hope they can find some candidates who will stand for them and reduce corruption, and do the best they can to help with the economy.
perihelions 3 hours ago [-]
"Not peaceful" is an understatement. They burned innocents alive.
IMO it's far too early for anyone to declare any kind of victory, in that unresolved, chaotic power vacuum. No one can guess where that will go.
potato3732842 2 hours ago [-]
Crack open a history book. That's the risk you run being an unpopular head of state. Head of state is probably one of the most likely to kill you jobs ever.
underlipton 1 hours ago [-]
I believe that was after 19 students, non-violent protestors, were gunned down by security forces.
It's a tough proposition. The goal is for the elite to have the awareness, humility, and political courage to not let things get so bad. But that point is well before Dauphines lose their heads. It's when peasant children are asking for bread and not getting any. Maybe before even that. Don't reach that tipping point and you won't careen towards the other atrocities.
xvector 6 minutes ago [-]
They were not intentionally killed, the security forces were untrained in the use of rubber bullets and shot them directly at protestors rather than having them ricochet off the ground.
gg-plz 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
SilverElfin 3 hours ago [-]
Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible. It removes the process for peaceful and civil change. The protestors had to go there as a result. But revolutions also tend not to result in something better most of the time.
grafmax 2 hours ago [-]
And yet many of the greatest accomplishments of humanity over the past few centuries have been shepherded by violence - abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonizatiom.
transcriptase 2 hours ago [-]
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but humanity has not abolished slavery. Most recent stats estimate ~28 million people worldwide in the forced labour category that most would mentally associate with the term. That rises to nearly 50 million going by the modern definition that includes forced marriage, child rearing, and subservience without recourse.
Yes, in 2025.
Sadly the United States abolishing slavery for ~4 million within its own borders in the 1860s did not represent humanity as a whole.
On paper the problem is solved because it’s illegal to openly buy and sell another person. In practice the exact same treatment and de facto ownership and exploitation of other people remain without any meaningful enforcement in many parts of the world.
ForOldHack 36 minutes ago [-]
Prison labor = Slavery.
Aloisius 19 minutes ago [-]
Prison labor = slave labor, not slavery. Prison = slavery.
I blame how slavery is taught for the confusion. Slavery itself is a legal state where one's autonomy is fully controlled by another. Forced labor is something people commonly use slaves for, but the absence of labor didn't make one free - a slave allowed to retire was still enslaved as was a newborn born into slavery even before they're first made to work.
ethbr1 2 hours ago [-]
> abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonization
It's notable that all of those are pre-democratic.
fraggleysun 2 hours ago [-]
Could you please clarify your statement?
ethbr1 2 hours ago [-]
>> Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible.
GP stated this.
Parent replied with a list of scenarios where violence created progress, albeit none of which featured universal democracy before the violence.
IOW, they are loudly agreeing with each other.
komali2 2 hours ago [-]
At least in the case of the USA, then, there's still no universal democracy. Corporations have far more powerful and influence, in basically every election you can only vote for a neoliberal, and plenty of people get disenfranchised.
ethbr1 1 hours ago [-]
It seems like bike-shedding to equate complete lack of franchise with vote dilution.
They are very different levels of democratic access.
Karrot_Kream 1 hours ago [-]
Nepal isn't a good comparison to the US. Nepal has been extremely politically unstable now for years and was wracked by a giant earthquake too. Nepal doesn't have stable governing institutions. In 2001 a disgruntled member of the royal family massacred the rest of the family, kicking off 20 years of instability.
cakealert 2 hours ago [-]
Translation: The government lost support of the military. GenZ were allowed to topple the government.
tootie 3 hours ago [-]
Didn't the government open fire on protesters killing over a dozen people the day before the protesters turned violent?
smeeger 1 hours ago [-]
corruption is only made worse by angry mobs tearing things down. what is erected afterwards is almost always worse ironically. the only way corruption is reduced is citizens becoming smarter somehow and slowly allowing the elite to get away with less and less bad behaviour while also creating an intelligent incentive structure for the elites as well as everyone else to drive productive, pro-social behaviour. whats going on in most of the world and nepal is the opposite of that
w10-1 3 hours ago [-]
Kudos for citing actual facts/studies. But these are about sentiment, which in a digital age where personality has been reduced to opinion and thus amplified for effect, might be both manipulated and less significant.
By contrast, acts of bombings and other political violence were both more common and widespread in the 1970's and 1980's than now.[1] In those cases, people took great personal risks.
[Edit: removed Nepal, mentioned in other comments]
"threatening or committing violence" could mean almost anything.
It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.
zdragnar 4 hours ago [-]
Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare?
Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant.
> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.
elcritch 34 minutes ago [-]
Still the trend of calling speech a form of violence likely has the counter effect of legitimizing violence. It’s not hard to go from “speech is violence” thoughts to “well they used violence (speech) against us so it’s okay if I use violence (physical) against them”.
krapp 13 minutes ago [-]
The Second Amendment already legitimizes violence as a form of political expression. Whether or not speech also counts as violence isn't really relevant, the guns will be used regardless.
zdragnar 3 minutes ago [-]
This is nonsense; assaulting and killing people is illegal except in self defense. In no way whatsoever does the second amendment legitimize violence.
joecool1029 3 hours ago [-]
> I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.
Except for in Japan? I noticed in all those reports Japan was at or near the bottom of countries measured for trust in their government. I was never able to find polling with regard to sentiment on Shinzo Abe's assassination but the majority of the country opposed the state funeral for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Re...
soraminazuki 2 hours ago [-]
Sure he was a right wing divisive figure and I'm not saying that wasn't a factor, but opposition to the state funeral had more to do with the use of taxpayer money IMO.
PaulHoule 1 hours ago [-]
It was more than that. A remarkable number of Japanese came to the conclusion that the shooter was right about the relationship between the ruling party and the Moonies.
Lerc 4 hours ago [-]
It will be a range of opinions within that area, but even at the tail there are a concerning number of people.
One person in a thousand prepared to commit violence for political ends can be enough to turn a country into chaos.
Aeolun 2 hours ago [-]
Because one person in a thousand is equivalent to a small military force.
ipython 3 hours ago [-]
If you read the linked pdf, “attack someone online” is a separate subcategory (27%)
BJones12 3 hours ago [-]
It seems like we're seeing a change where the pen is no longer mightier than the sword. Where thousands of demonstrators failed to censor Kirk, one bullet succeeded. In eastern Ukraine no words have been able to stop the invasion. In Nepal no political process has created a world that Gen Z wants to live in, but an uprising might. Force is winning. I expect it will continue to win.
Logically, we should start stockpiling force, lest others use more against us.
gnarlouse 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think this is the right way to think about it. This is short term thinking--it doesn't solve the problem. This is just the road to more gun violence.
3 hours ago [-]
chris_wot 2 hours ago [-]
That way leads to civil war.
CuriouslyC 23 minutes ago [-]
We're basically guaranteed to get one if we don't get two blue sweeps (or an independent party that fights the republicans) in the coming elections. The Republicans have rigged the game badly and have been escalating their use of advantage, Democratic states are going to start withholding taxes, and people are going to start taking shots at ICE in the streets. When that happens, it's already too late.
garciasn 8 minutes ago [-]
> Democratic states are going to start withholding taxes
Yes; this idea has been recently floated by a handful of states, but it’s nothing but headline-catching theatre. It will do nothing and those actions are just as illegal (via the Supremacy clause) as the current administration’s withholding previously appropriated funds. But; I’ll tell you who has the upper hand in making the other side do what they want…
As for taking shots at ICE, there’s long-running precedence for this and we haven’t lost previously because of it.
insurancesucks 16 minutes ago [-]
It's rhetoric like this that gets people shot.
"If my side doesn't win then the only way forward is violent."
We didn't go to war with the Nazis because they wanted a border and were buying people flights home.
JKCalhoun 1 hours ago [-]
With States redistricting/gerrymandering, a cold civil war has already begun.
pclmulqdq 29 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
CuriouslyC 21 minutes ago [-]
Being intentionally obtuse to try and inject a political opinion is lame as hell, friend.
pclmulqdq 16 minutes ago [-]
I'm not the one injecting politics here - the parent comment did that for me. I'm the one pointing out the hypocrisy.
mothballed 4 hours ago [-]
Is it possible that violence is just more rational for today's 18-34 y/o than it was at some other points in recent history?
Lerc 4 hours ago [-]
The argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone. If those who do it do not face repercussions then they will gain undue advantage, motivating everyone to match their actions, which again, is bad for everyone. The solution is the social contract and the rule of law. If enough people agree that anyone taking that path should face repercussions sufficient to not grant a net advantage, then enforcement of the law prevents others from taking the path of violence to reach parity with the violent
When the rule of law is eroded, which it has been, in the US and worldwide. Then it does indeed become more rational to use violence to restore the rule of law. Unfortunately it also increases the motivation towards violence for personal gain, that makes the task of restoring the rule of law all that more difficult. Countries have spent years trying to recover that stability once it is lost.
tossandthrow 3 hours ago [-]
Rule of law in itself is not a worthwhile institution - and is not enough to keep violence at distance.
You need protection, non corruption and a level of equality to be protected by that rule of law.
I think that is what mostly has been eroded - also the poorest 10% need a reason to believe in rule of law.
noduerme 1 hours ago [-]
You make a good point. For example, the rule of law in North Korea or Equatorial Guinea is whatever the HMFIC says it is. And that's written in law, the police and courts enforce it, all proper and aboveboard in a legalistic sense. Just not in common sense.
As far as the poorest 10%, though: There is always a poorest 10%. And a poorest 50%. If you're in the middle class or higher, you have every reason to prevent the poor from revolting and taking what you have. This can be accomplished by a vast array of carrots and sticks. Some countries lean more toward the carrot - we call them liberal democracies. Autocratic states use the stick.
But although greater wealth inequality may be a good indicator of the tendency of the lowest 10% to become lawless, it is not a good indicator of which method is used to keep them in check. Cuba has pretty amazingly low levels of wealth inequality - essentially everyone's poor. Keeping them from rebelling, however, is all stick, precisely because any kind of economic carrot would undermine the philosophy that it's better for everyone to be poor than to have wealth inequality.
YZF 25 minutes ago [-]
Very good points.
For the most part, the bottom 10% in most liberal democracies are much better off than most people in most autocratic states.
Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. Yet I saw a poster the other day titled "class warfare" with a picture of graveyard saying that's where the "rich" will be buried. People don't understand at all how counties and economies work and how this system we live in works vs. the alternatives (I'm in Canada btw).
3 hours ago [-]
ethbr1 2 hours ago [-]
Rule of law is necessary but not sufficient.
The others don't matter if it's lacking, because social contracts without contracts meaning anything are worthless.
efreak 1 hours ago [-]
Relevant:
> Hate begets hate; violence begets violence[...]Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate[...]but to win[...]friendship and understanding.
> The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence[...]
It is, however, frequently the way by which countries reset themselves.
philistine 11 minutes ago [-]
What is the alternative to a generation who credibly has a shot at being the last generation of a functioning world economy before climate change severely contracts the worldwide living standard?
xvector 4 minutes ago [-]
This kind of dooming extremist rhetoric is why we are where we are today.
No, it is not the "last generation of a functioning world" and we will solve climate change like we solve every other problem.
molsongolden 3 hours ago [-]
They also might be least aware of the consequences as they've grown up during the least violent time in US and human history.
ants_everywhere 3 hours ago [-]
unlikely.
A more likely explanation is that pro-violence propaganda began swamping social media in 2016, which is 9 years ago. 18 year olds have been exposed to it nonstop since they were 9 and 34 year olds since they were 25.
The people who are disposed to anger and violence move along the radicalization sales funnel relatively slowly. But already once you've shown interest, you start seeing increasingly angry content and only angry content. There is a lot of rhetoric specifically telling people they should be angry, should not try to help things, and should resort to violence, and actively get others to promote violence.
Being surrounded socially by that day in and day out is a challenge to anyone, and if you're predisposed to anger it can become intoxicating.
A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference.
The same sort of campaigns were run at a smaller scale during the Cold War and have been successful in provoking hot wars.
mothballed 3 hours ago [-]
>A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference.
Hmm, interesting thesis. I'm aware something like half of the Whitmer Kidnapping plotters were feds/informants, to the point a few were exonerated in trial. There's certainly some evidence the government is intentionally provoking violent actors.
ethbr1 2 hours ago [-]
I believe parent was referring to the US government and other national governments.
It's on record that Russian and Chinese propaganda campaigns in the US were aimed at sowing division generally, more so than any particular viewpoint.
ants_everywhere 2 hours ago [-]
Yes that's correct. In particular, not just run of the mill division, but impersonating right and left wing militants both calling for violence.
For example, just one that turned up at the top of a quick Google search
> And the analysis shows that everyone from the former president, Dmitry Medvedev, as well as military bloggers, lifestyle influencers and bots, as you mentioned, are all pushing this narrative that the U.S. is on the brink of civil war and thus Texas should secede from the United States, and that Russia will be there to support this.
Government employees are just trying to get promoted. So they entrap crazy people that they can then stop.
voidhorse 1 hours ago [-]
I think you're right. Couple it with the increasing isolation driven by everyone being online 24/7 in lieu of interacting with each other in person and you have a recipe for disaster. Even though it's possible to be social on the internet, it has a strong distance effect and a lot of groups benefit by forging internet bonds over hatred, criticism, or dehumanization of others (who cares about the "normies"). In addition, in many cases one doesn't even need to interact with people for most needs (amazon etc) further contributing to isolation and the illusion that you don't need others. It's the perfect storm to make the barrier to violence really low—it's easy when you have no connection to the victims and you see them as less than human or as objects "npcs".
ants_everywhere 5 minutes ago [-]
Your mention of "normies" and "npcs" reminds me of an unfortunate change I saw happen in autistic communities a few years ago.
Those spaces used to be great places for people to ask questions, share interests, and find relief in a community that understood them. But over just a year or two, the whole atmosphere flipped. The focus turned from mutual support to a shared antagonism toward neurotypical people, who were often dehumanized.
It was heartbreaking to watch. Long-time members, people who were just grateful to finally have a place to belong, were suddenly told they weren't welcome anymore if they weren't angry enough. That anger became a tool to police the community, and many of the original, supportive spaces were lost.
twoodfin 3 hours ago [-]
Rational by what calculus?
throwaway250624 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tossandthrow 4 hours ago [-]
These studies are interest but should equally be interpreted as the desire for change - and I think it is reasonable to say that there is a huge desire for change.
In particular regard anti democratic developments, an increasing oligarchy, and increased inequality.
If I was a leader, I would take this really seriously and start to make some hard decisions.
jackmottatx 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
amradio1989 3 hours ago [-]
In light of the top post by "dang", I'd like to apologize for my own comments. Forgive me brothers and sisters, I was obviously on edge.
In particular I'd like to apologize to one individual whom I insinuated was posting rage-bait.
To close, this is a tragic time in America. Each act of violence is one act too many.
davesque 3 hours ago [-]
I'm glad to see people following their instinct to de-escalate. Kudos.
Loughla 1 hours ago [-]
Good on you for owning that.
Simulacra 38 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
Glyptodon 2 hours ago [-]
I'm mildly curious what the reaction to this will be compared to the reaction to other recent political murders, like the Hortmans, or of Thompson.
That said, I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
Graphon1 1 hours ago [-]
> even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe
ok let's try data instead of feels. Per Capita, what is the number of mass shootings per year in the USA, and in Japan. I did't know the answer but asked Gemini.
The most recent year for which there is data, apparently, is 2023, during which there were 604 mass shootings in the USA, and 1 in Japan. Given the respective population counts, the per-capita rate of mass shootings in the United States was about 225 times higher than in Japan.
Given that, are you confident that your observation that "one guy made a gun once in Japan" is a strong refutation of the idea that the US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?
insurancesucks 9 minutes ago [-]
The trouble with this debate is that figures can lie and liars can figure.
When someone says "mass shooting" we all picture some lunatic with a high capacity magazine going haywire on innocents. But the vast majority of those 604 shootings are from gang members with many prior arrests shooting each other.
I'm not saying gang violence should be tolerated, I'm saying without that cleared up we can't have a real conversation.
potato3732842 1 hours ago [-]
The fact that gemini is saying there were 604 is insane. That's literally ~2/day. That doesn't pass the sniff test for any reasonable definition of mass shooting (i.e. indiscriminate shooting of parties not known to the shooter).
The fact that you are just willing to run with such a number says everything we need to know.
seanmcdirmid 1 hours ago [-]
> The U.S. averages one to two mass shootings per day, with the specific rate varying by year and definition. Organizations like the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) define a mass shooting as an incident where at least four people are shot and either killed or injured, not including the shooter. For example, the GVA reported the U.S. averaged two mass shootings per day in the first half of 2023, with a record-breaking number in 2021.
Here is an Axios article where Gemini is getting its information from:
We are at 300 so far this year. You can click on mass shootings and get an enumerated list for this year with incidents and sources, I'm not sure if you can go back to other years also:
You could sample some of the incidents and see if they are being honest or not.
thephyber 2 minutes ago [-]
The definition of mass shooting has been contested for a long time. The WaPo database and the FBI database used different definitions.
IIRC, the difference lies in how many people are involved versus how many people are killed.
insurancesucks 6 minutes ago [-]
You've arrived at something important intuitively.
The majority of "mass shootings" are gang related. Just from gang members with many prior felony's shooting each other (and maybe innocents getting hit in the process sometimes)
This is kept from you purposefully.
acjohnson55 10 minutes ago [-]
When I lived in Baltimore, mass shootings were a regular occurrence. And that was just one medium sized city.
The vast majority of mass shootings don't make national news, because they happen in high poverty areas. It's not just the inner city, there are parts of rural America that are also quite violent.
It makes the news when someone who "shouldn't be killed" gets killed.
abustamam 7 minutes ago [-]
It's OK to criticize the source of the info (LLMs routinely make things up). But it would be been easy for you to verify the info as well.
wyre 59 minutes ago [-]
Not believing facts because you don’t want to believe them? Says everything we need to know.
tekknik 25 minutes ago [-]
more like mass shooting is poorly defined
abustamam 11 minutes ago [-]
While "mass shooting" does not have a solid agreed upon definition, there is a commonly accepted definition when we talk about one in the US. It's a shooting incident in which there are 4 or more casualties.
It's a dishonest bar. The vast majority of us picture a deranged lunatic indiscriminately shooting innocent people.
Gang related incidents are something entirely different.
The definition should not obscure the two (but it would be politically inconvenient to separate them)
mjlawson 14 minutes ago [-]
More like that it's politically defined when the numbers become inconvenient.
defrost 49 minutes ago [-]
Meanwhile, overshadowed by the Kirk shooting, an almost mass shooting also occurred:
3 Students, Including Attacker, Shot at Colorado High School, Authorities Say
Three students, including a shooting suspect, were critically injured in a shooting at a suburban high school in Colorado on Wednesday afternoon, the authorities said.
That's just one below a common mass shooting definition threshold.
It's telling that event, leading news in any other country, will likely get buried below the Kirk shooting as "just another day in the USofA".
the_gastropod 56 minutes ago [-]
"Doesn’t pass the sniff test" usually means "I haven’t looked at the data." The U.S. has averaged ~2 mass shootings a day for years. It feels unreal because it is — but that's life in America.
stronglikedan 13 minutes ago [-]
there are plenty of regulations already. what we need is to start enforcing them. and also mental heath destigmatization and assistance, since it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
reissbaker 1 hours ago [-]
This was not a mass shooting.
abustamam 10 minutes ago [-]
I think the fact that this wasn't a mass shooting makes it even worse.
tekknik 26 minutes ago [-]
> US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?
How? without decreasing access for sane people or using any of the previous talking points that have been rejected previously. now’s the time to suggest real change that could have an effect but suggesting the tired “no black rifles” will still go nowhere.
artificialLimbs 55 minutes ago [-]
If every adult that could carry a gun did, there would be much less mass shooting. It would be minimized shooting, in fact.
paulryanrogers 2 hours ago [-]
> remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders. IMO it's clearly worth the tradeoff. Very few of us live in a place where only guns can solve our problems.
The fact that occasionally someone goes to great lengths to kill doesn't mean we should make it easier for everyone.
Group_B 2 hours ago [-]
I think it's simply too late for real gun control in the US. Like how would that ever be enforced? There's too many guns already, and we have too many people down south that would be happy to smuggle guns back up North. And trying to control the ammo would be even more unrealistic. The gun culture America created over the past 100+ years is a massive mistake, and I don't think there is any undoing of it. Should have been more control immediately post WWII imo.
danpalmer 1 hours ago [-]
I'm not from the US so I only have an outsider's view of the culture, and FWIW I'm also not from Australia although I have emigrated here now.
Australia seemed to have a deeper relationship with guns previously, that stemmed partially out of necessity (farming etc), but there are also a lot of parallels with US culture here – the American dream, being a colony hundreds of years ago, etc, some focus on personal rights and freedoms, being a federation of states, etc. I don't think it was as deep a relationship as the US, but coming from the UK it seemed that Australia had a very different view than the UK.
Australia turned this all around. The culture shifted, and people realised that for the greater good it was something they needed to get past, and they did.
Maybe there's hope for US gun control yet, although the turning point for Australia was a (single) mass shooting. Maybe the US needs a much bigger turning point. I'm a little surprised that the Las Vegas shooting a while ago didn't provide that.
hn_acc1 14 minutes ago [-]
>for the greater good
When 1/3 of the country debates whether a different 1/10 to 1/3 of the country has a right to exist and/or live their lives as they wish (within the bounds of the law!), this can't happen.
adgjlsfhk1 27 minutes ago [-]
It's very doable.
Step 1: get a supreme court that is able to read the 1st sentence of the 2nd amendment
Step 2: ban sale of guns to individuals not associated with well regulated militias (e.g. state national guards)
Step 3. Offer a reward to turn in privately held guns.
artificialLimbs 52 minutes ago [-]
Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.
ryan_lane 3 minutes ago [-]
The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.
koolba 42 minutes ago [-]
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.
rcpt 2 hours ago [-]
A lot of stuff would not happen if it took a little more effort. Giving people some extra time to second guess themselves is a big deal.
artificialLimbs 51 minutes ago [-]
This problem didn't happen in the 50s and 60s, when people brought their guns to school for funsies.
1 hours ago [-]
codyb 2 hours ago [-]
So... if anything, this is the exact situation stricter gun laws wouldn't really prevent. Which would be the targeted assassination of a societal figure by a determined ideologue or partisan or mole.
In which case you'd need a strong internal investigatory services in order to root these plots out before they happen by following up on leads and tips.
Well... not to get political, but I think we're hollowing that out too?
potato3732842 1 hours ago [-]
>strong internal investigatory services in order to root these plots out before they happen
Who will necessarily be so strong they'll be capable of pulling such things off to serve their own ends.
It's an intractable problem all the way down.
msie 2 hours ago [-]
Well, you wouldn't be able to reproduce such a long-range kill with a shabbily constructed firearm. You would have to be up close, which would be harder to do.
komali2 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
artificialLimbs 49 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
tekknik 23 minutes ago [-]
> Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders.
So let’s define what your definition of strict gun control is. Also, if you want people to care more, stop including suicides because it drastically changes the numbers.
throwaway48476 1 hours ago [-]
No one wants to get stabbed either.
artificialLimbs 54 minutes ago [-]
The people trying to take your guns are the bad guys. Always.
torstenvl 7 minutes ago [-]
They want you completely defenseless when someone tries to stab you.
danpalmer 2 hours ago [-]
Gun control doesn't need to solve 100% of gun violence to be worth doing.
angelgonzales 56 minutes ago [-]
Some years back, I had a discussion with an older woman who struck a conversation with me innocently enough about weather or something. She turned the topic to politics and volunteered an opinion, her tone and expression indicated to me that she expected me to agree with her statement. I told her that I respectfully disagreed with her and I also told her why. Her expression soured and she told me that because she was a schoolteacher she thought guns should be banned because too many children had been killed by people using guns on them. I agreed with her that it was tragic and that I hoped we could live in a world where kids wouldn’t die from people using guns on them. In my life I want to be rational and honest and I want to listen to people. I listen to people and I hope they listen to me because that’s how ideas are exchanged. I asked her how I myself could avoid becoming the victim of a genocide without guns. I wonder this myself. I’ve read about genocides, the millions of people dead in China, Russia, Germany, Poland, Africa and Gaza too, I’ve also seen rioting and violence firsthand in Los Angeles and Portland and I wonder how I can ensure that my girlfriend and I will be safe now and into the future. I have no solution except for responsible gun ownership. A few years ago our car was stolen in Portland, the police did not help and the 911 phone service was down at the time. The only way I could get the car was to physically go and pick the car up, a car surrounded by criminals, of course I needed a gun to make sure I was safe. I think about natural disasters or occasions where government is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens - how will good people defend themselves against evil people? I’ve seen violence firsthand so many times that I have a visceral reaction to the thought that someone would take my guns away - I simply wouldn’t let it happen because I know if I did then I wouldn’t be able to prevent myself from being killed and dumped in an unmarked mass grave by a 19 year old kid who thinks he’s doing the right thing because of a mandate from a politician, and I wouldn’t be able to stop evil people.
She disagreed, I disagreed with her, she made points I feel were unfair oversimplifications “guns have more rights than women,” but we had a respectful discussion but she didn’t want to talk with me anymore after that. I would’ve talked with her after because I value what people have to say and I want to have discussions. I think we can have discussions but we should never take away the rights of citizens.
monkeydreams 39 minutes ago [-]
> I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
... having said that, isn't it funny just how much gun violence there is in the one developed country that allows for open slather gun ownership. It's like, yes, you can never stop a determined person from doing violence, but by reducing the availability and power of fire arms you do stop a lot of fools from doing "mass shooter" levels of damage.
gnarlouse 2 hours ago [-]
In my head I'm praying it's not a Franz Ferdinand. But the trajectory in the cycle of economic booms and bust, it feels at least possible. I hoping I'm wwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
............aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy off.
abustamam 19 minutes ago [-]
Yeah I have an unfortunate suspicion that 9/10 will be known as the date something went down in the future history books.
Molitor5901 4 hours ago [-]
This is nuts. I am deeply worried we are headed towards open armed conflict. The violence against political opponents must stop, no matter who it is.
wslh 32 minutes ago [-]
I recommend the movie "Civil War" very original. Not saying that will happen but the movie is great.
ratg13 3 hours ago [-]
Ruling out nation state actors that have a vested interest in political divide and chaos and distraction is not the best starting point.
59 minutes ago [-]
1 hours ago [-]
4 hours ago [-]
feoren 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jmyeet 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
morkalork 1 hours ago [-]
>Vice President JD Vance doesn’t ‘give a shit’ if you think lethal Venezuela boat strike was a war crime [1]
Such is the state of rhetoric in the USA today. To quote a favourite show of mine:
>Things will not calm down Daniel Jackson things will calm up
> I know they are worlds apart, but just look at what happened in Nepal...
They let hotel inhabitants leave before burning it down. The finance minister got caught by the mob and survived. Does make it seem quite controlled, imo.
WastedCucumber 4 hours ago [-]
For those, like me, wondering what happened in Nepal:
They assassinated some guys in Doha very recently.
flyinglizard 21 minutes ago [-]
Not “some guys” but Hamas leadership. Those “guys” brought the worst atrocities for Jews since the holocaust. Israel went after them just like it went after the perpetrators of the Munich Olympics massacre in 1972, and like US went after Bin Laden.
mike_d 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
smeeger 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
digitaLandscape 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
quietmonkey 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
randallsquared 3 hours ago [-]
It's not clear what "restoring democracy" means, given that the US' current leadership was (I suppose!) elected in accordance with democratic norms.
a lot of the damage has been done by exactly comments like there, implying that democracy has been destroyed
quietmonkey 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
hinkley 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
hashbig 3 hours ago [-]
I just logged in to Bluesky to see what the left think of this and I wish I hadn't.
I find it extremely disturbing that half the country are people who are very well educated, earning well above average from their white-collar careers, yet they still think political violence is acceptable or funny.
This country is doomed.
m-watson 3 hours ago [-]
100% serious statement here, who are you looking at on Bluesky or how? Looking at the Discover (so a general feed) my follow which would be unique to me, and the trending ALL I see is people talking about this being bad OR posts showing how everyone is saying Bluesky is celebrating. I truly do not see this celebration happening that people are saying is happening rampantly. Right now, in a private browser going to https://bsky.app/ there is 0 celebration.
(quick edit) And anyone who doesn't believe me go to Bluesky right now and look.
mjmsmith 3 hours ago [-]
They find what they want to find.
DFHippie 2 hours ago [-]
The majority of what I see on Bluesky is people saying that political violence is unacceptable. There are a good number juxtaposing Kirk's saying mass school killings are an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms. They are not, however, saying that political violence is acceptable. I haven't seen anyone say that.
I have seen right-wing commenters say that the left was saying this. When I asked for examples I got nothing. I got responses, but the left-of-center commenters they pointed to were in the two categories I describe above: those saying the event is terrible and those saying it's ironic.
Now, I'm sure you can find people saying political violence is okay. I'm just saying I haven't seen it at all and therefore it isn't the central tendency in my feed.
sliq 3 hours ago [-]
Can confirm. However, the cliche of the well-educated well-earning left-leaning might be the most bizarre political misinformation ever. I have never seen so much hate, crazy opinions, ignorance and open agreement to useless violence like when scrolling through mostly left Reddit.
ubermonkey 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
selimthegrim 3 hours ago [-]
This is the Harold Washington on Richard Daley response and the best take in my opinion.
waterTanuki 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jordanb 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
4 hours ago [-]
sergiotapia 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
yalogin 3 hours ago [-]
Can you give me links?
dyauspitr 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
paulvnickerson 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
HAL3000 40 minutes ago [-]
> I'm saying the left has a bigger problem with violent rhetoric and actions
Here is some data that seems to say something different. It was posted as a response to Musk’s comment, "The Left is the party of murder."
Btw It’s really crazy to read what a person who has 225M followers on X writes when he replies "Exactly" directly to claim that people who fund the Left, like Bill Gates, are murderers.
consumer451 1 hours ago [-]
There is no need to self-censor a comment like this.
If you believe that one political side is more prone to violence than the other, then say so and show your supporting data.
pm90 1 hours ago [-]
> As of 2021, the United States government considers white supremacists to be the top domestic terrorism threat.
First of all, the current calendar year never gets stats. It usually takes the FBI 1-2 years to release data because it’s mostly collected by 10,000s of local police agencies, then collated and normalized by the FBI. Even then, there were problems with the data because some police departments lied when filling out the forms (notably one department in Louisiana). But I also heard that the FBI stopped collecting it as part of the DOGE / DEI policy changes (because some of the fields / dimensions of analysis are racial).
That said, the next challenge is to agree on what constitutes the left-right political spectrum in the US. I would argue it’s too vague to exist. It’s important to realize when a data point is describing gun violence or any source of violence, and whether it is violence against civilians or violence against the government as well.
tdeck 31 minutes ago [-]
Once they seize state power they can use that, so it's not considered terrorism.
lynndotpy 50 minutes ago [-]
Your view is simply one that is not in line with reality.
There's the numerous Obama assassination plots, 2017 Unite the Right rally, Jan 6, the recent assassinations of Democrat politicians, Abbott in 2024 pardoning murderer Daniel Perry who went to a BLM protest with the intention of killing protestors, and the terror groups like the Proud Boys, the 3 Percenters, The Base, the O9A/Cvlt/764.
And that's not to mention the Christchurch mosque shootings, the Club Q or Pulse Nightclub shootings, the El Paso Walmart shooting, the Jacksonville Dollar Tree shooting, or the Charleston church shooting.
And these are just the ones off the top of my head. These aren't cherry picked; the stats disagree with you too. Here is one such study, but you would be hard pressed to find one that shows otherwise: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/
The right commits far more political violence. That is just a simple fact of reality.
(edit) If you are sincerely concerned about political violence, then it's worth keeping up with the far-right accelerationist movement. They have been increasing in activity since 2020, and attacks on gun proponents and conservatives are part of those plots, like The Base's foiled 2020 attack on a gun rights rally in Virginia, or the the foiled 2024 energy grid attack ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atomwaffen_Division_me... )
stouset 39 minutes ago [-]
Don’t forget about Melissa and Mark Hortman. Or the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot.
I forgot their names; Melissa and Mark Hortman were the assassinated Democrat politicians I mentioned, yes. I did forget the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot though-- no reason other than it slipped my mind.
pclmulqdq 19 minutes ago [-]
It slipped your mind because 12 of 18 conspirators in that plot were FBI plants or informants, 2 took a plea deal, and 4 got off due to the entrapment.
lynndotpy 7 minutes ago [-]
This is a non-sequitur, why would that make it slip my mind? Those aren't even details I readily remembered, and searching them up, it looks like those details aren't even factual. Searching it up, it seems thirteen people were arrested. The defense claimed three and a half years ago that there were twelve FBI informants.
I think it slipped my mind because there were already too many examples of far-right and conservative terrorist violence, and I was not intending to write an exhaustive comment in the first place.
misiti3780 2 hours ago [-]
what are you implying?
next_xibalba 1 hours ago [-]
Huh?
Trump’s two would be assassins were left aligned.
Man who murdered politicians in Minnesota was right aligned.
It’s probably safe to assume today’s murderer was left aligned.
Seems like it’s a both sides problem.
tootie 3 hours ago [-]
It may make no difference but as of now we have no idea who did this or why. We still have no idea what was the motive of the man who shot Trump's ear.
potato3732842 1 hours ago [-]
We don't have "no idea". We have god knows how many hours of the dead guy spewing his opinions in 1080p and 4k. And for all of those variety opinions we know who gets pissed off by them.
I mean, sure, it could've been a crazy ex or a former business partner or whatever. But how many crazy ex's can one guy have? And he's pissed off god knows how many people by saying things? Strictly by the numbers this was almost certainly someone who hated him for what he said.
Statistically most people don't go out like Ozzy (i.e. spend a good chunk of your life doing something likely to be the death of you only to get dead by something completely unrelated)
tootie 42 minutes ago [-]
If we're placing bets, you'd bet on political motive but we're not placing bets. I'll throw out one option that's been very popular on the right wing conspiracy circuit and maybe it was a false flag to set the stage for Martial Law. I have no proof it's true and no proof it isn't.
komali2 1 hours ago [-]
We don't know how motive? He didn't shoot Trump's ear, he shot Trump, because he wanted to kill Trump... I don't get how much clearer a motive could be!
the_gastropod 5 minutes ago [-]
The biography of the kid shows no coherent political beliefs. He appeared to be interested in also killing Biden. It just so happens, Trump’s campaign event was very close to Crooks’ home.
His actions aren't a motive. They turned his life upside down and didn't find any strong political opinions and no indication he hated Trump. People also do stuff like this to get attention. The guy who shot at Reagan wanted to impress Jodie Foster.
NewJazz 4 hours ago [-]
The best prevention is deterrence.
paulryanrogers 2 hours ago [-]
Agreed. Gun use should be deterred by making them illegal. Having more guns than people is clearly not working.
NewJazz 46 minutes ago [-]
That's not what deterrence is.
smeeger 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Zigurd 4 hours ago [-]
There's video of the police carrying someone away, with his pants down. They drop him on his face at one point. Apparently the wrong guy.
Utah has what they call "constitutional carry." Extremely permissive gun laws. I'd bet there were several people carrying concealed in that crowd, not counting security and police.
petsfed 4 hours ago [-]
Reports are that the single shot came from ~200 yards/meters away, which is basically the worst case scenario for good-guy-with-a-gun. In an active shooter situation, an armed bystander could in principle stop an attacker from continuing, but the only way that an armed bystander could hope to stop an assassination is if they were walking around looking for trouble.
Regardless of where you stand on the subject of concealed carry, I don't think its controversial to say we shouldn't be encouraging untrained/unvetted folks to go seek out would-be assassins before they have demonstrated themselves to be a danger. That's exactly how "armed security" shot and killed an actual bystander at the Salt Lake City 50501 demonstration earlier this year.
Zigurd 3 hours ago [-]
I'm certainly not encouraging armed individuals in a crowd to do anything. My point was that having a significant number of armed people in a crowd like that makes finding a shooter that much more difficult. I am not surprised the wrong person was grabbed. It could've been much worse.
petsfed 3 hours ago [-]
I misunderstood you then. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Even so, most folks who carry prefer concealed carry for tactical reasons, one of which being that unless you have your rifle in a ready position, its not very useful in a self-defense situation, and simply marks you as "shoot this one first". And it turns out that walking around with a rifle in a ready position is generally perceived as aggressive, regardless of actual intent, even by those comfortable with firearms (consider a police officer approaching with a holstered weapon vs one in their hand).
So in the context of this shot, it ought to be relatively easy to pick out the shooter in the moment, the problem is that a ~200m radius around the tent where Kirk was speaking covers a lot of territory, and that's a lot of ground to cover effectively without obviously interfering with students' free movement about their college campus.
Aeolun 2 hours ago [-]
You don’t need someone in all of that space though. Just in the locations that give you a decent shot at the tent.
ethbr1 2 hours ago [-]
College campuses are not known for their well-shielded outdoor spaces.
koolba 2 hours ago [-]
The shot was clearly with a long gun (a rifle). There’s no way to make a shot at 200 yards with a hand gun (okay yes it’s possible, but disqualifyingly difficult and unlikely). And nobody concealed carries a long gun because it’s not physically possible.
SpicyUme 3 hours ago [-]
Yeah, this happened with the shooting at the SLC protest earlier this year. A protestor with a gun was shot at by security, then accused of shooting the person who died. Open carry is allowed in Utah. Whether or not you think marching while openly carrying is a good idea. Unfortunately I understand the stress of the moment and it can be hard to figure out who is responsible while acting quickly.
This is crazy. Healthy debate and disagreement should be free in a democratic country, without any fear of violence, let alone death.
UncleMeat 18 minutes ago [-]
You should be able to speak without fear of violence.
But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."
stronglikedan 9 minutes ago [-]
> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."
Whenever I saw him engaging people, he certainly was. Often, they weren't, but he pretty much always was, even going so far as to deescalate. Although what you said is often parroted, there's no much evidence in your favor, if any.
xvector 35 seconds ago [-]
What are you even talking about? He was a shining example of what healthy debate looked like. I cannot think of a single other influencer that debated as openly as he did, on either side.
Simulacra 36 minutes ago [-]
That's not possible when political parties and the media keep calling those they disagree with Nazis, fascist, and calling for their death. Go look at blue sky right now, it's like it's like it's New Year's Eve
incoming1211 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
msie 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
myHNAccount123 1 hours ago [-]
I think you're being too nice. Is rage baiting teenagers really a debate?
PlanksVariable 44 minutes ago [-]
That’s one way to frame it. A cynical and disingenuous one.
He presented an alternative to the indoctrination students often receive today at college campuses and through the media. He gave students a microphone and a chance to defend their views.
If presenting an alternative political philosophy causes someone to become enraged (or worse), we’re in a really bad state.
sigmarule 1 hours ago [-]
(only replying here because I can’t reply to the parent)
> Writes “Unfortunately the left cannot have debate and disagreement.”
> Receives downvotes - literal expressions of disagreement incarnate.
> Updates post to add “(weird way to prove my point, by downvoting)”
I guess you’re implying you’re a liberal?
esalman 36 minutes ago [-]
How can there be healthy debate with someone who argues few gun deaths are necessary in order to have 2nd amendment, or bombing children is justified?
boomfunky 26 minutes ago [-]
Because he would then hand you a mic to challenge his point. In a healthy debate. And you connected your own dots on the second point to satisfy your sick sense of justice.
esalman 19 minutes ago [-]
How about him handing the mic to children killed in school shootings and bombing?
smashah 26 minutes ago [-]
For some people those issues exist in a realm of debatable topics because they're not affected by it. It's apparently within the realms of debate to justify mass holocaust of babies abroad. Kinda like a video game. And clearly, people shouldn't be assassinated for merely playing video games.
beej71 3 minutes ago [-]
I don't want to live in a place where people are killed for expressing opinions I consider highly offensive and damaging.
nickdothutton 4 hours ago [-]
Just the other day I was reading about the Italian "Years Of Lead" [1] which I wasn't old enough to understand myself at the time in the UK. I was wondering if we could see something similar as various forces internal and external strained at the seams of western democracies. For context, there is quite febrile atmosphere in the UK at the moment so I feel it is useful to attempt to calibrate these things for stochastic effects.
Without knowing what happened, it's difficult to make the comparison between the Italian Years of Lead and what happened earlier today at Utah Valley University.
My understanding of the Italian political climate of the 60s, 70s, and 80s is that there were political groups/cells (on both the far right and far left) that organized around violent acts to further their political goals (which involved the eventual authoritarian takeover of the Italian government by either the far right or far left). For example, you can think of the Red Brigades to be akin to the Black Panthers, but with actual terrorism.
In contrast, most political violence in America has been less organized and more individual-driven (e.g., see the Oklahoma City Bombing). For better or worse, the police state in the US has been quite successful in addressing and dispersing political groups that advocate for violence as a viable means for societal change.
nikcub 3 hours ago [-]
This was an intentional adoption of leaderless resistance[0] in response to the vulnerabilities in centrally administered organisations of the 60-80s.
Resistance orgs across the ideological spectrum were systematically dismantled after decades of violence because their hierarchical command structures made them vulnerable to infiltration, decapitation and RICO-style prosecutions.
The Weather Underground, Red Army Faction, European Fascist groups and many white supremacist groups all fell to the same structural weaknesses.
Lessons were codified by the KKK and Aryan Nations movements in the USA in the early 90s by Louis Beam[1] who wrote about distributed organisational models.
This was so successful it cross-pollinated to other groups globally. Other movements adopted variations of this structure, from modern far-right and far-left groups to jihadist organisations[2]
This is probably the most significant adaptation in ideological warfare since guerilla doctorine. There has been a large-scale failure in adapting to it.
The internet and social media have just accelerated its effectiveness.
"Inspired by" vs "carried out by" ideological violence today is the norm.
The KKK has been a distributed movement from the beginning, though, starting as isolated remnants of Confederate forces acting as terrorist cells in tandem with local officials and businessmen (e.g., plantation owners), and resurgent in the 20s and 30s (obviously sans the direct Confederate connections, replaced with local law enforcement).
It's not so much that we haven't been able to adapt to it as we've simply refrained from doing so. Their violence was in line with the interests of local elites.
Lucasoato 1 hours ago [-]
Actually, it has been proven that at least two of the major terrorist attacks that happened in Italy during the lead years were actually false-flags attacks organized by a deviated part of the secret services (that were politically aligned with the far right), funded and supported by the US, in order to isolate politically the Brigate Rosse movement and stop any advance of communism in Italy.
mrguyorama 4 hours ago [-]
Timothy McVeigh got his start watching Waco burn, hanging out with groups around the US "militia movement", and reading The Turner Diaries, and had like 3 accomplices.
He wasn't a "lone wolf".
PaulDavisThe1st 4 hours ago [-]
But he also wasn't actually acting as a part of anything like the Red Brigades either, so the GP's point still stands.
you are inexcusably wrong, since the comment you are replying to have a Wikipedia link with further links to the work of historians.
you really try hard to see "bad commies" uh?
mhh__ 2 hours ago [-]
The British government is much better placed to crush dissidents than probably almost any other of comparable maturity. They crushed the miners, they'll be able to deal with any nationalist movement if the institutional will is there.
potato3732842 2 hours ago [-]
Practice makes perfect. 500yr of keeping the Irish down trained them well.
vik0 7 hours ago [-]
Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7? If so, why even target the poor guy? What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit? Either way, I hope he makes it, even though it looks like it was a fatal blow
> TPUSA has been described as the fastest growing organization of campus chapters in America, and according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, is the dominant force in campus conservatism.
They've been quite influential, and those campus efforts likely contributed to the Gen Z turnout that helped win in 2024.
2 hours ago [-]
sbmthakur 4 hours ago [-]
I was doing Masters in the US from 2021-23 and do recall getting their emails to my University email.
aj7 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
garbthetill 6 hours ago [-]
Im not american, but consume american media because you guys are the world leaders. But charlie had the number 1 youth conservative movement in the country , he is pretty influential
osrec 4 hours ago [-]
Pretty influential, and unfortunately also pretty controversial
stronglikedan 7 minutes ago [-]
Literally everyone with a voice in politics in controversial, so that's not saying much.
brewdad 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
goodluckchuck 3 hours ago [-]
Things are truly twisted when conservatives are being called socialists.
PlanksVariable 41 minutes ago [-]
Unfortunately controversial because impressionable people have been misled into believing that anything right of liberal progressivism is fascist and evil. How do you recover from that?
aj7 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
5 hours ago [-]
slt2021 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mvdtnz 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
vik0 6 hours ago [-]
I'm not American either
umvi 4 hours ago [-]
I saw his videos occasionally on youtube/facebook. I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration most of the time, though I thought some of his other arguments on other topics were thought provoking at least, and I also thought it was cool that he always had an open mic for anyone that wanted to debate him. Seemed like he had an encyclopedic memory when it came to things like SCOTUS cases or historical events.
ourmandave 2 hours ago [-]
Charlie didn't debate so much as followed a script and steered you towards his gotcha questions to create content for his show.
He recently went to Cambridge Univ and debated a student who actual knew his routine. It didn't go well for him.
That's a link to Charlie's own post of the debate.
It seems to be a healthy debate to someone who doesn't know Charlie's logical fallacies and scripted style.
tripplyons 6 hours ago [-]
He was just made fun of on the new season on South Park, if you consider that to be influential.
aerostable_slug 4 hours ago [-]
I thought he took it in good sport. They didn't exactly hold back on him.
Given that and the fact that we're in the middle of a new South Park season, a show known for its last-minute incorporation of real-world news into storylines, it will be interesting to see how the show handles this tragic development.
baby_souffle 55 minutes ago [-]
They have moved to a 2-week cadence for the season. Next episode should be a week from today which does give them plenty of time to incorporate this development.
louthy 5 hours ago [-]
As a non-American, non-Twitter user, this was how I heard about him.
nicce 5 hours ago [-]
At the moment he was shot, he was answering for questions about transgender shootings. If the timing was calculated, it could be a political message or very strong personal hatred in this context.
kennyloginz 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
rented_mule 5 hours ago [-]
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
I think a difficulty in searching for such answers is assuming that it was a well reasoned decision. I'm not sure how often attempting to take a life is a purely rational decision, devoid of intense emotional motivations (hatred, self-preservation, fear, revenge, etc.). And that's all assuming the assailant was of somewhat sound mind.
I think one of the dangers of more and more extreme divisions in society is that those divisions cloud our mental processes, threaten our emotional health, and take away opportunities for meaningful civil discourse. All of which can lead to more heinous acts that we struggle to make sense of. One of the scariest parts for me is that this can all be too self reinforcing ("Their side did this bad thing to our side, let's get them back!!!" repeat/escalate...). How do we break the cycle?
JacobThreeThree 4 hours ago [-]
>why even target the poor guy
There are plenty of dangerous mentally ill people out there who don't use any type of logic or reason as a basis for their decision-making.
pjc50 4 hours ago [-]
Interesting to see someone whose decision making is so disordered that they manage to carry out a shot from 200 meters and then disappear. That looks more like a carefully planned crime than madness.
edm0nd 2 hours ago [-]
200 meters isn't that far of a shot if you are familiar with shooting or a hunter. I regularly take down deer at 200-300 yards.
The shooter is also in custody already and captured thankfully.
Simulacra 35 minutes ago [-]
Oswald was 300 yards away.
mmmrtl 2 hours ago [-]
second suspect also released...
edm0nd 7 minutes ago [-]
Just saw that. LE gotta be going wild atm.
swader999 3 hours ago [-]
That they didn't account for drop and hit the neck shows that they weren't in fact very competent.
queenkjuul 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
swader999 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
kulahan 3 hours ago [-]
I don’t know why this is downvoted. It’s not incorrect. I posit that everyone who’s willing to kill someone in cold blood is at least a little off their rocker.
hypeatei 6 hours ago [-]
He ran a very large conservative organization that operates on college campuses across the country. He's definitely an influential figure.
mhh__ 2 hours ago [-]
In naive political terms he wasn't all that important but I think two points in response to that:
1. He was influential in a influential circle of people who roughly speaking drive what gets discussed and shown to a wider audience. In a favourite-band's favourite-band sense. His jubilee video just recently got 31 million views on youtube and probably a billion more on tiktok and reels.
2. If he wasn't killed by some nut who thought the flying spaghetti monster told him to do it then this is a really clear example of online politics and discourse jumping violently into the physical world. That's a real vibe shift if I have it right that it's basically the first assassination of that kind.
It wouldn't shock me at all if the driving topic here was actually gaza rather than domestic politics.
ramoz 6 hours ago [-]
He drew a massive college crowd and was shot at that event. That's your answer.
paxys 5 hours ago [-]
His assassination is making the front page across the world. I'd call that influental.
pokstad 3 hours ago [-]
I think he was more influential to the younger generation. I saw Gavin Newsom interview Kirk, and Newsom opened by saying his son followed Kirk to a certain extent.
pjc50 4 hours ago [-]
As a practical question: it would be useful to have a transcript of his final speech, on a page without any graphic images of his death.
simianwords 6 hours ago [-]
Almost all politicians have tweeted about him now. There’s no way he’s not influential.
supportengineer 4 hours ago [-]
>> Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7
That is a lot of people
pm90 1 hours ago [-]
Why do so many school shootings happen in the US? Often its simply that people who should never have access to lethal firearms are able to get them easily.
crispinb 2 hours ago [-]
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
This would be a relevant question in many nations, but it's a bit beside the point in the US. Violence is a deeply respected and loved core of the culture for its own sake. It's an end, not means. Nearly all the US's entertainment, culture and myths are built around a reverence for violence. Even political violence has been pretty much the norm through most of the US's history. Celebrated cases aside, there's been something of a lull since the mid 1970s, but if as now likely it increases again, this will be a boring old reversion to the US's norm.
runjake 5 hours ago [-]
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
Yes, you're wrong there (no offense). He's quite popular beyond X (formerly Twitter), particularly amongst the young (~20s) conservative movements. For example, he has almost 4 million subscribers on YouTube and similar on TikTok.
I'd say X isn't even his most popular platform. He's much more popular on video platforms, due to his open campus debates.
I attended one of Charlie's debates this past year and they pretty much let anyone walk up to the mic. It wasn't scripted or censored, that I saw.
PaulDavisThe1st 3 hours ago [-]
He was also very good at superficially solid rebuttals and responses that were hard to counter without providing a short course on the history and context of the issue at hand. I never thought of him as a "good" debater and I vehemently disagree with his public views, but he was very effective in the media and event situations he operated in.
runjake 3 hours ago [-]
Agreed and well said. I also disagreed with a lot of his views. But, at the same time when I started watching his content, I realized his detractors overstretched the truth about a lot of what he said. Not all of it, but a lot of it.
soraminazuki 1 hours ago [-]
The South Park version of him put it well:
> Mom, you don’t understand. I’m getting really good at this. I have my arguments down rock solid. These young college girls are totally unprepared, so I can just destroy them and also edit out all the ones that actually argue back well. It just feels so good.
Teever 2 hours ago [-]
I think that there's great insight in your observation.
To me what's been going on is a shakedown run of the new mediums and how they exploit cognitive defects and lack of exposure in audiences.
In a total Marshall McLuhan "The Medium is the Message" kind of way some people like Shapiro, Trump, and Kirk just naturally groove in certain mediums and are able to play them like Ray Charles plays the piano.
And because society doesn't have any sort of natural exposure to this they're able to gain massive audiences and use that influence for nefarious purposes.
I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is though.
On the one had I think that there is going to be a natural feedback mechanism that puts keeps their population in check (which is basically what we just saw today) but that isn't the most desireable outcome.
phendrenad2 5 hours ago [-]
I think his clips were consistently viral on platforms like Tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram reels, etc., both by those who agreed with him and those who were doing reaction videos against him.
chasd00 2 hours ago [-]
> If so, why even target the poor guy?
Crazy people murder all the time, hell he probably did it for a girl. See the movie Taxi Driver.
dragonwriter 2 hours ago [-]
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
Yes, you are wrong, he was the leader of the most powerful campus conservative movement group in the country, was an extremely prominent figure in right-wing media, to the point where he is a central figure in pop culture images of the right, and a central target for being too soft of organizing figures for even farthe-right groups.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
Motives for assassinations (attempted or actual) of politicial figures are often incoherent. Political assassins aren’t always (or even often) strategic actors with a clear, rationally designed programs.
slowhadoken 5 hours ago [-]
He’s a martyr now.
quantified 5 hours ago [-]
Over the next short while, he might be. Let's see.
slowhadoken 4 hours ago [-]
He is now.
fallinghawks 4 hours ago [-]
It is just as likely that the suspect is from the right wing as the left. Nothing about them is known right now.
slowhadoken 4 hours ago [-]
It doesn’t matter. He was a white Christian conservative guy that went to colleges and talked to people. Now he’s dead.
throwaway250624 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
skissane 5 hours ago [-]
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
I’d heard of him-I’ve lived my whole life in Australia, and although I have a Twitter/X account, I almost never use it, and that’s not a new thing, I dabbled with it but never committed.
Do most Australians know who he was? I don’t have any hard data, but my “No” to that is very confident. But I remember briefly discussing him (in person) with one of my old friends from high school, who is deep into right-wing politics (he’s a member of Australia’s One Nation party, which a lot of people would label “far right”, yet mainstream enough to have a small number of seats in Parliament)
ACow_Adonis 5 hours ago [-]
As a comparatively politically aware Australian, I had absolutely no idea who he is/was, but then I don't have any Twitter or general social media presence or consumption.
skissane 5 hours ago [-]
My (limited) knowledge of him was mainly from reading the traditional US media, not from social media… I swear I’d read some article about him in the NY Times or the Atlantic or something like that. My brain files him next to Ben Shapiro
mandeepj 5 hours ago [-]
> I had absolutely no idea who he is/was
Me too! I follow politics, elections, and world affairs very closely, but I am embarrassed to admit - I had no idea who he was. Although I had heard about 'Turning Point USA'.
skissane 3 hours ago [-]
My wife had no idea who he was when I said his name… but when she saw a photo, she remembered him from videos which appeared on her Facebook feed in which he argues about abortion and transgender issues. She is Facebook friends with a lot of right-wing Americans, she doesn’t share their politics, but they connected due to a shared interest in Farmville
Aeolun 2 hours ago [-]
You probably target the ones you have a chance of getting at? Trying to do this to Trump would theoretically be preferable to the shooter, but a great deal harder.
seydor 4 hours ago [-]
even if he s not that famous outside US, he might be targeted to send a message
antonvs 3 hours ago [-]
He gave an invited speech at the Republican National Convention on its first night, and is credited with helping Trump get elected. “Very influential” might even be an understatement.
The problem is that that kind of influence often goes under the radar for people outside the circles in question, because influence is no longer mediated as centrally as it used to be, it’s more targeted and siloed. That’s a big part of how the current political situation in the US arose.
tombert 2 hours ago [-]
I first heard about him in around 2016, shortly after Trump was elected the first time. I'm pretty chronically online, but I was never very active on Twitter and I was still pretty aware of him. I've always found him pretty insufferable, though not as bad as Nick Feuntes or Steven Crowder.
4ndrewl 3 hours ago [-]
I'd never heard of him and now I hear flags across the US will be at-half mast. He's was a billionaire-sponsored influencer if I understand it correctly?
queenkjuul 3 hours ago [-]
Correct
Braxton1980 5 hours ago [-]
He was close friends with Trump, was on TV quite often, and visited college campuses for conservative discussions.
He also lied about widespread election fraud among other things so there are many reasons a person would want to target him
hellojesus 5 hours ago [-]
Lying about election fraud is a pretty silly justification for assassination.
stevenwoo 4 hours ago [-]
The January 6 insurrection at the US Congress was based on untruths about the prior election.
anthem2025 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
cpursley 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
elcritch 4 hours ago [-]
Saying he lied about election fraud assumes he knew it was fake and said it anyways.
Charlie Kirk may have been incorrect but he generally seemed to believe his positions.
subpixel 4 hours ago [-]
That is weak sauce. He was a skilled political operator. To suggest he believed what is provably false suggests he was a fool.
hellojesus 3 hours ago [-]
The point is it doesn't matter. Nobody should be murdered for spreading a lie.
anthem2025 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
stefantalpalaru 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
pphysch 5 hours ago [-]
Benjamin Netayahu and Trump tweeted support for Kirk within half an hour of the shooting.
shadowgovt 6 hours ago [-]
Twitter has an estimated monthly active users in excess of the population of the United States by nearly a factor of two.
Even if we assume those numbers are inflated, that's quite a bit of influence if someone is influential only on Twitter.
4 hours ago [-]
dylan604 5 hours ago [-]
Yes, I'd say you are wrong. If you look at a lot of the clips of the right wing folks giving some of their most right wing comments, the stage they are on will have the Turning Point logos on them. So if not him specifically, his organization is very influential.
orionsbelt 5 hours ago [-]
Twitter and the terminally online need to touch grass and overemphasize things that the real world doesn’t care about, but, to an approximation, it is the vanguard and real world talking points, political trends, etc, are all downstream from there. So yes, someone very influential with the Twitter crowd is influential.
AaronAPU 3 hours ago [-]
He was literally influential for touching grass on college campuses across the country, peacefully engaging in open discussions with people who disagreed with him.
cmiles74 4 hours ago [-]
My dude, the article in the Washington Post starts out with…
“Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, died Wednesday after being shot at an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump said.”
He influenced the US President, that seems pretty influential to me. Anecdotally, my kid in high school surprised me by knowing quite a lot about them.
brewdad 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
kfrzcode 5 hours ago [-]
Yes, you're wrong. He was very influential and a leader of the youthful conservative movement in our country. TPUSA is extremely popular. This was an abhorrent, horrifyingly public assassination of a very popular figure -- one who has been honestly quite milquetoast in terms of conservative ideology compared to other well-known figures. He wasn't even running for political office, he simply encouraged political participation, open debate, and the free exchange of ideas in a public forum. He grew TPUSA into a bastion of grassroots revitalization in community-first politics. Truly truly sickening.
autoexec 4 hours ago [-]
> one who has been honestly quite milquetoast in terms of conservative ideology compared to other well-known figures.
That says a lot more about those "other well-known figures" than it does about him and his already extreme ideology
kennyloginz 42 minutes ago [-]
Dude, if you followed his teachings you wouldn’t feel this way…
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up. new age term, and it does a lot of damage.” - Charlie Kirk
28 minutes ago [-]
jackmottatx 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
animitronix 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mschuster91 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
firesteelrain 5 hours ago [-]
> He somewhat ironically said that unfortunately some deaths are worth it to keep the Second Amendment
Why does this keep getting posted everywhere after he got shot? It’s like someone is running a campaign
I have seen it in Reddit comments, Twitter/X, HN, and TikTok. Literally same comment or variation plastered
rokkamokka 5 hours ago [-]
Why? It's an interesting coincidence. Don't you think?
firesteelrain 5 hours ago [-]
It’s an interesting coincidence that the comment keeps getting posted as if some anti conservative robot got turned on.
Plus, this isn’t a 2nd amendment issue
mrguyorama 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
roughly 5 hours ago [-]
Because it’s both a deeply ironic thing for him to have said and also fairly emblematic of his political movement. It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy - if he’d said “only dumb idiots slip on banana peels” and then died after slipping on a banana peel, there’d be a lot of content posted organically about that, too.
bdhe 5 hours ago [-]
Because it is incredibly apt. He and his campaigns and influence have worked very hard over the years to stop progress on gun reform, aimed at preventing the very kind of violent actions that he was unfortunately subject to today.
This doesn't condone violence but offers context as to how he would've assessed a similar situation if he weren't the target.
firesteelrain 5 hours ago [-]
2nd amendment doesn’t protect against mental health or someone deciding to hurt someone.
Hikikomori 4 hours ago [-]
What do you mean, Charlies whole argument is that good guys with guns solve shooter problems instead of limiting gun ownership.
firesteelrain 4 hours ago [-]
I get it
But are we suggesting that he should have deployed counter snipers?
Hikikomori 3 hours ago [-]
I think we're suggesting that his solution isn't really a solution.
trimethylpurine 2 hours ago [-]
I don't see that he suggested a solution. Just the opposite, he pointed out that gun laws also aren't a solution. Much like the war on drugs isn't. Much like "though shalt not kill" didn't stop the inquisition, or the Moorish conquest.
Almondsetat 5 hours ago [-]
It's almost like when a lot of people are posting some ideas get picked on and shared en masse. Why not say the same exact thing about all those "guys he's in stable conditions he's gonna make it" tweets that got spammed? Wasn't that a campaign also?
firesteelrain 5 hours ago [-]
No, it’s not.
DiggyJohnson 5 hours ago [-]
You don’t have sympathy for a non-violent public figure being brutally murdered at a speaking event on campus? That’s messed up.
creata 2 hours ago [-]
Fwiw, I don't think anyone should ever be killed, but nobody's entitled to anyone's sympathy, and it's not messed up that many people find it difficult to sympathize with Kirk, given the political positions he preached.
For example, maybe (or maybe not) for you it's just an abstract argument about far-away matters, but when Kirk called Leviticus 20:13 (the one about killing men who lie with men) "God's perfect law", it's not so abstract to gay people.
noobr 5 hours ago [-]
some people would not consider his hateful rethoric as non-violent, and his words had and will have violent consequences for other people
DiggyJohnson 5 hours ago [-]
That is a definition of “violence” that does not register with most people, and especially in a discussion of one of the most brutal public murders we’ve seen in awhile in this country
DrillShopper 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
FergusArgyll 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
yfw 6 hours ago [-]
Would you like to live in a society like that?
vel0city 5 hours ago [-]
We really should regulate cars far more than we do.
There are only ~16,000 non-suicide related firearm deaths in the US. There are about 40,000 vehicle related deaths in the US. We could save a lot of lives if we made our society far less car dependent and had more restrictions on allowing people to operate vehicles in public spaces.
mschuster91 6 hours ago [-]
My position is that guns should be strictly regulated and traffic as well to achieve zero traffic deaths ("Vision Zero"). Alternatively, the US could look into what gun culture difference they have to Switzerland, because the Swiss have amongst the most liberal gun laws of Europe but are pretty average amongst European countries when it comes to gun violence.
Kirk's position was to have guns as unregulated as possible, so I pretty much DGAF when the consequences of his position come home to roost.
FergusArgyll 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mschuster91 6 hours ago [-]
Helsinki in Finland proves Vision Zero be possible [1] and a number of European countries have gun policies [2] that basically restrict carrying guns to hunters, people in proven danger of life, police officers and special security guards, in addition to gun sports who can own, but can't carry outside of dedicated venues.
Objectively, my position is both serious and not just realistic, but actually lived reality here in Europe. You are free to visit our continent whenever you want, I can only recommend it.
We've tried vision zero here (city in CA), and it's resulted in constant driver aggravation due to slowing down commute traffic, worse driving than before, and more traffic fatalities than before.
Helsinki may be a lucky coincidence. It doesn't prove it's possible everywhere.
eldaisfish 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Molitor5901 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
nickthegreek 4 hours ago [-]
name the media.
cpursley 4 hours ago [-]
Pretty prevalent theme on reddit.
4 hours ago [-]
tzs 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
peder 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
croes 4 hours ago [-]
What do you think how Trump and his administration will react.
What if that is purpose?
daedrdev 6 hours ago [-]
He hand picked many of the Trump admin cabinet. He absolutely wielded power
CompoundEyes 4 hours ago [-]
Southpark made fun of him in a recent episode. Heard the name assumed he was a yet another alt right influencer podcaster.
judah 3 hours ago [-]
Conservative, but definitely not alt-right. Kirk was a strong supporter of Jews and Israel, which put him at odds with the antisemitic alt-right.
Kirk regularly spoke out against antisemitism on both the left and right. So much so, in fact, Israeli Prime Minister tweeted[0] his condolences, praising Kirk as a strong, positive force for Jewish and Christian values.
Yeah, he was a minor / outlying figure in the same sense that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was.
tho234234234 2 hours ago [-]
I may have ran into one of his anti-India posts, but his most-claim to fame was being mimicked/mocked as Cartman in the recent South-Park episode. I had no idea who this 'master-debater' was, so had to look him up.
Bad taste in hindsight obv. but expected I suppose - the MAGA crowd is really grating in a most debased sort of way (eg. Navarro bringing 'caste & evil-brahmins' in India tariff amongst other things). Stupidly, they also advocated guns which their opponents can also get hold of.
Oh well RIP.
All hail Trump, the liberator of the world from the American empire...
numa7numa7 5 minutes ago [-]
Can people just upvote a post instead of repeating exactly what another person has said?
Yeah we all know violence has no place in our society and gun's are controversial and politics should be more civil.
unnamed76ri 4 hours ago [-]
We are a society whose culture has become unmoored from the values that built it.
nickthegreek 4 hours ago [-]
Have we? The culture and values that built this country are stained in blood, violence, and subjugation. I feel we are actually losing the enlightenment that came afterwards and regressing back.
AlexandrB 2 hours ago [-]
Like every other country and ethnic group on earth. I don't understand what's so notable about American history in this regard.
komali2 1 hours ago [-]
Well only a couple countries participated in the creation of the Atlantic slave trade, and very few in history have engaged in chattel slavery to the scale the USA did.
throwaway48476 1 hours ago [-]
Slavery in the USA was but a tiny fraction of contemporary slavery not to mention historical slavery.
AlexandrB 44 minutes ago [-]
Seems like a very Americentric perspective. There's still plenty of chattel slavery out there right now[1]. In that respect, the idea that the US is uniquely bad is like the "evil twin" version of American exceptionalism[2].
It's hard to find other examples of it (or at least the inherent natural inferiority of one group of residents) being written into the country's foundational legal document. We are indeed exceptional in that regard.
unnamed76ri 4 hours ago [-]
The things you listed have always been with us, sure. What we’ve lost is the ability to see objective truth. And maybe people celebrated senseless killing in the past too and we just didn’t have access to their sick mentality before the internet.
sporkxrocket 4 hours ago [-]
Mobs of white people (including children) used to gather around the town square to hang black people. They would literally have picnics while doing it. I feel like the majority of our population is historically illiterate. On the scale of senseless killings, this doesn't even rank.
This is the kind of rhetoric which seriously undermines the history of American philosophical thought. The things you mentioned are found in the history of every nation. It's important to keep track of what should be improved, while also acknowledging what worked well and why.
tomrod 2 hours ago [-]
> This is the kind of rhetoric which seriously undermines the history of American philosophical thought.
Hard disagree. Ignoring it is what allows systemic injustice to persist -- why do we care, today, what Eugenicists in the early 1900s had to say? Jim Crow implementers and supporters? Daughters of the Confederacy?
If the reality of history undermines your respect for American philosophical thought, then perhaps the American philosophical thought is not quite worthy of the pedestal it was placed on.
nis0s 2 hours ago [-]
You’re right that it’s important to acknowledge the pain and suffering caused by bad policy and practices, and it’s important to examine what went wrong so we don’t repeat those mistakes.
That said I think it’s important to separate good ideas from their troubled past and use them where they still apply. People are not perfect, but a good idea is good no matter where it comes from. Those good ideas shape culture and shape the destiny of nations. That’s what happened in America, and there’s a lot to be learned from the past. Unless the point is to undermine the recipe that made America into what it is today, then it doesn’t make sense to measure people who didn’t live in our time by our sensibilities, morality or ethics.
We can learn their good stuff, and improve on what they didn’t do well.
tomrod 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe it would help to pluck out the few good ideas from the bad slop. What do you consider specifically unique in the American experiment that transcends the toxic swamp of suppression of freedoms America often engages in?
nis0s 1 hours ago [-]
> the toxic swamp of suppression of freedoms America often engage
Seems extremist to take that view, especially when all nations have just as bloody or dark histories.
But a lot of what shaped initial American thought were Enlightenment ideals, primarily the works of John Locke. So the foundation is solid enough, but is there more that can be done to produce effective implementations? Definitely.
It’s important to note that there are good ideas everywhere, and no one culture or nation has had hegemony or monopoly on producing the best works over time.
I personally also like the fact that the way the American revolutionaries thought shaped the progress of American science up to the 20th century. Here’s a recent lecture on this, but there’s no recording that I can find.
First off, not extremist. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt there, perhaps you simply didn't recognize you undercut your credibility in a discussion when you dismiss people having a different view of history by assigning them to an extremist bucket -- nowhere left to learn or discuss when you start there. Further, mild whataboutism doesn't support your case either.
Second, the Scottish enlightenment wad wonderful! Not unique to America, so recognizing that the darkest parts of our history are decidedly not representive of the Enlightenment, my classical liberal ideals, and I suspect yours too, does nothing to the case that America did a good job adopting some of the ideals of the Enlightenment in the constitution. We could have gone the French route with the horrors of Robspierre, but we didnt, whether due to lack of population density, aristocracy, or any number of factors.
We agree completely that cultural differences, known as diversity, have outsized benefits.
I'll review the science idea.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. We really aren't far apart. I simply see slavery, genocide, and other horrors of the American past as necessary to set context, and in no way does that diminish the astonishing success of our American experiment. Indeed, in spite of these stains on our history, we remain a nation that does the right thing, as Churchill puts it, after exhausting all other options. And that's a uniqur thing to history.
In my view, if we can't acknowledge our past deficits, in no way can we comprehend the present flaws sufficiently to motivate action and collaboration.
deadfoxygrandpa 7 minutes ago [-]
most nations were not in fact founded by exterminating the native population and settling on their land
mike_d 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tomrod 2 hours ago [-]
> Fascism has never in history been stopped by scholars. It is uncomfortable to directly acknowledge "what worked well."
Your comment maps precisely to: we've had zero network intrusions, why are we paying these cybersecurity professionals?
So much fascism and authoritarianism was blocked since WW2 because scholars called it out early.
Guess what scholars called out in the US in 2016, but most politicians put party over country? "We scaled back our cybersecurity professionals and saved a ton of budget! On an unrelated note, do we have data breach insurance?"
There is certainly room to punch fascists in the face when hostilities are hot. We can't start there and remain a tolerant society dealing with the paradox of tolerance. The first steps are shunning and ceasing support, isolating the infected into appropriately deprived states of resource loss, and not political violence.
I agree that civil debate and cooler heads deterred and delayed fascism in many cases. I was referring specifically to when it has taken hold and needs to be stopped.
An apt comparison would be instituting mandatory cybersecurity training for employees as a direct response to a breach. That is a great step to take post-cleanup but does basically nothing to address the issue at hand.
halico_chops 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dang 2 hours ago [-]
We've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
The Enlightenment directly led to violent revolutions in the US and France. Political violence has never not been a part of political society in some capacity. What is effective is not always what is right, and violence is often effective (not in this case, in my opinion).
Quarrelsome 3 hours ago [-]
> and violence is often effective (not in this case, in my opinion).
Depending on your interpretation of "effective" I'm not sure I entirely agree. Political campaigners on both side of the political spectrum have a lot of respect for Charlie Kirk and his ability to raise funds and make a difference in his political activism. From what I've heard, the stuff he did on camera was actually the weaker part of his skill set, its his off-camera work that the GOP will sorely miss.
tomrod 3 hours ago [-]
Many of those values were not coherent nor beneficial.
Slavery, patriarchy, indentured servitude, excessive religiosity, monarchy, rejection of other cultures, all these seem to be good things to leave in the rearview mirror.
2 hours ago [-]
Chilko 3 hours ago [-]
As an outside observer of US culture I disagree, the normalisation and glorification of violence has always seemed to be a distinctly American value to me.
mcs5280 4 hours ago [-]
Values don't make stonks go up
clint 3 hours ago [-]
This reads as if you've literally never consumed anything about Western history
gosub100 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
queenkjuul 3 hours ago [-]
Yeah the far left out there dictating the enforcement of the constitution, what with their majority in Congress and representation on the courts.
trimethylpurine 2 hours ago [-]
I think GP means in film, media, and by proxy, education.
The items you listed fluctuate rapidly by popular vote. These others aren't governed by democracy, but by the economic advantage of the wealthy few who control them.
dttze 2 hours ago [-]
The people with the power and wealth aren't far left.
LeafItAlone 3 hours ago [-]
>We are a society whose culture has become unmoored from the values that built it.
What society are you referring to? And what values? I’m trying to gauge if you’ve looked in a history book ever.
CSMastermind 3 hours ago [-]
It has been extremely disheartening to see people celebrating this across other social media platforms.
acdha 2 hours ago [-]
Remember all of the people “joking” about lynching Obama or journalists, even to the point of having t-shirts printed? I remember seeing the winking acceptance that got what is now two decades ago and thinking that we were headed in a dark direction if people weren’t willing to reject political violence, ending up somewhere like 90s Sarajevo.
billy99k 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
acdha 1 hours ago [-]
It’s a point on the same path: if enough people start “joking” about political violence, more people are going to try it. I didn’t want to live in a world where that’s normalized.
Especially reddit. I am done with reddit after this point. Disgusting sick people, most of them.
deepfriedrice 2 hours ago [-]
I went straight to HN for commentary because I know exactly what is happening on Reddit and for the first time can't bear to look.
cosmicgadget 16 minutes ago [-]
Two of the default front page posts were the conservative sub complaining about all of the insensitive comments on Reddit.
giraffe_lady 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
didgetmaster 25 minutes ago [-]
There are a number of outspoken people on the other end of the political spectrum from me, that I vehemently disagree with. While I would love to see their words either ignored or condemned by the masses; I have no desire to see them killed or harmed in any way.
I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way. Either committing or supporting violence against those we disagree with, has no place in a civil society.
swader999 5 hours ago [-]
This is the worst kind of censorship. I guess debate is also dead.
faku812 4 hours ago [-]
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
4 hours ago [-]
sockaddr 3 hours ago [-]
I feel like this quote needs a qualification. You can still fear what someone might say without fearing they are correct.
kulahan 3 hours ago [-]
This is exactly what the quote is saying. You are adding on your own layer of bias by assuming he’s incorrect.
potsandpans 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
poszlem 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dang 4 hours ago [-]
Please stop using HN for ideological battle, especially in this thread.
Hey Dan, you're probably not having a good time moderating this thread, so good opportunity for me to say thank you for dealing with this place daily. It's really nice to have a space, and we appreciate what you do for us.
lexandstuff 4 hours ago [-]
No, this violence is from a deranged person who shouldn't have had access to a firearm in the first place. No culture wars please.
This is untrue. You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. But to say he never participated in real debate shows you haven't adequately found information outside your filter bubble. There are many examples like the one below
Good faith debate involves being careful with facts and —very importantly — not lying.
The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc.
It’s a bit strange to say that I’m somehow uninformed because of my “filter bubble” seeing as in order to call Charlie Kirk’s performances legitimate debate you would either have to have never heard of his many, many outright lies or believe that it’s acceptable to make stuff up in a debate. (If the latter is the case we simply disagree on what constitutes a real debate)
I’m familiar with his routine, which is why I described his performances as sometimes resembling legitimate debate. He was able to at times take (from your example) twelve minutes out of several hours of owning the libs to engage in a more mild performance, but that’s not the same thing as someone that has a genuinely good-faith interest in debate. That’s just taking a few minutes to make a marketing video for his podcast/speaking tours.
system2 2 hours ago [-]
He literally debated every single time while listening. He was respectful too.
jrflowers 1 hours ago [-]
This is kind of what I meant about making things up about victims. Calling Charlie Kirk “respectful” is objectively ahistorical.
I understand the impulse to be polite about the deceased, but the guy (for just one example) -in the middle of the January wildfires in Los Angeles- took to his audience to say that the destruction that the fires caused was due to a lack of white firefighters. That is both deeply disrespectful and completely false. And entirely on-brand.
https://www.rawstory.com/charlie-kirk-white-men/
xdennis 59 minutes ago [-]
You're a clear example of what Charlie was not. You're not respectfully engaging in this discussion.
GP said Charlie Kirk was respectful during debates. You tried to deny this, not by showing one of his college debates, but by taking out of context what he said on one of his shows.
You just linked to a YouTube channel. Which totally-not-performance legitimate debate do you recommend? ”Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee“ or is “Charlie Kirk Crushes Woke Lies at Michigan State” a better place to start?
Sorry if I sound sarcastic, I’m not. If you had to pick between Versus The Wokies and Crushes Woke Lies which would you suggest best showcases how his debates were not performances meant to inflame but rather reasoned, dispassionate discussion?
58 minutes ago [-]
dyauspitr 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
swader999 4 hours ago [-]
I'd be surprised if you could post a source for this, not just a clip, but something with the entire context?
bix6 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
swader999 4 hours ago [-]
I don't think you could say this about Charlie Kirk at least.
4 hours ago [-]
ceejayoz 4 hours ago [-]
You absolutely could say this about Kirk.
mrguyorama 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cpursley 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
4 hours ago [-]
typeofhuman 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
msie 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
gred 5 hours ago [-]
So sad, he was more willing than most to hear and debate contrary viewpoints (the "prove me wrong" table).
RandallBrown 4 hours ago [-]
The guy in the meme with the table saying "Change My Mind" is Steven Crowder, but I imagine they ran in similar circles.
gred 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I think it was a similar concept.
seadan83 4 hours ago [-]
Agree sad, but not because he was reaching across the intellectual divide. Kirk's debate responses/performances were very often bad faith. It seemed more performative than an actual debate - "owning the libs" and not an intellectual exercise. I really don't think there was a true willingness to listen to contrary viewpoints. For example, his positions did not evolve on most all positions, even when confronted with compelling arguments.
duckdriver 2 hours ago [-]
This is untrue. There are many cases of his debate where he acknowledged strong points made by his counterpart and commended them on the quality of their argument.
You may have seen one of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. Those exist, as do many examples like the below:
"bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".
Supermancho 2 hours ago [-]
> "bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".
This is not correct.
trimethylpurine 2 hours ago [-]
But is it bad faith?
Supermancho 30 minutes ago [-]
"Bad faith" is choosing the weakest, least useful, or intentional misinterpretation of a position. Typically this is then used as the starting point for a rebuttal.
> Wikipedia:
> A bad faith discussion is characterized by insincerity and a lack of genuine commitment to the exchange of ideas, where the primary goal is not to seek truth or understand opposing viewpoints, but to manipulate, deceive, or win the argument regardless of the facts
Discussion is most useful when parties attempt to make the strongest arguments for and against each other's positions to find an optimally logical position and/or to clarify ideological beliefs that underpin those positions. Good faith discussion enables that. Bad faith exchanges are often used to derail, to generate strawmen, to mischaracterize another party's beliefs or thinking, et al.
selcuka 3 hours ago [-]
Both can be true at the same time.
another_twist 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bertil 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
AaronAPU 2 hours ago [-]
He was very civil and gave people the opportunity to express themselves. But it often had the result of giving them enough rope to hang themselves with.
bertil 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
AaronAPU 1 hours ago [-]
This type of rhetorical manipulation has lost its power. Not interested in engaging.
bertil 1 hours ago [-]
So you don’t like debating?
duckdriver 2 hours ago [-]
He's not, actually.
You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. There are many examples like the one below, which is absolutely a constructive discussion.
The whole thing is aggressively imbalanced: he’s sat, protected by guards, on a stage over the other person; the people asking questions are standing, their back to a large vocal crowd that may of may not be armed.
He’s cherry-picking one interaction, has all the editing controls, and even with all that, he literally interrupted the guy less than a minute in.
This is exactly what I meant: the appearance of a debate, with a heavy anvil on the scale.
Actually, not “may or may not.”
defrost 2 hours ago [-]
He got smoked at the UK Cambridge Union student debate club ("the oldest debating society in the world, as well as the largest student society in Cambridge.").
Bad faith arguments and cheap rhetorical trickery didn't wash.
The only excerpts from those debates on the Charlie Kirk channel are edited to show him in a good light - the original full videos tell a different tale.
duckdriver 2 hours ago [-]
This is a link to a full 12 minute video. You can't watch it and claim that he's not interested in having a constructive discussion.
I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took cheap rhetorical shots. I've done that, you've done that, and he did that.
Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
bertil 2 hours ago [-]
> Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
"I am right therefore I win" is all the proof I need that you have watched a lot of Charlie Kirk edits.
defrost 2 hours ago [-]
There were multiple Cambridge Union debates, 1 hour forty minutes in total. He did poorly on all of them .. almost as if he'd never encountered a proper formal debate with rules and procedures before.
Cambridge debating is a microcosm of parliamentary debates in the UK, AU and elsewhere that I'm not entirely sure the US has in government anymore, if ever - the CSPAN footage I've seen largely features lone people showboating unchallenged, often with props.
Your 12 minute video shows a back and forth near Q&A exchange between Kirk and another not entirely opposed with Kirk taking various interpretations of well regulated militia as he saw them with little push back.
It has edits and has been self selected and post produced by Kirk to post on his channel to highlight how "good" he is.
mhh__ 2 hours ago [-]
The oxford and cambridge unions both solely function to facilitate the careers of people debating now (e.g. someone got a career out of the kirk one)
defrost 2 hours ago [-]
Multiple people not simply one, all still students (given it was May 2025), but headed for careers as professional orators in law, politics, business, and able to debate with structural rules, yes.
mhh__ 2 hours ago [-]
I was more thinking that girl who is now signed up to a talent mgmt company. The real debate fanatics doing it for the love of the game all do it in proper clubs in london and so on.
queenkjuul 3 hours ago [-]
Being familiar with him and his work, I'm flabbergasted people actually think this
duckdriver 2 hours ago [-]
It's unlikely that you're actually familiar with his work.
There are many examples of videos like the one below, and if you'd seen any of them, you would absolutely understand why people think this.
I think this because I saw him go on a college campus, give a microphone to liberal students, and give them a chance to defend their views while also providing an alternative point of view.
Can you explain why you’re flabbergasted?
4 hours ago [-]
Sparkle-san 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dyauspitr 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
another_twist 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
temp_20251010 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
unethical_ban 52 minutes ago [-]
His assassination is a bad thing. And, he was a bad faith huckster who made his money and fame on trolling. He was not open-minded or considerate.
kevinventullo 42 minutes ago [-]
I am exactly as sad as he would be if I were killed in a protest or school shooting.
Terr_ 33 minutes ago [-]
Arguably it was a school shooting.
Kirk was was speaking at Utah Valley University, as part of his "American Comeback Tour."
esalman 33 minutes ago [-]
You echo my sentiment. I have an elementary school kid, and earlier today there was a high school shooting in another state.
calmbonsai 41 minutes ago [-]
"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
bigstrat2003 4 hours ago [-]
I bang on a lot about not saying things like "this person is a threat to democracy" and other such apocalyptic statements. This right here is a perfect example of why: when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.
If you find this horrifying (and I hope you do, because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder), then I encourage you to really think about whether we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds. We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.
kybernetikos 4 hours ago [-]
You start your comment saying we should avoid making apocalyptic statements and end it by saying "the cycle is going to destroy our society".
My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
roenxi 4 hours ago [-]
I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots. The view is nearly impossible to avoid in context. How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times? To the point where assassinating political opponents is justified?
It would bring on the end of a society. It might well happen in the US case, they've been heading in a pretty dangerous direction rhetorically. If we take the Soviet Union as a benchmark they probably have a long way to go but that sort of journey seems unnecessary and stupid.
tshaddox 3 hours ago [-]
> I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots.
"You shouldn't do anything unjustified" is an uncontroversial and useless prescription.
the_gastropod 3 hours ago [-]
> anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times
The “just different beliefs” framing is a dodge.
We’re not talking about Coke vs. Pepsi here—we’re talking about beliefs that deny others’ humanity, spread lies, or justify violence. When a “belief” is racist, sexist, conspiratorial, or openly anti-democratic, it’s not just different, it’s harmful. Pretending otherwise is how extremism hides in plain sight.
pixl97 4 minutes ago [-]
Extremists don't like to address the paradox of tolerance.
4 hours ago [-]
kryogen1c 3 hours ago [-]
> My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
This is a nonsense argument. It is possible that constantly making apocalyptic statements can result in an apocalypse, and saying that people should stop doing that is not contradictory.
The words you use matter. If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated. If you're not advocating for murderous escalation, then stop using those words (for example).
zamadatix 3 hours ago [-]
> If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated.
Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat, who/what maintains the list of words which can replace "democracy" in that section, and what happens when someone disagrees with the maintainer of that list?
kryogen1c 3 hours ago [-]
Those are all great questions, and why the point under discussion is whether or not we should choose our words more carefully and stop making apocalyptic predictions.
zamadatix 3 hours ago [-]
I wholeheartedly disagree - we need to be less concerned with who might say something and more concerned with how we teach society to react to it. Whether or not someone is making apocalyptic predictions should not define our ability to hold back from assassinating.
wizzwizz4 1 hours ago [-]
How we say things is how we teach society to react to it. We're all teaching each other, every day.
zamadatix 4 minutes ago [-]
I'd agree there are aspects of how we say things which can reinforce how to react about it, but I don't think that's a good primary way to teach how to engage with polarizing content and certainly not via the way of avoidance of the types of statements bigstrat2003 laid out. I.t. there are very reasonable, particularly historical, examples of belief of potential threats to democracy which turned out to be true, so I don't inherently have a problem with that kind of claim as bigstrat2003 sets out against. I actually think calling that kind of statement the problem will actually drive more extremism.
At the same time, I do believe there are ways to share such statements while also reinforcing healthy ways to react at the same time. kryogen1c's example ending in "he should be assassinated" crosses the line from bigstrat2003's talk of apocalyptic claims to direct calls to violence about them - the latter of which I agree is bad teaching (but I'd still rather people be encouraged to openly talk openly about those kinds of statements too, rather than be directly pressured to internalize or echo chamber such thoughts).
This is why the first question posed about the statement from kryogen1c was "Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat". The follow on questions were only added to help highlight there is no reasonable answer to that question because it's the call to assassination that is inherently problematic, not the claim someone is a threat to the democratic way of life here. The latter is good, if not best, to talk about directly and openly, it's the former that's inherently incompatible with a stable society.
mrguyorama 1 hours ago [-]
Humans are not rational machines.
You can "educate" someone all you want, they will still suffer from all the normal biases and those biases will still affect their choices.
This is why we have double blind trials even though doctors are "experts"
zamadatix 48 minutes ago [-]
I agree with this, and, as a result, I don't believe there is any possible approach which results in 0 people assassinating political figures for what other people say. I think the same conclusion can even be reached if people were supposed to be expected to be perfectly rational beings.
I do believe education on how to effectively engage against an idea which feels threatening is better equipped to handle this apparent fact than bigstrat2003's approach of teaching people to not say certain beliefs because they'd be worth killing about. That doesn't mean it results in a perfect world though. Some may perhaps even agree with both approaches at the same time, but I think the implication from teaching the silencing of certain beliefs from being said for fear they are worth assassinating over if believed true ends up driving the very problem it sets out against. Especially once you add in malicious actors (internal or external).
yunwal 2 hours ago [-]
> If trump is an existential threat to democracy
Just curious, do you believe someone who, without evidence, claims that an election is stolen, and then successfully goads their supporters into violence over that claim is a threat to democracy?
gosub100 3 hours ago [-]
I think they're politely asking for the far left to stop with the language inflation. Use words with appropriate and proportionate meanings. Do not try to gradually be more and more dramatic and impactful.
Chris2048 4 hours ago [-]
It's not clear that "existential" threat and "destruction of society" are the same. A society can be "destroyed" via a lapse in the social contract, turning it into a "society" or a different nature, or a non social population.
siliconc0w 4 hours ago [-]
It can be both simultaneously true that the current administration and its supporters are genuinely dangerous to our democracy and that political violence is not an acceptable way to effect social change.
Yes, it's true that lunatics on both sides may use their side's rhetoric as a call to action but often this isn't even the case and they're just hopelessly confused and mentally ill people. It'd be nice if we lived in a society where those people couldn't get guns or could get mental health treatment and it'd be nice if one side of this debate didn't weaponize these common sense ideas into identity politics but here we are.
fundad 3 hours ago [-]
Is it bad to be a threat to democracy? Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better. I don't agree but it's actually a popular point of view. Are we supposed to be so afraid to point that out that we censor ourselves?
Loughla 4 hours ago [-]
The othering that is so very common in online discussion is genuinely dangerous. It's incredibly common and almost benign at this point because it's just everywhere.
It is historically proven as the first step to violence. People seem to think that words don't matter.
They matter very much. Just because you can read millions of words a day, doesn't mean they're not powerful.
Support him or no, he didn't deserve to die for his political beliefs.
kybernetikos 4 hours ago [-]
Do we know if this violence is politically motivated yet? (Other common motivations are mental health issues, paranoia, revenge, desire for fame etc). Of course it seems likely, but it also seems premature to jump to trying to use this as proof of a particular personal position.
I definitely believe that people should be more understanding of each other, and less quick to jump to insults and othering, but we know so little about this situation, to be so confident that it was caused by speech seems extreme.
I am also aware that a lot of the political violence of the last few years ended up not being motivated by the reasons one might naturally expect.
zamadatix 3 hours ago [-]
I guess that largely depends on how one qualifies "politically motivated". By some definitions it's easy to include any of what you listed as also part of a politically motivated attack, by a narrower definition one could just as easily choose to exclude them. E.g. whether an attacker is paranoid is orthogonal to whether the attack involved the victim's political views/activity in some way.
At the root I agree in principal though. It's, for example, still possible he picked a bad fight with an unstable individual in a bar last night (over something not politically related) and they followed him to the event he was speaking at to shoot him. I'm not as convinced I've seen that kind of thing happen "a lot", but it's true we don't have post validation yet.
OhMeadhbh 3 hours ago [-]
I mean... it could have been a jilted ex-lover.
mvdtnz 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
breadwinner 4 hours ago [-]
Violence should not be how we settle our disagreements. But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion. Fear that someone may act violently should not cause us to suppress our genuine fears about the future of our democracy.
tomrod 3 hours ago [-]
Agree. It's unfortunate that violence often becomes the settlement when folks let norms dissolve.
pjc50 4 hours ago [-]
> when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.
Well, yes. People point this out regularly with mass shootings. Sometimes the shooters helpfully leave a list of all the violent rhetoric that inspired them. Anders Breivik claimed to be acting against an "existential threat". Those words get used a lot.
yibg 4 hours ago [-]
I understand the thrust of your comment, but why is "this person is a threat to democracy" an apocalyptic statement, but "... or the cycle is going to destroy our society" not? Seems like you're being rather selective in what's considered apocalyptic statements and what's not.
There is no inherent threat of violence in saying "this person is a threat to democracy". This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.
AndrewDucker 4 hours ago [-]
What should people say when someone is advocating against democracy?
Quarrelsome 3 hours ago [-]
> because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder
As someone of Eastern European origins I would celebrate Vladimir Putin's murder, especially since he's responsible for the murder for so many in Ukraine today (both Russians and Ukrainians). I think the reality is a touch more nuanced than the absolutist ethical stance.
oceanplexian 44 minutes ago [-]
I couldn't imagine celebrating the murder of another person, no matter how bad. And I consider that to be the hallmark of being a civilized person.
wturner 3 hours ago [-]
I'm more concerned with the fact that billionaires have a monopoly on the incentives that create policy and can afford to fund large scale social engineering operations to get whatever they want. Charlie Kirk doesn't exist in a vacuum. Peter Thiel funded him and Thiel has said openly he wants a dictatorship. That is why Kirk was in the propagandist role he was in, and why he is now dead.
wturner 1 hours ago [-]
Elon Musk just got on his billionaire dollar social media X megaphone and said "The left is the party of murder".
Billionaires are literally trying to rally an army of right wing gun toting lunatics and get people killed. It isn't hyperbole, it's really happening.
NewJazz 4 hours ago [-]
What if it is true that someone is a threat to democracy?
eYrKEC2 4 hours ago [-]
A guy who gathers large groups of people to talk with them and persuade them on political topics is the _essence_ of democracy.
Someone who calls for violence or does violence against people wishing to have open debate is the essence of fascism.
sethammons 3 hours ago [-]
real question:
what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda, and the end result of following said goals is the loss of your way of life? What if lies are held as truth and money allows the lies to be repeated so often many don't even realize their axioms are baseless? What happens to the sheep when the wolves vote to eat the sheep?
eYrKEC2 3 hours ago [-]
Then I guess you become a monarchist, like Curtis Yarvin.
But of all things Charlie Kirk was not, first among them: He was not "a threat to democracy".
Cornbilly 46 minutes ago [-]
The guy that was just advocating for military occupation of US cities was not a threat to democracy?
the_gastropod 3 hours ago [-]
Charlie Kirk was a leader of the “Stop the Steal” nonsense after the 2020 election. He absolutely was a threat to democracy by any reasonable definition.
Now that he's gone, let's do him the honor of remembering him accurately.
swader999 3 hours ago [-]
Then you answer that with more discourse. This is basic.
p_j_w 12 minutes ago [-]
One can engage in democratic activity while trying to end democracy. Hitler stood for election, a pretty democratic act. And yet he was a massive threat to democracy.
mvdtnz 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tomrod 3 hours ago [-]
Overplayed the card should read "warned early and were proven correct", right?
unethical_ban 48 minutes ago [-]
How can we not call a spade a spade? The United States government is being destroyed from within, openly and proudly. A handbook was written saying it would be done this way.
If someone or something is a threat to democracy and rule of law, then they are. Period. I think pretending the ruling political party in the US is not intentionally destroying the government is not a valid strategy.
This is not an endorsement of what happened today. I worry this will have a big chilling effect on political speech in the country.
bertil 3 hours ago [-]
> we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds
I genuinely can’t tell if you realize that this is a description of the victim, and your comment could easily be construed as a justification for what happened, or if you condemn the action so heartily you missed that.
Which leads to my point: there are discourses around this that completely miss each other. That’s a huge problem because so many people will loudly express strongly held emotions and two people will read completely opposite view points. US public discourse is at a point where language, without copying context, is failing.
Saying “both sides miss each other” isn’t true either: I’m convinced one side is perfectly capable of quoting leaders of the other, even if they find it absurd, but the reciprocal isn’t true. Many people can’t today say what was the point of one of the largest presidential campaign. They’ll mention points that were never raised by any surrogate or leaders. But they can’t tell that because the relationship is complete severed.
I don’t think there’s a balanced argument around violence, either: one side has leaders who vocally and daily argue for illegal acts violence, demand widespread gun possession vs. another where some commentators occasionally mention that violent revolution is an option, but leaders are always respectful. The vast majority of people who commit gun violence support one particular political movement, even the violence against the leaders of that same movement. If that’s not obvious to you, I can assure you that you are out off from a large part of the political discourse about the US, not just around you, but internationally.
afavour 4 hours ago [-]
What if that person is a threat to democracy though?
To be clear, I don’t think Kirk was. But there are people who are even vocal about their disdain for democracy. It would feel weird to treat them as if they weren’t who they say they are.
IMO the sad reality is that we live in increasingly dark times. Anti democratic forces are stronger than they have been in recent history. Us all agreeing to not talk about it won’t change that.
OCASMv2 4 hours ago [-]
> What if that person is a threat to democracy though?
What does that even mean?
breadwinner 4 hours ago [-]
Denying election results, for example.
OCASMv2 2 hours ago [-]
That depends on the basis on which they deny them.
breadwinner 45 minutes ago [-]
Not if they file dozens of lawsuits challenging the election results and loses all of them.
OCASMv2 19 minutes ago [-]
Only if those lawsuits cover the entirety of the accusations.
Just the fact that many big states don't need IDs to vote is reason enough to cast suspicion on any election, really.
afavour 6 minutes ago [-]
> Just the fact that many big states don't need IDs to vote is reason enough to cast suspicion on any election, really.
Why? There have been numerous investigations into this and none have ever unearthed fraud at any meaningful level.
seanmcdirmid 17 minutes ago [-]
Utah is also a mail-to-vote state. Republicans have tried showing how easy it is committing voter fraud in these systems, but get caught and charged quickly because it’s actually not that easy.
tshaddox 3 hours ago [-]
If it doesn't mean anything then surely it's not dangerous to say it.
zappb 1 hours ago [-]
In common parlance, it means overly right wing.
strbean 4 hours ago [-]
Adolf Hitler to the Weimar Republic. Hugo Chavez to Venezuela. Vladimir Putin to the Russian Federation. Etc.
afavour 4 hours ago [-]
A person that wishes to remove democracy from the country? I don’t really understand how the term would be confusing.
OCASMv2 2 hours ago [-]
Restricting freedom of speech (through "hate speech" laws and the like) is a danger to democracy then since it limits people from expressing their ideas and putting political power behind them.
chasd00 2 hours ago [-]
There are lots of communists, authoritarians, fascists, socialists, even neo-nazis in the US. All of which want to remove democracy however, a political belief isn’t punishable by death.
pembrook 3 hours ago [-]
If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic?
If you actually believe in democracy, nobody can ever be a “danger to democracy” for expressing their opinions…since that is the point of a democracy.
Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument devoid of meaning used by people who can’t rationally argue their positions with logic.
creata 2 hours ago [-]
> If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic?
If someone decides of their own volition to become a slave, is that not their free will?
Most of us believe that certain rights should be inalienable.
> Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument
Sometimes, perhaps, but not always.
afavour 3 hours ago [-]
> If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic?
Sure. When did that vote happen?
antonvs 3 hours ago [-]
Wishes to remove it, and speaks or acts in ways that further that goal.
There’s a false right-wing talking point that the US “is a republic, not a democracy”. The US is both a representative democracy and a republic, but the talking point equivocates on the meaning of “democracy”, conflating it with direct democracy, and this apparently fools far more people than it should.
The goal of people who push such propaganda is to weaken support for, and understanding of, democracy. There isn’t any doubt that they, and the people who unthinkingly repeat the propaganda, are a threat to democracy.
4 hours ago [-]
sva_ 4 hours ago [-]
The people who came up with the concept of "stochastic terrorism" seem to be pretty silent when it hits the other side.
tomrod 3 hours ago [-]
Because the other comment was flagged by people acting in anger, I want to make sure you knew that several folks are speaking up from both sides of the aisle. Here are two quotes from people whom you consider your political enemies:
> JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones."
> BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy."
I don't quite understand why you have to put words in my mouth. I didn't claim anyone to be my political enemy. In fact I have close friends on both isles of the political spectrum, and I don't identify myself with either of them. I just wish people would defend things out of principle, rather than just what currently supports the things that I (perhaps wrongly) presume to be their political identity.
tomrod 4 hours ago [-]
I don't understand this comment.
This happened a few hours ago while the decedent was commenting on 5/5700 mass shootings being performed by trans people being enough to take rights, which the decedent normally argues should not be abrogated, away, and that most shootings were gang violence. This is after a few years long history of promoting inaction on guns despite clear Constitutionality and clear need.
Ironically it was at a school, making it a school shooting. Unironically, there was a school shooting in Colorado occurring at the same time.
Guns are the problem. Everyone knows this. Some try to justify it anyway, Mr. Kirk among them.
Like I said, I simply don't understand why someone's response mere hours after a deadly shooting is "I blame my political enemies who are wholly uninvolved and tried to help prevent these types of occurrences."
---
Edit --
Here are two quotes from, as you said, your political enemies:
> JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones."
> BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy."
The problem is, existential threats are more common than not in politics. Nearly every decision can kill, or change who gets killed, on a scope that varies from individual, to global, to more abstract, e.g. values that are just as important as life (freedom, language, culture, family, nature, take your pick - many have given their lives for each of these).
Deport an illegal immigrant? They may get killed back in their more dangerous home country (or die slowly due to less access to medicine), or grow their home economy instead of yours. Let them stay? Maybe they're a dangerous criminal and will kill someone here. Don't deport any? Your culture and nation get diluted into nothing - some value those things highly, others don't, but to the former, that's an existential threat.
Tax fossil fuels? The economy slows, there's less money for hospitals, more crime due to poverty, this can easily kill people, or maybe it's harder to keep up with China. Don't tax them, and now you're taking your chances with global warming.
Spy on everyone's communication? You've just made it much easier for a tyrannical government to arise, and those have killed millions, and trampled values many hold as dear as life itself. Don't spy? Well maybe you miss a few terrorist attacks, but you also have a harder time identifying hostile foreign propaganda, which could have devastating but hard to isolate effects.
Simply put, death, existential threats, threats to democracy, etc., are common in politics, and one cannot talk honestly about it while avoiding their mention. I would say that, unless you cannot keep a cool head in those circumstances, you shouldn't get into politics in any capacity. But of course, those that need this advice won't heed it.
4 hours ago [-]
ponector 4 hours ago [-]
>> this person is a threat to democracy
I would say it is true. Such killer is a threat to democracy.
creatonez 2 hours ago [-]
Telling the truth did not cause this. The Nazi regime, a machine that is systematically crushing the working class and minorities & driving large swaths of the population to despair - is what caused this. The idea that we can just adjust the way we speak to avoid the inevitable outcome of worsening material conditions under fascism is patently absurd.
ivape 4 hours ago [-]
Translation:
If you keep drawing the prophet at some point someone who really believes will act on it, right?
Sorry. We in the west don’t live like that.
chasd00 2 hours ago [-]
> Sorry. We in the west don’t live like that.
Sort of, even South Park self censored when it came to drawing an animated Muhammad.
trimethylpurine 1 hours ago [-]
I think you may have missed their message. That they self censored for fear of violent retaliation makes strong ridicule of the threatening group. It exemplifies its contrast with a free society.
It essentially says, "They are so lacking of basic compassion that even jokes are not allowed."
That's the joke.
55 minutes ago [-]
4 hours ago [-]
3 hours ago [-]
protocolture 3 hours ago [-]
You think it is better to peacefully endure fascism than violently oppose it?
AnimalMuppet 3 hours ago [-]
It is better to peacefully respond to fascism with speech until far after the point where most of the loud voices say "we need violence to oppose this!"
There comes a point where you have to oppose fascism with violence. There really does. But wow are people overeager to jump into it.
protocolture 3 hours ago [-]
>There comes a point where you have to oppose fascism with violence.
I am betting if you read a history of germany, you would probably pick roughly the same point that the US has long since passed as the time to resist openly. Most people do in abstract.
LocalH 55 minutes ago [-]
If we wait as long as you are suggesting, then it's already too late
communitymember 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
anthem2025 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lotsofpulp 4 hours ago [-]
How is a politically influential person that makes baseless accusations against voting mechanisms and civic institutions in general (only when it suits them) not a threat to democracy? Not to mention supporting the attack on the government building where legislators were certifying an election.
NewJazz 4 hours ago [-]
Commenter is saying it doesn't matter if they are, we should just speak nicely about them because their life is our's to preserve.
bilbo0s 3 hours ago [-]
Well, we don’t need to speak nicely about anything or anyone. We do have the First.
But we should be civil. Which is different than being nice, but is far more important. Many generals in war are not terribly nice to their enemies. They are, however, civil.
We lost more than ordered discourse in our abrogation of the societal pact with civility.
mandeepj 56 minutes ago [-]
Worth listening to Charlie's mentor; he said he was divisive and very provocative, so he parted ways with him.
It's been a few hours since the shooting and no suspect is in custody.
I wonder if he/she/they will ever be caught?
pjc50 5 hours ago [-]
There's going to be a colossal manhunt. Every possible technology will be mobilized. And it's very hard not to slip up on opsec. Unless the guy leaves the country very quickly, I would expect him to be caught (or killed resisting arrest, the common fate of mass shootings).
hinkley 3 hours ago [-]
When I was in college a kid used a computer in a lab to send a death thread against Bill Clinton to whotehouse.gov. I recall this in part because it was the lab I did most of my hours in both as an employee and because it was near my friend’s appt so we would study there. Dude sent it from a computer two rows back from where I usually sat.
Someone got up to use the bathroom and didn’t lock the machine. Dude thought he was being funny. But of course since he logged on to the adjacent machine he put himself on the suspect list and got caught. And in a hell of lot of trouble as I recall. I think he got expelled, too.
That was for a prank, not an assassination.
The thing some crime dramas don’t get right is that while circumstantial and tainted evidence cannot get you a conviction, it is absolutely possible for it to be used to prioritize manpower used to narrow you down to the top of the list.
There’s a thing in law enforcement called Parallel Construction. It can be used to protect confidential informants such as in undercover operations, but it can also be used to replace evidence that was found illegally, such as illegal recording or theft by a neighbor.
They just need to find something that follows process front to back. They don’t need to do that in order to figure out it was you in the first place.
Statistics say the spouse or partner almost always committed the murder. Even lacking any evidence they look really really hard at these people. It’s not illegal or unfair to do so. It’s triage. If I’m looking at Mrs Fredrickson’s murder, I’m not looking at any cold cases or spending effort on many other active cases. It’s unfortunately a numbers game.
programjames 5 hours ago [-]
Note: it was an assassination, not a mass shooting. There was only one shot.
jimt1234 4 hours ago [-]
Pedantic, but...why is this an assassination and not just a murder? Because he was more than likely targeted? Tupac was targeted (for some street-level bullshit), but I don't think anyone would call his demise an "assassination".
OkayPhysicist 3 hours ago [-]
Assassinations are surprise killings of prominent individuals for political purposes. Targeted gang killings are an interesting case, because they are political within the context of intra- and inter-gang politics, but not viewed in that light in a broader context. If I was watching a documentary about two rival gangs, I probably wouldn't blink twice at someone referring to a hit on a rival leader as an assassination. In every day conversation, it would probably be weird, because the normal assumption is of the broader political sphere.
People are calling this an assassination because they are making the (probably reasonable) guess that the reason to shoot Charlie Kirk during a political speech is to make a political statement.
FinnKuhn 4 hours ago [-]
Assassinations usually target public figures for political or ideological motives and public impact. So a subcategory of murders if you want.
brewdad 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dang 3 hours ago [-]
You've posted three abusive comments to this thread in quick succession. That's not ok, and we have to ban such accounts.
(Your account is far from the only one posting abusively in this thread, and it's probably random that I happened to see your posts, but still - this is not ok.)
Technically even that wouldn't be a "mass shooter". It would instead be a spree shooter or serial killer. But it's kind of beside the point.
programjames 4 hours ago [-]
I wouldn't expect behaviors from mass shooters to carry over to serial killers.
another_twist 4 hours ago [-]
It sounds similar to the plot of The F*ck it List.
greedo 4 hours ago [-]
Vance Boelter...
throwmeaway222 5 hours ago [-]
very likely he will be caught by his friends or family- everyone that does something like this slips up. The guy that shot United Healthcare's CEO was outed partially by his own mom in fact.
qaq 3 hours ago [-]
Depends on shooter's background. For state actors the easiest way to undermine US is to continue pushing towards more political violence in US via any and all means.
3 hours ago [-]
4 hours ago [-]
5 hours ago [-]
xdennis 5 hours ago [-]
At a public event like this there are hundreds of cameras. He will definitely be caught.
the_real_cher 4 hours ago [-]
There's already videos being released showing the shooter on a roof.
I have a feeling he'll get caught.
aaron695 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
tmsh 1 hours ago [-]
Looking at recent events through a historical lens: the 1960s saw the assassinations of MLK, RFK, JFK, and Malcolm X during a wave of progressive change. Today’s assassination attempts and targeted violence seem to follow a similar pattern during periods of significant social and political shifts.
As RFK said after MLK’s death, we must choose between “violence and non-violence, between lawlessness and love.” His call for unity and rejecting hatred feels as urgent now as it was then.
Violence is never the answer. But understanding these tragic patterns might help us navigate our current moment with hopefully more empathy.
pm90 1 hours ago [-]
This is dangerous false equivalency. Charlie Kirk was not advocating for the rights of the downtrodden. He was a right wing provocateur, and he’s on the record saying that “some gun deaths are ok” in service of the 2nd amendment, and in making light of the nearly deadly political attack on the Pelosi family.
Political violence, especially deadly violence is not ok. But comparing Charlie Kirk to MLK is also not ok.
strken 49 minutes ago [-]
"Some gun deaths are okay" is saying the quiet part out loud, but it's not wrong. When you let a large group of people have access to something dangerous then some number of them will die and kill using the dangerous thing, whether the thing is cars or paracetamol or wingsuits or guns.
I say this as an Australian. We have a far more restrictive system of gun control than the US and yet we still see tens of gun deaths a year, because some gun deaths are okay even if we set the number a lot lower than the US does.
darkerside 31 minutes ago [-]
Was this one of the OK ones?
strken 21 minutes ago [-]
I'm not an American, I'm an Australian. Our gun deaths sit at 0.9 per 100000 people instead of 14 per 100000 and I approve of our gun laws. In that sense, I guess I'd say that roughly 6% of this gun death was okay.
In a broader sense, it is of course not okay to shoot someone, but that's taking the quote out of the context of gun control measures.
tmsh 43 minutes ago [-]
Right it’s more that it’s odd that there’s all these assassinations of conservatives (UnitedHealthCare etc). And previously there were many assassinations of progressives. I think it’s just the leaders in a dominant part of a force in society become casualties. Loss of life is always tragic even if we disagree with everything they stand for. But anyway the historical part (if that is what is happening - hard to tease out if there’s just more gun violence in general) helps me make sense of it. The dominant wave has breaks or we see them more somehow.
Cornbilly 50 minutes ago [-]
He also spread the rumors that Pelosi’s attacker was just an upset gay lover.
PlanksVariable 53 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
geuis 38 minutes ago [-]
I have no background context on this topic. Can someone more knowledgeable fill in the details?
The nbcnews website is filled with ad stuff and my blockers basically render the page unreadable.
nawartamawi 3 hours ago [-]
this is a sad day for America, violence is not an answer to extreme voices on both ends, praying for peace and space for true free speech.
mempko 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
kulahan 3 hours ago [-]
What makes you think most of Americans walking around worried about a shooting? Are they still worried about terrorist attacks and bear maulings too?
I’m probably wrong, but dang this seems like such a silly thing to personally worry about.
I can’t help but think this is 99% due to the media. I would bet a million bucks, no matter who you are, that you personally will not get shot. That’s easy math.
But I also know human brains are bad at statistics. Meh.
pixl97 10 minutes ago [-]
I mean it does sound like you are bad at statistics.
You don't need to get shot to be a victim of gun violence. I've honked at a car that was driving aggressively and that driver pointed a gun at me. This is a common enough story in Texas to be meme-ifyed.
selcuka 2 hours ago [-]
US is the 6th country in gun related deaths per capita [1]. I think human brains are very good at statistics.
Where is it in knife related deaths per capita? How does it compare in deaths per unit poverty per capita?
Good statistics beg good questions.
xwolfi 16 minutes ago [-]
I've been once threatened by an ex-gf with a knife, telling me she was gonna kill me. You know what I felt ? A mild worry, "come on, drop that, it's not worth it". She threw it across the kitchen and cried in my arms (difficult breakup, she has an history of family violence and alcohol abuse and comes from Myanmar, a tough place. We're both fine).
She would have had, to actually endanger me:
- to have enough strength to penetrate anything
- the courage to see a lot of blood and cries to actually go through with a full murder
- resist me fighting her back if it went to that, close range
- not react to any rational argument I would beg her to listen to while she attacked me
It was a bit traumatizing, but we laugh at it now... she failed at the first rational argument I presented "don't do it, don't ruin your life for a guy".
Imagine if we were in a gun country, and she pressed the trigger accidentally... it's not the same, you must understand that, knife murders are really really hard, gun murders really really easy.
averageRoyalty 3 hours ago [-]
> Remember Charlie got shot while talking about gun violence. He himself said gun deaths are a worthy price to pay for freedom.
You didn't say anything incorrect here. To clarify though, the second part was not what he said when he was shot.
bena 48 minutes ago [-]
No, he was insinuating that mass gun violence is a problem mostly among the black community.
I wonder how quickly the gunman will be found. I've always wondered if the authorities would ever be able to find someone who patterned themselves after a character like The Jackal.
just-the-wrk 3 hours ago [-]
I had a convo about law enforcement's tools with a California detective last month. He was very clear its only a question of resources, and if the federal gov't is motivated to find them, they will.
tyleo 3 hours ago [-]
You know I’ve generally thought it’s is true. You WILL get caught. Then I wonder if the government knows who Satoshi is. I know he didn’t kill someone but I wonder if the resources exist to figure it out if they truly wanted.
blaufast 2 hours ago [-]
I wonder about the Jan 6 pipe bomber
daveevad 39 minutes ago [-]
I hope you're talking about the original The Jackal. That's a great movie that has fascinated me essentially because of the theme you've identified. A truly motivated, highly-intelligent person could commit horrendous acts without detection. So far, whoever committed this assassination has succeeded; but I suspect, there is simply too much surveillance in 2025 to get away with it.
edit: regarding the surveillance issue, wonder what the retention on google earth/maps logs is for the location of the shooting?
CSMastermind 3 hours ago [-]
Already been apprehended according to Kash Patel (FBI director)
bradhe 3 hours ago [-]
A suspect had been apprehended. Let’s see if it’s actually the person who did it.
kulahan 3 hours ago [-]
If you’re talking about the old white guy apprehended at the scene, he was released.
A therapist once explained to me that the human mind first processes things through the emotional regions of the brain (limbic) and only afterwards can it reach the logic center (pre frontal cortex).
This has helped me to understand a lot of human behavior and social media posts and reactions (also propaganda, cults, sales, etc)
You may think you have come to a logical conclusion about political issue x or political party x, but very likely the vast majority of us are first having a triggered emotional reaction and later using our pre-frontal cortex to logically create a narrative on why we feel this way and justify it.
Taken to extremes I think you can see things like today happen and see how people react.
Sometimes I catch myself defending someone or a position and later realize I am just wrong, it’s just that I had an emotional reaction felt a possible connection with the person or a cause or vibe they expressed or are connected with and then my attorney brain kicks into overdrive trying to make it all add up.
It also explains a lot of domestic issues, if you are upset or scared your brain stays in the limbic center and is literally incapable of rational thought until you calm down or feel safe.
Just my two cents
xvector 7 minutes ago [-]
Platforms like Reddit need to be held accountable, as well as the users that openly call for violence.
8note 49 seconds ago [-]
so this is the end of the debate bro culture he pioneered? i dont imagine any other right wing thought leaders are going to want to put themselves at risk of being shot over and over again, now that its happened.
smoovb 3 hours ago [-]
I don't know who this is, but given the number of comments, seems to have mattered. Only point of this comment is assure others who don't know his work that you are not alone.
yonran 43 minutes ago [-]
I have only seen Charlie Kirk on this interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom. Apparently he was someone who was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view. And he made many valid points that made the Governor squirm and agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XJ6rQDRKGA
PartiallyTyped 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
OGEnthusiast 6 hours ago [-]
If that video is real, the shooter had incredibly accurate aim.
topspin 4 hours ago [-]
It's incredibly accurate as most such events go, with the grade of shooters and weapons typically seen. It's not terribly remarkable for a trained shooter with a good rifle. A 1 MOA or better rifle with a reasonable optic makes such shots highly feasible given a stationary target.
So this is a outlier only in that someone was equipped and trained to a fairly serious degree. Someone on the order of a squad designated marksman (SDM) is certainly capable of this. The US military has a few thousand active duty personal trained to that level across the several branches, and there are 10's of thousands of veterans. There are also many SWAT and other LEOs and an uncountable number of enthusiasts and serious hunters with sufficient training and weapons.
SheepSlapper 3 hours ago [-]
If the reporting is correct, the shot was at 200 yards. Anyone who hunts with a rifle is (or should be) capable of making that shot, it's not exceedingly far (and like you said, if your rifle isn't junk and you're shooting 1 MOA, that's only a 2" difference @ 200 yards).
No serious training or equipment would be required for this close of a shot. I've taken deer over 200 yards away with my $500 rifle, no training other than shooting on and off since I was a kid.
topspin 2 hours ago [-]
I believe this underestimates the difficulty of such an attack and the value of training. This isn't deer hunting where little to nothing is at stake. It's a homicidal attack in the midst of an urban area, with armed law enforcement in the vicinity, the risk of discovery, the knowledge that aggressive pursuit will be immediate, and extreme consequences for the crime.
High pressure.
Under pressure, a poorly trained person is unlikely to be capable of this. It takes some degree of training to simultaneously deal with this pressure and still perform.
chasd00 60 minutes ago [-]
Completely untrained yes but there’s lots of people with these skills. I do IDPA matches with my son at a tactical range near Waxahachie TX, people there do these kinds of drills constantly. There’s also lots of ex-military instructor led close quarter and urban combat training available to anyone. Combat trained random people are probably more common than you think. It’s sort of like martial arts, some people are just really into it.
topspin 21 minutes ago [-]
> I do IDPA matches
Yes, this is the level of training I imagine as sufficient. A match applies pressure: you're on a clock, there is an audience, you have a safety regime and people scrutinizing you on it, and at the end, there is a score. I don't claim Fort Benning sniper school is necessary. Only that you likely can't just wander out of a gun shop with your scoped deer rifle and snipe targets at range under pressure: there is more to it than the weapon.
stevenwoo 55 minutes ago [-]
I think the two would be Trump assassins being closer and failing back up your argument though one was scared off before he could even take a shot.
topspin 4 minutes ago [-]
The corollary is Oswald and his crummy surplus carbine making headshots on a moving target.
Training.
jandrewrogers 5 hours ago [-]
It was reportedly a 200 meter shot on a pretty static target. At that distance a competent shooter can place it within a couple inches all day with a decent rifle. This shot didn't require special skill.
redhed 5 hours ago [-]
Especially when you can zero the scope to 200yds and make it basically point and shoot.
int_19h 4 hours ago [-]
Not directly relevant, but it should be noted that we live at a time when someone who can afford to drop a few thousand dollars on a scope basically doesn't need to learn how to shoot.
Between that and cheap quadcopter drones, I expect political assassinations to skyrocket in the future.
bena 6 hours ago [-]
If a bullet hits, it has to hit somewhere.
He could have been aiming for the skull for all we know. He could have been aiming for the chest. Hell, he could have been aiming for someone behind Kirk.
BJones12 3 hours ago [-]
We can be sure that the shooter was not aiming for the neck. Chest is more likely, but head is possible.
tracker1 5 hours ago [-]
Given the distance, unless well trained it was probably luck more than anything.
int_19h 5 hours ago [-]
Modern firearms don't really require that much training to hit a static man sized target at 200m from a supported position. This is well within the "point blank" range, meaning that vertical deviation of the bullet is too small to bother adjusting for, and wind effects on rifle (i.e. very fast moving) bullets at this range are also fairly limited. So long as the rifle is zeroed, lining up the scope with the target and pulling the trigger without jerking it is basically all it takes, and those kinds of skills can be acquired in a few trips to the range.
samirillian 4 hours ago [-]
Can you do this? Like, I’ve killed every animal I’ve shot at so far (legally, while hunting) and I know I couldn’t make that shot. The nerves alone Jesus. I’m always surprised and dubious when I hear this claim repeated. A blood vessel in a human from 200 yards. After a few trips to the range. Really.
SheepSlapper 3 hours ago [-]
Who says he was targeting that specific place? In fact, it seems likely that the target was his head and the shooter pulled the shot a bit but was still within tolerances (with a 1 MOA scope @ 200 yards you're only looking at 2" of variance).
I've killed deer beyond 200 yards sitting on a stump with a cheap rifle, it's not actually that hard if you've shot a bit before. The nerves though... you're right there, I couldn't imagine.
tracker1 4 hours ago [-]
The shooter wasn't likely aiming "anywhere on the body" as the target... they were likely either trying to hit the center of the head, or the chest. In either case, they were off quite a bit and that they made a deadly hit as much as they did was most likely still luck as much as anything.
int_19h 4 hours ago [-]
Aiming for the head is most likely. For reference, a military M16 is considered within spec if it can produce a 4 minute-of-angle group from a prone supported position (but aimed and fired by a human, not fixed in a gun sled). At 200 yards, that would be a circle of around 8 inches. However pretty much any hit with a rifle bullet within that circle is likely to be lethal if it's centered on the head...
Anyway, the point is that it's really not a difficult shot at all, and only requires very rudimentary training that is readily available to anyone who can make a few trips to the range.
tracker1 4 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure that most people are disciplined enough to make that shot all the same. I don't know anything about the shooter in particular though. Mostly in that from the center of the head to the neck is still a bit away. It could just as easily have missed altogether.
jandrewrogers 4 hours ago [-]
I'm guessing center of head. It is common for right-handed shooters without a lot of training to jerk the trigger down and to the right, which will show up as displacement at 200 meters.
DannyBee 4 hours ago [-]
The bullet drop at this distance with say a .223 is 3-9 inches depending on the exact velocity and basically nothing else has significant effect at this distance.
At say 3000fps velocity, time to target is less than 450ms.
This is almost point and shoot. It’s entirely possible someone fairly untrained just aimed at the forehead and ended up with neck
RandomBacon 5 hours ago [-]
Supposedly the shot was taken from 200 yards away.
In my nonprofessional opinion, that is crappy aim. I can hit an apple from 100 yards away, with a black powder rifle, with an unriffled bore, with iron sights, standing up, repeatedly. I would expect a modern rifle with a riffled bore and a scope and a larger target to be much more accurate from a prone position.
gretch 5 hours ago [-]
How can it possibly be crappy aim?
The shooter had 1 target, and he delivered a 100% kill shot.
You could say "it wasn't impressive", but you can't say it was crap...
RandomBacon 5 hours ago [-]
People can deliver crap and still get their task accomplished.
It was crap. I highly doubt the neck was the target. If the head was the target, then the same distance but in another direction, would have missed.
Regardless, it's still sad that someone died, especially in this manner (regardless of politics).
nemo44x 5 hours ago [-]
His target was probably higher.
greedo 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
shhsshs 5 hours ago [-]
Sarcasm noted. An apple would actually be more difficult to hit because of its reduced size.
greedo 4 hours ago [-]
Everyone is underestimating how hard it is to willingly kill a person. Shooting a paper target or apple at a range is nothing like sighting on a person, letting out your breath and pulling a trigger.
John23832 5 hours ago [-]
If they're both stationary targets, such as a sitting apple or a sitting person, at the same distance, they are.
The person is probably easier frankly.
6 hours ago [-]
quitspamming 5 hours ago [-]
I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc. We've all been taught since grade school it was a good thing to kill Nazis, even in small percentages there are mentally unstable people who will hear you call someone a Fascist and take the logical step from "it's good to kill nazis" to "they're a nazi so I should kill them". I am both very pro freedom of speech and right to bear arms, and I think where Canada and the UK have gone with hate speech laws are too far, but I don't know how you solve this.
tdeck 29 minutes ago [-]
What do you think the definition of fascist is? Is it ever appropriate to apply that label to someone?
tokioyoyo 5 hours ago [-]
I generally agree with you, but wouldn’t lump Canada into this rhetoric. Its hate speech laws are fairly balanced, if I’ll be honest.
It’s going to sound absurd, but right now, USA’s global image is a very good counter-ad towards “complete” freedom of speech.
all2 3 hours ago [-]
We are an excellent example of what happens when the Hegelian Dialectic is applied successfully by the small minority.
We are also an example when a people becomes completely divorced from their cultural and religious heritage. Without a moral anchor, we are a people cast adrift, lost in confusion, calling evil good and good evil, all trying to do our own thing and benefit ourselves, consumed by greed, by self-interest.
Freedom of speech, or lack there-of, plays no role in what is happening in the United States. This country and its founding charters were written for a moral people. That the country is byzantine, crumbling, has more to do with a people who have lost their way than it has to do with this-or-that law that the government no longer heeds.
kanbara 3 hours ago [-]
america is not a country founded on a religious heritage. and regardless of what you may think of the beginnings of the country, it very quickly became a country of immigrants. there is no religion that should be placed at the head of the country’s belief system.
what moral anchor do you think we need?
mothballed 2 hours ago [-]
Classical liberalism
billy99k 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cthalupa 4 hours ago [-]
It's not even a matter of calling people fascists or nazis - there's been plenty of violence towards the politicians on the opposite side of the aisle, too. Nancy Pelosi and her husband. Melissa Hortman, John and Yvette Hoffman earlier this year.
If it was just a matter of people internalizing that killing fascists is fine and thus that calling people fascists is dangerous, then we would not see the same sort of violence being perpetrated against other politicians not getting the same label.
Kirk himself suggested that a "real patriot who wanted to be a midterm hero" should bail out the man who nearly killed Pelosi's husband. The rhetoric around political violence in this country has been ratcheted up to an insane degree, with or without any accusations of fascism, and this will continue or get worse as long as that remains the case.
mothballed 5 hours ago [-]
No one shot the Skokie march Nazis and they literally showed up at a Jewish dominated town at a time when there weren't even background checks for guns. The ACLU even defended them in court, which is unthinkable that they would stand on their principles and do that today.
There's just less tolerance for discussing or exhibiting "extreme" or highly unpopular opinions, nowadays, it seems. Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.
magicalist 4 hours ago [-]
> Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.
I mean, you're almost there realizing the recency bias. The 1970s, when the Skokie Affair occurred, were arguably the high point for political violence in the post-WWII US.
OCASMv2 4 hours ago [-]
Calling people nazis and fascists nilly willy doesn't even count as hate speech...
sharkjacobs 4 hours ago [-]
"Hate speech" isn't just hateful speech, it's a specific term with a specific meaning. Being a nazi isn't an inherent characteristic of a person, it's an affiliation or ideology that they consciously choose.
zahlman 34 minutes ago [-]
>Being a nazi isn't an inherent characteristic of a person, it's an affiliation or ideology that they consciously choose.
Sure.
But the overwhelming majority of people called "nazis" by their political opponents have objectively not chosen anything remotely of the sort.
xienze 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
o11c 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
xienze 3 hours ago [-]
Can you provide a source where a Republican says we need to target all immigrants? Or are you simply imagining things because the media always conflates illegal immigrants with legal ones?
o11c 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
xienze 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bcrosby95 3 hours ago [-]
Plenty of people I know believe illegal immigrants should be deported. The difference between them and people accused of being a Nazi is they don't go around calling them all rapists and murderers.
The problem isn't the claimed actions they want to take, its the dehumanization being resorted to.
xienze 3 hours ago [-]
You’re exaggerating greatly, of course. Among those deported are rapists and murderers, naturally, and no one has stated that everyone being deported or even targeted is one (the recent Hyundai bust comes to mind). I challenge you to find that quote.
bcrosby95 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
xienze 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
2 hours ago [-]
OCASMv2 2 hours ago [-]
No when it's a label deliberately misapplied to run of the mill conservatives. That's defamation with the purpose of generating hate against those people.
mindslight 52 minutes ago [-]
If someone voted for the autocratic authoritarian with a track record of hating American liberties and institutions, it's dishonest to keep calling them a conservative. If Trumpists were conservatives, the slogan would have been "Keep America Great". The actually conservative vote was Harris/Walz.
OCASMv2 22 minutes ago [-]
> autocratic authoritarian with a track record of hating American liberties and institutions
It's that level of hysteria what causes moderates to shift to the right.
mindslight 10 minutes ago [-]
What do you mean hysteria? These are straightforward applications of terms:
Trump is an autocrat - he expects everyone to simply fall in line with his orders. He's an authoritarian, in that he sees state intervention as the answer to problems (the sheer majority of mainstream politicians are authoritarians). Liberty examples from before the second round ("track record") are a little nebulous, but one of the clearest is the way he rejected the second amendment when the police retaliated against Kenneth Walker for exercising his natural right to night time home defense. But now into the second round, we have unaccountable gangs roving around and attacking citizens, so the obvious prediction was correct.
And institutions? His first term, he picked a fight with the CDC for being politically incorrect. This time around, how many government institutions has he destroyed? Furthermore, he's gone on to attacking non-governmental institutions like universities. His whole popular shtick is basically one big rambling of grievances about US institutions.
I'm sorry that words mean things, and that you apparently have a negative emotional reaction to words that correctly describe Trump. I would call your statement gaslighting. Revanchist "make America great again" is plainly not a conservative movement.
antonymoose 2 hours ago [-]
I’ll throw my hat in on another comment on this thread - my last wasn’t well received but ask you take it honestly.
Circa 2017 during then “punching Nazis” era of social discourse, I started a new job. The first week in I went for lunch with a Junior teammate and was told “violence against ‘Nazis’” is fine, it’s justified. I asked how. I was told, my brain is a part of the body, so if someone says something so stupid that it ‘hurts the brain,’ the speech is now assault, so counter-violence is justified.
I, with hint of irony, told my new coworker that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard and asked if I should now assault them for hurting my brain… and was met with hostility.
I don’t quite known I’m going with this exactly, but I feel folks are not giving the world around them an honest assessment, no matter their Ivy diploma. Politics isn’t a “gotcha game” and please stop tying to make it such.
throwaway-11-1 2 hours ago [-]
this country is literally building concentration camps, masked gangs are kidnapping people off the streets with no due process and the executive branch is threatening business leaders into public humiliation rituals of loyalty. What exactly should we be allowed to describe this style of politics as? Please frame your answer like I'm the dumbest guy who's ever lived and have never read a book
tdeck 19 minutes ago [-]
Don't forget law firms that participated in cases Trump doesn't like have been bullied into doing hundreds of millions of dollars of pro bono work for the administration. And his supreme court just decided, with no explanation, that picking people off the street based on their perceived ethnicity is OK. And people are being deported to prisons in countries they've never visited, where they spend all day shackled with no prospect of a trial.
antonymoose 2 hours ago [-]
Nothing you’re describing is happening.
Cornbilly 41 minutes ago [-]
So all those videos of masked men with no ID grabbing people off of the street are just AI I guess?
bcrosby95 5 hours ago [-]
I'm old enough to remember Fox News hosts playing B-roll of Nazi footage while discussing Obama back in 2008.
drak0n1c 4 hours ago [-]
I'm old enough to recall MSNBC in 2011 cropping video footage of an Obama townhall protestor to only show his long-sleeve shirted back with slung open-carry rifle. They used it to immediately launch into a pundit discussion claiming that the protestors were motivated by racial animus. Turned out the protestor was black.
News manipulating footage to cast aspersions to historical boogeymen is routine. All it takes is one pundit mentioning an imagined similarity to play the edited B-roll.
foofoo4u 3 hours ago [-]
“It’s good to kill Nazis” — this is certainly the prevailing sentiment in modern culture, reinforced by the vast number of books, stories, movies, and video games that support the premise. But something important is often overlooked in this view of righteousness:
1. People who believe they could never become Nazis are often the most unknowingly susceptible to it.
2. People who believe they can confidently identify a Nazi are often wrong — a mindset akin to witch hunts, where everyone is seen as a witch.
BobbyThrowaway 4 hours ago [-]
Not calling people Fascists when they are following every step of every Fascist playbook is bad as well. Obviously there are people at the far edges of the political spectrum who go overboard but we need to call people out when they're actively pushing our country down the road to Authoritarianism / Fascism. There's not much that can be done to control how a mentally disturbed person interprets what they hear, as we know from the lists of right-wing people who have attacked politicians, pizza parlor employees, etc. over obvious nonsense.
crooked-v 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bdhe 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
runjake 5 hours ago [-]
> What is a better way to describe their unprecedented actions in this country?
I think you have the concepts of fascist and authoritarian confused.
lenkite 5 hours ago [-]
Aren't they being very non-racist ? AFAIK all illegal immigrants get deported - brown or yellow or whatever. Why have immigration laws if they are not enforced ? If there should be 100% open entry & benefits to the US, then Congress should first abrogate those laws, right ? It seems in the recent past, I beg your pardon - only suckers - entered the legal way with documentation.
shmoe 5 hours ago [-]
Because if you're racially profiling, you probably aren't tossing out the white immigrants. You may, in fact, revive the Office of Refugee and Resettlement for the creators of South American Apartheid instead.
nsriv 5 hours ago [-]
Who do you think gets stopped to meet quotas?
typpilol 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
5 hours ago [-]
nilamo 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
michaelmcdonald 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
pjc50 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
quitspamming 5 hours ago [-]
It's interesting that you don't think I'm talking about both sides. Rush Limbaugh used to call women he disagreed with feminazis. The "tea party" under Obama used to call everything communist and fascist.
oceanplexian 5 hours ago [-]
> I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc.
The same way it did for the last 250 years as the world's oldest Democracy. By respecting and upholding our Constitution, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
fabrice_d 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
superb_dev 4 hours ago [-]
Can we stop pretending like actual nazi and fascist belief aren’t being normalized too? I don’t know about Charli Kirk himself, but there are provably out and proud fascists in the audience he courts
allanmacgregor 3 hours ago [-]
Can we stop pretending like the are not serious tribalization, polarization and problems on both left and right. Both sides are insane and there is no longer any people in the center.
amanaplanacanal 21 minutes ago [-]
Most people are not in the extreme fringes. They just aren't.
40 minutes ago [-]
rmah 4 hours ago [-]
I have to strongly disagree with this. From what I've seen, it's very rare that positions espoused by those being called "nazi" have anything to do with fascism.
sojournerc 4 hours ago [-]
Often people get their impression of someone like Kirk without ever actually engaging with the content. Too many hot takes and not enough real engagement. "It's cool to hate this guy..? Ok I guess he must be evil."
Painfully ironic given how open he was to debate.
dotnet00 2 hours ago [-]
Has he ever changed his mind from those debates? Or does he always pretend to "win" them?
I ask because for a while it was a common "right wing faux intellectual" thing (think Sargon of Akkad, Milo Yulianopolis etc) to go around asking to debate. Then to not actually do much factual debating or any learning of other perspectives, and claiming that the left is simply uncapable of civilized debate because they eventually just refuse to go along with the act.
donmcronald 39 minutes ago [-]
This is it exactly.
When I talk to people that watch a bunch of right-wing content I shut down political topics immediately. They never change their position and are convinced their point of view is the only point of view. If you concede there's more than one side to a topic they care about, they think they've "won" and it reinforces their belief they're right about everything.
I consider myself to be a centrist. There are definitely things I like and don't like on both sides of the political spectrum. If someone gives me a solid logical argument for or against something, I'll either change my point of view or, more likely, end up with a better understanding of both perspectives.
I'm only one person, but my experience is that people on the political left or center are willing to accept the fact there are often two sides to an issue and that everything needs to be a balance. Most people on the political right won't do that.
It's really hard to argue against someone that never concedes anything especially if you're acting in good faith and acknowledge when they make a convincing argument for their point of view.
> claiming that the left is simply uncapable of civilized debate because they eventually just refuse to go along with the act
1000%
zahlman 28 minutes ago [-]
> I'm only one person, but my experience is that people on the political left or center are willing to accept the fact there are often two sides to an issue and that everything needs to be a balance. Most people on the political right won't do that.
If you say so. My experience has, broadly speaking, been the exact opposite.
donmcronald 13 minutes ago [-]
I've never even met someone I would consider an extreme leftist, but I've definitely met people that parrot far right talking points all day long and they're increasing in numbers.
Almost everyone I know would be center-left or center-right except the ones that have shifted far to the right from watching influencers. The center-right people will come towards the middle, so I should have been clear that I'm talking about the new normal of right wing politics that is way further to the right than it used to be.
zahlman 2 minutes ago [-]
> I've never even met someone I would consider an extreme leftist, but I've definitely met people that parrot far right talking points all day long and they're increasing in numbers.
Again, my experience is very nearly the opposite. I have to seek out rightist views if I want to hear them (I have them in carefully curated feeds so that I can make sure I understand their logic); I can scarcely avoid being exposed to leftist ones (before the Musk takeover, even opening Twitter logged out and in an incognito tab would do this; now I can still have that experience on Bluesky and on most Mastodon instances).
> Almost everyone I know would be center-left or center-right except the ones that have shifted far to the right from watching influencers.
I have been in communities full of people who were commonly accused of having "shifted far to the right from watching influencers", and consistently noticed that no such thing had actually happened if I listened to their actual views.
Affric 4 hours ago [-]
Kirk’s incendiary brand of conservativism was inherently divisive and provocative.
There are unstable people of all political persuasions and the marked lack of widespread political violence is hard won by years of obeying political norms that include not resorting to violence within political systems.
In the United States there was first a fraying of norms and now there seem to be fewer and fewer norms people are willing to uphold each day.
To focus on calling people “Nazis” and “Fascists” is to miss the wood for the trees.
wallopinski 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dotnet00 4 hours ago [-]
This is a pretty one-sided way to put it. Some of these people (Kirk included) aren't just "people you disagree with" when they have the ear of the president and use that power to shamelessly push for and celebrate harming others.
What happened can't be condoned, but the violent rhetoric isn't just from people being called nazis.
cpursley 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
camel_Snake 4 hours ago [-]
this is such a terribly bad-faith interpretation of the parent's comment to the point I'm assuming you replied to the wrong one?
dotnet00 4 hours ago [-]
You might be cooked, though I don't know about anyone else, as that's an extremely uncharitable reading of my words, considering that I said that his murder shouldn't be condoned
rastignack 5 hours ago [-]
Remember to turn off autoplay on Twitter.
brewdad 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
LeoPanthera 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dijit 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
heartbreak 2 hours ago [-]
The mainstream media reported on Iryna’s murder as soon as there was video, but it has been a constant subject of reporting in Charlotte since it happened with immediate political ramifications.
I don’t read Twitter, but I do read my local news. I’m not quite sure that anyone is better off now that her murder is being nationally reported, to be honest.
DiggyJohnson 5 hours ago [-]
Both of these murders are among the most gruesome and (unfortunately) enigmatic I’ve ever seen. This is not the society we want.
renewiltord 3 hours ago [-]
There is an increased amount of energy in the system. This is a bad thing. The amplitudes of the fluctuations are too high. Time to bring things back down to normal. Political violence cannot be accepted: Luigi Mangione, the Hortmans' killer, Kirk's killer all have to be brought to justice by the law. And from the rest of us, they all have to be denounced.
Increased political violence is bad. The state starts breaking down since the price for everything is death so action stalls.
aesthethiccs 1 hours ago [-]
Economic conditions create political violence, because politics can no longer be used to fix economic conditions.
those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolutions inevitable. pretty sure a us president said something like that.
renewiltord 1 hours ago [-]
This cannot be an explanation since the 2008 Financial Crisis did not have a similar rise in political violence and that was far greater economic disruption.
5 hours ago [-]
PlanksVariable 1 hours ago [-]
I watched a few clips of Kirk on college campuses leading up to the election.
On campuses today, there’s no shortage of professors, student activists, and guest speakers beating the drum of modern liberalism, but very few brave enough to take an alternative view.
So I respected him for getting students to question and defend their beliefs.
smeeger 1 hours ago [-]
many on the left point out charlies comments on gun crime, school shootings. this has nothing to do with any of that because it was a political assassination. this is not gun violence in the colloquial sense. you could ban guns fully and there would still be political assassinations using rifles because these people are either enabled by high level political forces or highly motivated in an idealistic, political manner and will do whatever is necessary to get a rifle unlike most common criminals.
OhMeadhbh 3 hours ago [-]
And dude had kids and a wife that aren't going to see him again. That kinda kicks me in the feels. You don't have to be in his political camp to feel bad about that.
throwaway-11-1 2 hours ago [-]
you're probably not going to like Kirk's thoughts on the death of Palestinian civilians
OhMeadhbh 2 hours ago [-]
I can dislike the man's politics but still think he's entitled to basic human rights. I am large. I contain multitudes.
Cornbilly 38 minutes ago [-]
Or his view that children should be made to watch public executions.
averageRoyalty 3 hours ago [-]
Unconfirmed, but I've seen repeated a lot that his wife and kids were in attendance. Awful.
zipy124 3 hours ago [-]
So did bin laden. So did Wissam al-Saadi (Abu Bakr). I dont suspect you are in their political camp either, but do you feel for them also?
OhMeadhbh 2 hours ago [-]
I can't say I was affected by Abu Bakr death since it happened 1300 years before my birth. But if it brings you pain, I am sorry for you.
nosefurhairdo 2 hours ago [-]
A man holding open debates on college campuses, regardless of political beliefs, is categorically different to a man whose legacy was founding al-Qaeda and masterminding 9/11.
Not to mention Kirk's views were not too different from the majority of American voters who elected our current president.
Why make such a comparison? Don't you think this sort of rhetoric contributes to the toxic political landscape we find ourselves in?
thrance 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
maerF0x0 3 hours ago [-]
Given that bin laden initiated violence, I'm not sure this is a reasonable comparison. I do not know anything about Wissam, so am saying nothing about them.
mike_d 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
potsandpans 2 hours ago [-]
So violence is sometimes justified. Ok. Let's get more precise. Did bin laden ever directly kill someone?
Why is this post flag worthy? I'm just asking questions. I thought we should be able to do that????
Are we going to have a discussion about whether extra-judicial killings are justified? I vote no.
newman8r 1 hours ago [-]
Are you trying to argue that killing Charlie Kirk was justified?
selcuka 3 hours ago [-]
I personally feel bad for their kids and wives, too. I honestly don't understand who wouldn't, and why?
aesthethiccs 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
giraffe_lady 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mykowebhn 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
kanbara 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
potsandpans 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
chrisco255 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dang 2 hours ago [-]
We've banned this account. You can't post like this here, regardless of who you're attacking.
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.
3 hours ago [-]
spaceman_2020 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
CostcoFanboy 3 hours ago [-]
Like transgender military service bans, DACA, Family separation policies that clearly targeted latino families, etc, etc, etc.
PartiallyTyped 3 hours ago [-]
They literally talk about revoking 2A for trans people. What are you on about?
Plenty of websites track this legislation.
If you really wanted, you could have an agent do deep research and answer that for you.
calculatte 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
PartiallyTyped 3 hours ago [-]
I find myself pondering how the families of victims of stochastic terrorism feel, do they try to rationalize why their loved ones died?
I am in the unfortunate situation to have found myself a victim of hatred — nearly got abducted — found myself threatened and discriminated against on the basis of my sexuality and appearance, had people spread rumours about my birth sex, and I wonder, do the perpetrators of stochastic terrorism ever feel any remorse? Are they capable of seeing us as fellow humans? Have they a heart that can feel pain for people they can’t relate to any more than just being other people?
CharlesW 5 hours ago [-]
Off-topic, but I was about report a very hateful response before I refreshed and saw that it had already disappeared. Thank you to @dang and HN's other admins!
christophilus 5 hours ago [-]
Truly an unenviable job today.
arrowsmith 4 hours ago [-]
Oooooh boy there are a lot of dead comments in this thread.
busterarm 3 hours ago [-]
Indeed, but in general I'm ashamed at HN. I've read several hundred comments already at this point and have not seen a single word of sympathy for the wife and two babies that he's left behind. Everyone's in such a rush to draw their political lines in the sand...
ripped_britches 6 hours ago [-]
The NSFW video is haunting, don’t watch it. I feel literally sick.
GoatInGrey 4 hours ago [-]
If you're accustomed to combat footage or other videos of victims of violence, this is pretty tame in the grand scheme of things that people are subjected to.
For those who want to know without exposing themselves:
He's sitting in a chair when he takes a round to the neck. Clean exit. It's over within three seconds.
Quarrelsome 3 hours ago [-]
I watched the video of the Christchurch shooting and while I don't regret seeing those horrors, there is a particular moment of it that is so horrifically callous that it sticks with me and is particularly haunting (for those that know; its that moment near the curb).
lawgimenez 3 hours ago [-]
I agree, r/combatfootage has more gruesome videos than this one.
yifanl 5 hours ago [-]
For anyone else who's accidentally watched the video and feels uncomfortable with the gore, immediately go do a high focus activity to not let it settle in your mind, can be something like Tetris.
Interesting. The actually functioning eye bleach thru clobbering your memory with task at hand, I'll legit keep this in mind
autoexec 4 hours ago [-]
I've seen a paper or two supporting the claim, but I remember that I didn't put much faith in them at the time. Seems plausible enough though, and probably wouldn't hurt anyone so until there's a ton of of high quality evidence for it'd still be worth a shot.
yifanl 5 hours ago [-]
Anecdotally, it worked for me, but I'm not really in the mood to look up the literature right now.
pySSK 2 hours ago [-]
Worked for me. Played some chess online.
xnx 5 hours ago [-]
I don't want to watch it, and I'm glad I haven't seen anything more than a still yet.
I always wonder if media hiding gore allows people to not get more upset about violence. The lynching of Emmett Till would not have had the same impact without his mother having an open casket funeral. Would things have gone differently if more people had been exposed to images from Sandy Hook?
whycome 4 hours ago [-]
People are a lot more supportive of war when it’s so far removed.
People hear of kids dying in “bombings” but ignore the reality that it means they were: crushed, burned to death, dismembered, etc etc.
01100011 5 hours ago [-]
tldw; he takes a hit to a major blood vessel in his neck. It is quite shocking. You won't gain much by watching it.
dotnet00 5 hours ago [-]
Yep, a friend shared the link and a low resolution blurry screenshot, and though I usually click anyway, I kind of just knew that this one would be a bit too graphic to move on from easily.
Even though I have an extremely negative opinion of Charlie, I'd feel too bad thinking about the pain his family would be experiencing. The family (especially children) don't deserve that.
_ink_ 3 hours ago [-]
The one thing that Aphantasia is good for. I accidentally saw it on Reddit. No clue, how normal people deal with being forced to see stuff like this over and over again.
tbrownaw 2 hours ago [-]
> No clue, how normal people deal with being forced to see stuff like this over and over again.
Excessive exposure to shock images from forum trolls back in the '90s.
harrisonjackson 4 hours ago [-]
Yep, sick to my stomach. Added a bunch of new mute words on x.
rossant 5 hours ago [-]
Yes. Don't.
kstrauser 5 hours ago [-]
Agreed. I’ve seen some stuff over the years, and it made me gasp. I am not remotely a fan of the victim, but that was horrific.
boppo1 4 hours ago [-]
What does it say about me that I've seen so much stuff like this that it barely affects me? I'm in my 30s and have had unfiltered internet access since I was about 8.
Gore definitely made me a depressed person in grade school, but the only reaction I'm having to this is concern about:
- conservatives getting ready for violence
- the state getting ready to use this to further erode civil liberties
- the left fanning the flames for conservatives
GoatInGrey 4 hours ago [-]
Desensitization isn't a profound or "bad" phenomenon in of itself. Humans adapt to their environment and focus more on concerns of a surprising nature.
ipython 4 hours ago [-]
TBH I think as a society we have become so desensitized to violence because the only exposure we have to it is glamorized in movies and TV.
If we saw death up close and personal, perhaps we could become a bit more empathetic. I seriously wonder if, for example, we published the horrific photos of the aftermath of a school shooting, that would result in more honest discourse in this country on gun control.
pitpatagain 2 hours ago [-]
I think Charlie Kirk agreed with you: "Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised. I think at a certain age, it's an initiation...What age should you start to see public executions?"
Never heard of him before today but he seems to have been a delight.
Whoppertime 2 hours ago [-]
And if we got the horrific photos after the Nice truck attack or the Christmas Market attack in Germany we might realize that being killed by a truck is no less horrifying.
yieldcrv 4 hours ago [-]
many are desensitized, for anyone reading, if you consider yourself that way it’s not haunting or giving feelings of sickness, it depicts a predictable outcome of a high powered shot that hits an artery in a neck. No ability or physical capability for your body to react no matter who you are.
It is graphic and shows how fragile we are, how it will go down if you are in that situation
sliq 3 hours ago [-]
No, please WATCH IT! It's important to learn how reality really is. This is the process of using 100% of available information. You have been trained to block, censor and avoid everything that doesnt do good on you, but it's extremely important to open your eyes as wide as possible, and let your brain process this, then build conclusions on this data.
You feel sick because you cannot process reality.
ripped_britches 19 minutes ago [-]
Well you obviously don’t have an understanding of how people can be permanently debilitated by mental anguish and trauma. This happens to be an unnecessarily gruesome thing for me and it certainly doesn’t teach me anything to watch it that I didn’t already know.
wizzwizz4 1 hours ago [-]
I know how reality really is, and it's already hard enough to deal with. I don't need it made more visceral. When bad things happen, you don't have to stare into them with your eyes wide open, any more than you have to maximise your photon intake by staring into the sun.
Yes, I feel sick because I cannot process reality, and increasing the burden of what I have to process does not make that any easier.
5 hours ago [-]
aaron695 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
catigula 1 hours ago [-]
America feels like it's in mortal danger.
hunglee2 7 hours ago [-]
Whichever side of whatever fence you're on, it's universally a bad thing when politicians, political activists and political representatives get assassinated.
whycome 4 hours ago [-]
And as far as I can tell, he engaged primarily in peaceful verbal and written debate. That should be our political ideal.
and spending millions of dollars to bus people to a violent insurrection, apparently. I'd forgotten until I was reading wikipedia as a consequence of this news.
5 hours ago [-]
the_cat_kittles 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tripplyons 6 hours ago [-]
The problem is that if you think assassinations can be good, any individual person starts to decide when it is okay to assassinate someone. Giving out that power is not a good idea.
pavel_lishin 6 hours ago [-]
But we have given out that power. You can buy that power at Walmart.
DiggyJohnson 5 hours ago [-]
And we give our car licenses. Doesn’t mean you can run over your political adversaries. I didn’t expect the popularity of this line of reasoning: being pro-2A means license to kill. This is sickening.
otterley 5 hours ago [-]
A car's primary purpose is not to kill or injure someone.
DiggyJohnson 5 hours ago [-]
A gun license literally means you are licensed to use this weapon for sport or self defense.
I’m not a public figure but I support the 2A, would you feel sorry for me if I was shot giving a speech?
Would you feel different if Charlie was murdered by a machete or hand grenade?
otterley 4 hours ago [-]
> A gun license literally means you are licensed to use this weapon for sport or self defense.
I don't know what that has to do with anything. Plus, the 2A forbids mandatory licensing for firearms users.
> I’m not a public figure but I support the 2A, would you feel sorry for me if I was shot giving a speech?
It's not about whether someone supports the 2A or not. It's what they do with their lives that matters. If a person's life's mission is to deny white privilege and defend the 2A despite its obvious risks, then make a public statement that school shootings are an acceptable price to pay so that we can have it, then no, I'm not going to feel sorry for that person if they are shot. It's poetic justice. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
> Would you feel different if Charlie was murdered by a machete or hand grenade?
A machete, yes. That has a legitimate use; as with a car, its primary purpose is not to hurt people. A hand grenade, no, as its primary purpose is to harm people, and Mr. Kirk's mission was to protect the rights of those who want to possess devices whose sole purpose is to harm people.
Computer0 5 hours ago [-]
Should assassins be elected officials perhaps? I wonder who Italy would've elected to hang Mussolini upside down!
JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago [-]
> there are many examples where this is not true
Genuinely curious for an example of domestic assassination working out well for anyone.
If they survive, they’re forgiven and quasi-deified. If they die, they’re martyred and replaced.
The only cases where this has worked is when it’s a state wholesale wiping out the other side’s political leadership, e.g. Roman proscriptions.
Levitz 4 hours ago [-]
I do not condone political violence. My country has seen enough of it and still suffers from its consequences. (Spain)
That said, the assassination of Carrero Blanco, who was set to be Franco's successor, was instrumental in Spain's transition to democracy.
The difference between the murder of the planned successor of an actual, literal dictator in an actual, literal dictatorship and what happened today is, I hope, evident to everyone.
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago [-]
> the assassination of Carrero Blanco, who was set to be Franco's successor, was instrumental in Spain's transition to democracy
This is a good example. Thank you.
mothballed 5 hours ago [-]
Nicolae Ceaușescu.
Unless you don't count it as assassination because they held the flimsiest short kangaroo court before it happened, just to fuck with him.
Min0taur 4 hours ago [-]
If you're earnest about this ask, I'd look into the assassination of Shinzo Abe by Tetsuya Yamagami.
Rabin and Abe seem to be examples where the assassin more or less got what they wanted (derail the peace process and damage the Unification Church respectively)
fzeroracer 5 hours ago [-]
The assassination of Shinzo Abe is pretty widely considered massively successful thanks to rooting out the Unification Church corruption. That required the shooter in question to be incredibly sympathetic since their motivation involved links to said church destroying his family.
This isn't to say this has any bearing on this event though.
Ar-Curunir 5 hours ago [-]
shinzo abe?
Indira Gandhi? Rajiv Gandhi?
jobs_throwaway 6 hours ago [-]
please give us a few
baby_souffle 6 hours ago [-]
There are a few pretty notable assassinations around people that helped or collaborated with the Nazis. Argibly those assassinations prevented further worse outcomes.
But in _recent_ memory, the one that comes to mind immediately is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi not too long after 9/11. His death disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq which almost certainly was a net benefit.
Bin laden himself also comes to mind but it's unclear how much more potential he had to inflict terror on the world at the time in his life when he was assassinated.
tolerance 5 hours ago [-]
> But in _recent_ memory, the one that comes to mind immediately is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi not too long after 9/11. His death disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq which almost certainly was a net benefit.
Giving rise to ISIS.
> Bin laden himself also comes to mind but it's unclear how much more potential he had to inflict terror on the world at the time in his life when he was assassinated.
Political theater at best.
baby_souffle 11 minutes ago [-]
> Giving rise to ISIS.
Debatable as to weather it delayed or intensified ISIS but I think you're missing my broader point; his disposal prevented immediate harm and that was a net benefit.
> Political theater at best.
I'd argue there was a very symbolic benefit and even if there is/was a power vacuum.
I floated this question to a friend that likes to nerd out on geopolitics and they suggested that there's a few warlords in africa that tend to end civil wars and make way for successful peace talks after they're dead. I had never heard of the UNITA but as soon as
Jonas Savimbi was assassinated, a decade+ civil war ended and Angola had elections shortly thereafter.
Goodwins law would apply if any of the _many_ attempts had succeeded.
ddddang 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
mensetmanusman 5 hours ago [-]
Any rational person knows that if people are afraid to go into politics because of political violence, you are reducing the subset of possible skills available to improve society.
However if you are a nihilist, none of this matters anyway.
otterley 5 hours ago [-]
> you are reducing the subset of possible skills available to improve society.
This happened long ago. Politics is exhausting (constant campaigning), poorly paid (unless you can leverage your position to sell bestselling books and speaking engagements later), and you have to check your logic and common sense at the chamber door. You have to have unlimited optimism to not become overwhelmed with cynicism and demotivated by despair from the sausage making process. Overall, politics is a shitty job mainly practiced by hucksters, psychopaths, and well-meaning but naive people who turn into a huckster or psychopath.
digitalbullshit 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jeffbee 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
nh23423fefe 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lovich 6 hours ago [-]
As if any answer to that question on a public forum won’t be moderated to oblivion
alchemical_piss 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Psillisp 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
NewJazz 5 hours ago [-]
Alright, n dimensional hypercube.
reenorap 4 hours ago [-]
All politicians are on the same side of the coin. We are on the other side.
otterley 5 hours ago [-]
Let's say "aisle" then.
tolerance 5 hours ago [-]
Gangway.
alchemical_piss 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
MangoToupe 3 hours ago [-]
It feels like the two extremes in this country are not partisan, but rather "extremely angry" and "we can't do anything". A very bad combination.
ncr100 3 hours ago [-]
It feels, to me, like "democratic decline".
We see increasing authoritarianism and decreasingly functional institutions, including the electoral system.
Identifying the problem is key.
deepsquirrelnet 33 minutes ago [-]
It’s also an easy situation to manipulate. I see a lot of people eager to make assumptions about things that are not known.
That is also a very predictable response if you live in this country.
3 hours ago [-]
myth_drannon 7 hours ago [-]
As of 3:39PM ET, CNN is reporting shot and Wikipedia has already a death date.
DrillShopper 6 hours ago [-]
I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but doctors pronounce him dead, not the media or Wikipedia.
Edit: it's official, he's dead (it wasn't confirmed when I originally posted this). Condolences to his wife and small kids.
I doubt he will come out of this alive or at least not a vegetable. But, I wouldn't trust Donald Trump to be truthful when reporting the weather outside his window so I'm going to wait for an actual reliable source. e.g. at least the second hand report of a homeless man outside the hospital.
autoexec 4 hours ago [-]
"I looked at the rain, which just never came, you know, we finished the speech, went inside, it poured then we came outside"
y-curious 5 hours ago [-]
Trump "tweeted" that Kirk is dead on truth social
bell-cot 6 hours ago [-]
I'm not seeing that death date. And history shows that even traditional news outlets can be badly wrong in the immediate aftermath of a shooting. James Brady didn't die in 1981 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady#Shooting - even with "all major media outlets" (per Wikipedia) saying that he did.
rtaylorgarlock 6 hours ago [-]
Watching the video of his shooting may change your perspective. I don't advise you do, though I'll absolutely confirm it would be miraculous to come back from something like what the video shows.
hnpolicestate 6 hours ago [-]
It was an absolutely brutal video to watch. I agree. Even with the absolute best field first aid, EMS and surgical response, arterial bleeding I think has a 60% survival rate? Again, if everything goes perfectly, timed perfectly etc.
cloudfudge 6 hours ago [-]
Kirk's wikipedia page is currently abuzz with edits and reversions of those edits, many of which are pronouncing him dead.
rkomorn 6 hours ago [-]
I'm convinced there are people whose first thought when someone dies is to race to update Wikipedia for some definition of clout.
TIL there's a term for this! I've always been quite troubled by this propensity some people have to be the first to report the death of someone famous.
rkomorn 6 hours ago [-]
Makes sense!
seivan 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
NoMoreNicksLeft 5 hours ago [-]
>I'm not seeing that death date.
Browsers don't show the page updating, easy to imagine that it's flickering on and off several times a minute at this point.
Earlier this year, he was also the guest on the first full episode of the "This Is Gavin Newsom" podcast.
mmastrac 5 hours ago [-]
Things are not healthy in the USA, and have not been for a long time. It's all about scoring points now, owning the other side, getting soundbites, etc. It's sad that it's progressed to this.
From an outsider, it really feels like there's no middle ground in American politics. You either commit yourself to the full slate of beliefs for one side, or you're the "enemy".
I hope that Americans on both side start to see that either they need to tone down the rhetoric, work together and reach across the aisle, or just take the tough step of a national divorce due to irreconcilable differences.
Part of that is to stop giving a voice to the insane rhetoric, and stop electing *waving vaguely*.
wrs 5 hours ago [-]
If you look closer, I'm pretty sure a majority of us aren't really on a "side", think the whole situation is incredibly stupid, and wish the politicians would just shut up and actually...govern...instead of playing silly games and pandering to the crazy people (on either "side").
However, both the established parties seem to have become totally incompetent to do that, in very different ways. One party got taken over by people who make public statements on a daily basis that would have been immediately disqualifying at any time since 1950 or so. The other party is so bad at doing politics that they're beaten in elections despite running against those people.
yandie 3 hours ago [-]
> I'm pretty sure a majority of us aren't really on a "side",
Many of us don't vote either. And our two party systems have created extreme partisanship. I wish it could be different because I do love this country, but our politics are so broken by the two party system, fueled with misinformation through these partisan news networks + social media algorithms (the way Youtube turns one person into an extremist of either side is an example...)
tedggh 5 hours ago [-]
Violence has plagued US politics since literally the creation of the country. Four sitting presidents killed and a few other close calls, governors and senators shot, almost in every decade. So it’s not like horrific events like this are new to us and we are just recently starting to fall into an unknown downward spiral of violence.
TinkersW 4 hours ago [-]
I don't think most people are on either extreme, but the media does make it seem that way, along with reddit/twitter/bluesky etc.
aydyn 4 hours ago [-]
Dont pretend like HN is much better, judging by the sheer magnitude of Flagged comments here.
TinkersW 13 minutes ago [-]
I do see many comments at the bottom that appear to have been deleted, but I can't see what they said, so it isn't possible to know if it was deserved.
logicalmind 3 hours ago [-]
I think the main problem of social media in general is that it allows for people to find things to instigate them. In essence, a single person's opinion can be amplified. This leads to at least two outcomes. One being that people "on the side" of that opinion will unite into an echo chamber of people with that opinion. Two being that people "on the other side" of that opinion will use it to justify the need for their unification and propagate it through their echo chamber.
Prior to social media, or the internet in general, it was quite difficult to amass large numbers of people in your echo chamber without becoming a person of power (like a president or equivalent). But today, it isn't uncommon for someone with views towards conspiracies or extreme viewpoints to become a "popular" voice in social media. In fact, one might argue that it is easier to become popular by being divisive. Even though most people aren't on either side. The ability to grow a "large enough" side is enough to become an existential threat to the other side. And they end up justifying their own existence.
I don't know what the solution to this is. I don't even know how to reduce it at this point.
yibg 3 hours ago [-]
Yea it becomes a vicious positive feedback loop unfortunately, amplified by social media. Moderate voices gets drowned out because they're boring. Some outlandish thing on one "side" gets some strong reaction from the other side, which gets some strong reaction from the other side and so on. The whole system is set up for amplifying extremes.
fullshark 5 hours ago [-]
A lot of mythologizing about the US, its constitution, and its government has come crashing down in the past 20 years, pretty much since 9/11 and the rise of the internet. I think this is overall less a story of America is unhealthy now than US citizens have been believing comforting lies about its nation/government since the actual victory in WW2 and the cultural victory in the aftermath/cold war. The internet and 9/11 really woke people up I think.
The truth is the US has been seen periods of extreme rhetoric and even political violence, including most obviously an actual civil war, and also key periods like the labor movement and civil rights movement. It will happen again even if things cool.
Political violence and assassinations are obviously terrible and should hopefully not happen as debate allows consensus or at least compromise to be reached, but the reality seems to be if you allow the people a stake in their government, passion and anger will be instilled in some subset of those people cause government policies have real world implications, and the end result is extreme acts, many of which are detestable like this one. I don't see a way forward other than to prosecute crimes and let the debate rage on.
simpaticoder 4 hours ago [-]
America has had political violence for a long time. The unique combination of post-war economic prosperity and centralized mass media (radio, TV) imposed an unnatural coherence on an incoherent body of people. This was a trade-off that paid off wildly for the baby boomers, and provides most of the backdrop for American nostalgia in a way that Reconstruction, for example, does not. The advent of the personalized, always-there screen has brought viewpoint diversity back into the body politic with such ferocity that it has caused wholesale abandonment of shared reality. In 2025, most Americans are untethered to any moral framework, do not require that their leaders even appear to act in a civilized way, and are frantically grabbing at anything as a substitute.
The best we can hope for is that the convulsions will be short and sharp and no foreign power takes advantage of our convalescence. In 1945 the Germans learned a hard lesson about fascism, and learned it well; we can hope that Americans will learn something too, and at less cost.
watersb 3 hours ago [-]
> In 2025, most Americans are untethered to any moral framework, do not require that their leaders even appear to act in a civilized way
Strongly disagree with "most".
Margins on many recent elections have been so low they'd be too close to measure a generation ago.
I think that's relevant, a hard check on the idea that an overwhelming majority of Americans are getting what they voted for. No.
(FWIW I agree with your other points. I miss the era of Walter Cronkite consensus. Not clear that it was better. But less terrifying.)
3 hours ago [-]
prasadjoglekar 3 hours ago [-]
The national divorce was tried once in 1860. Hundreds of thousands died to effectuate it or stop it.
When people say the north fought to preserve the union, I always thought it meant the physical union. But recently, I saw a lecture by Gary Gallagher at the UVA that shone a brighter light on what union meant in 1860. It's worth a listen, search for it on YT.
ipv6ipv4 3 hours ago [-]
America is founded on the principle of human selfishness. People are selfish, so let’s harness it instead of pretending that people are utopian selfless creatures.
More recently, selfishness has taken second seat to hurting the “other” (whatever other happens to be) even to the detriment of one’s own self interests. America is not built for this.
bamboozled 2 hours ago [-]
It could also just evolve ?
kfrzcode 5 hours ago [-]
It's not like this in the day to day of 99% of us. It's the 1% amplified by 100% online by all parties.
bamboozled 2 hours ago [-]
I agree, politics has become a blood sport.
4 hours ago [-]
crooked-v 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
crooked-v 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
typpilol 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
seanmcdirmid 5 hours ago [-]
Maybe its time...we consider separating? We seem to be evenly divided, with neither side making any ground in more unifying the American people. Trump leans into division (he has never been a unifier, and screws up any chance he has to call for unity rather than going after his enemies), the Democrats seem to either have moribund leadership or leadership that are taking lessons directly from Trump and won't be unifiers either. Both sides are getting more angry, maybe we just shouldn't be one country?
cthalupa 4 hours ago [-]
How are you going to split the country up? Because it certainly doesn't make sense to do it by state. Rural California is as conservative as urban Texas is liberal.
Levitz 4 hours ago [-]
There would never be an agreement of terms. Talk about separation is generally based on the fantasy that states would just each go their own way, which is both absurd and a terrible precedent to set, do you think California would agree to part with much of its wealth? Because I don't, and something like that would be a basic requirement.
fullshark 5 hours ago [-]
The economic engine that powers everyone's lives depends on being one country, and even in heavily R/D districts there are people on the opposite side of the fence. It's never going to happen.
seanmcdirmid 5 hours ago [-]
No it really doesn't. You have rich countries that are much smaller with less diverse industries than a blue or red America. I get that the red parts of the country still wants wealth transfer payments from the richer blue parts, but that is just hypocrisy on their part.
It looks like Trump's term is going to end in either the end of America as we know it or a constitutional convention anyways. Anything is on the table given how America is currently being torn apart anyways.
tick_tock_tick 2 hours ago [-]
How? If we split by political grouping all the major population centers go Blue everywhere else goes Red? Unless we have a very polite split (unlikely in this case) the Blue side is just signing up to starve to death.
amanaplanacanal 16 minutes ago [-]
You may not know this, but you can buy food. You don't have to grow it yourself.
mfkp 43 minutes ago [-]
Blue population centers have a lot of money, and though expensive, importing food from other countries is always an option.
techpineapple 4 hours ago [-]
Separating across what lines? Within group difference might be more severe than between group differences even. Most people identify as independents, there are more than two sides, and even if there were two sides, we're geographically intertwined. Conservatives threaten conservatives and liberals threaten liberals all the time, maybe even moreso! and that's not to mention religious conservatives vs libertarian conservatives, lefists, centrists, etc et. al.
I actually think it’s possible a national divorce makes the problem worse. Lots of these killers have not had clear motives or “sides”
pjc50 4 hours ago [-]
The natural breakaway candidates would be.. California, Bigger NY (including other Yankee states and DC), Texas, and the Confederacy.
Leaving a Midwest rump state run from.. Chicago?
tick_tock_tick 2 hours ago [-]
California other then LA, SF, and SD is as Red as it comes. If stuff starts getting cut up 80% of California is going to the "red" side.
Hikikomori 4 hours ago [-]
Blue states and welfare states maybe?
watersb 3 hours ago [-]
Welfare like cost-plus aerospace and defense contracts? Farm subsidies? Tax credits?
Assuming welfare as in healthcare and food subsidies, money to low-income individuals.
techpineapple 2 hours ago [-]
That’s like the absolutely highest conflict separation.
water-data-dude 6 hours ago [-]
Obviously witchcraft doesn't actually work, but the timing on this Jezebel article "We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk" is darkly comical.
The day that terrorists tried to bomb the World Trade Center with a moving truck in the parking garage, one of the cartoonists for The Onion had made a joke about how one of his characters was going to go blow up the World Trade Center. He got a brief but uncomfortable visit from the Feds.
> For the “POWERFUL HEX SPELL,” I had to provide Kirk’s date of birth for “accuracy.” The witch performed the hex, but her response was unsettling: “I just completed your spell, and it was successful. You will see the first results within 2–3 weeks. However, I did notice disturbances… negative energy not only from you, but projected at you. Likely from toxic family members, co-workers, or new acquaintances.”
Wow!
reassess_blind 1 hours ago [-]
A broken clock is right twice a day.
mrtksn 6 hours ago [-]
That's something I wonder about. Wouldn't people who believe in this stuff demand punishment for the publication and the witches?
Let's say it wasn't witchcraft thing but something more widely accepted like prayer session at mainstream church/mosque or something of this sort. Wouldn't the devout people see this as a contract killing? What if the soother says he felt possessed? Shouldn't then he be let go in a religious society?
hinkley 6 hours ago [-]
The transactional relationship many modern sects of Abrahamic religions try to have with their god is a big part of why I’m not in one anymore. Like they’re asking daddy for some candy because they’ve been very good all day. In fact in many cases exactly like that.
A comedian put it very well, talking about how some faiths interact with Revelation as if they are, “trying to trick God into coming back early.”
BugsJustFindMe 6 hours ago [-]
It seems strange to me to say "but shouldn't people who believe in things that require a tremendous load of cognitive dissonance be more logically consistent?"
autoexec 4 hours ago [-]
> Wouldn't people who believe in this stuff demand punishment for the publication and the witches
Many of the witches who believe in this stuff also believe that what you put out into the world will come back to you, typically with a multiplier.
Presumably, some of the Christians who believe in this stuff also believe "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and that ultimately God alone must and will mete out punishment with the wisdom of divine omniscience.
None of this stopped people who claim to be witches from taking money to curse a guy, and in my experience, people who claim to be Christians love judging others and their zeal for punishment often seems fetishistic
I guess it'd be for the courts to decide... But yesterday I saw the words "Supreme Court" and I thought about the "Supreme Ayatollah of Iran", who's a guy who says God speaks to him.
And with our Supreme Court, who knows if they'll say witches casting spells are assassins after all.
ncr100 2 hours ago [-]
Cursed on August 22 2025, per the article.
m4tthumphrey 5 hours ago [-]
I’m sure the original first season of 24 had a plot similar to 9/11 too.
4 hours ago [-]
mmastrac 5 hours ago [-]
Was the first season of 24 pre-9/11? I am truly shocked.
rkomorn 5 hours ago [-]
It premiered right after (Nov 6) so it's probably safe to say it was at least written, filmed, and produced mostly pre-9/11.
0x457 5 hours ago [-]
I find it interesting that 24 format, total chronological order, allowed them to react to that 9/11 if it was required. Kinda like South Park episodes are at most 2-week old when aired. South Park it's easy since episodes aren't connected and due to how it's made, but the idea is the same.
rkomorn 4 hours ago [-]
I'm not a very TV or movie oriented person but I do find the way things are produced quite amazing. I lived in Los Angeles for years and saw many things being filmed as a result. It was always a treat, an extra fun when I saw it on TV later on.
Everything and everyone involved does incredible stuff, IMO.
Fluorescence 4 hours ago [-]
Not really.
As far as I can recall it was a very convoluted prison-break for someone thought to be dead that included an attempted revenge assasination, distraction bombing of a federal agency, kidnappings and multiple double agents.
imwillofficial 4 hours ago [-]
A sad day for America.
Very few will like where this leads.
I hope cooler heads prevail and pray for him and his family.
etchalon 4 hours ago [-]
It's all gone a a bit tits up, hasn't it?
iknownothow 4 hours ago [-]
Please appreciate that this might well be the assasination of Franz Ferdinand of our generation, the event that set the wheels in motion for World War 1.
I urge everyone to lower the temperature. Not just in the comment section, but in real life and in your minds.
If you're on HN reading this, then you have above average influence. If you're working at Google, Meta, Tiktok, X, etc, today's the day you for you to act in service of humanity. Lower the temperature.
jojomodding 4 hours ago [-]
How? Franz Ferdinand's assasination caused an international crisis, whereas this event is clearly US-internal. People outside of the US do not care about Charlie Kirk, nor did he greatly care about countries abroad.
icar 4 hours ago [-]
Correct, nobody around me, including me, knows who he is.
DiggyJohnson 4 hours ago [-]
Among young people (especially on TikTok, I’m told, not on that platform though) I would say he’s more well known that a figure like Stephen Colbert. Just trying to put this into perspective for those who aren’t familiar. Nobody can know every publix figure, especially these days.
Ralfp 4 hours ago [-]
I've only learned about this man's existence because I've returned to watching South Park when I've heard they are targeting Trump and his politics.
pdabbadabba 4 hours ago [-]
The people who run the U.S. government and many many of their supporters absolutely know who he is and this will greatly add to their feelings of grievance and persecution.
redwood 3 hours ago [-]
Franz Ferdinand's assassination could, from the perspective of the Austro-Hungarian empire (a surprisingly liberal center of intellectual cosmopolitanism) be viewed as a match lighting a "civil war" that only later become international.
krrrh 2 hours ago [-]
It makes sense when you realize that the US has a similar scope and a larger number of states in it than Europe did at the time.
Analogies between the United States and specific states in Europe often done work as well as US <-> Europe do.
elorant 4 hours ago [-]
He's probably drawing a comparison to a civil war, not WW3.
cokely 4 hours ago [-]
Honestly it's even funnier to imagine a civil war starting over Charlie Kirk. If it's used by the Trump admin as a pretext maybe.
DiggyJohnson 4 hours ago [-]
That’s not funny at all.
4 hours ago [-]
voidhorse 4 hours ago [-]
The biggest risk is that the current US admin uses this event as a prop to justify increasingly fascistic policies. In fact Stephen Miller has already signaled that at least he probably has this in mind. America gone full fascist won't immediately be an international problem but it eventually may be.
dmitrygr 4 hours ago [-]
The world goes where US goes
4 hours ago [-]
darkmighty 4 hours ago [-]
Not just lower the temperature. Talk to each other, and listen carefully, in a civilized manner. Prefer to listen carefully first, then speak. Bring, and stick to, facts as much as possible, and focus on policy and real-world outcomes rather than politics.
anonymousiam 4 hours ago [-]
That's exactly what Kirk did. He was always polite and open to dialog. Many people didn't like what they heard, but it wasn't because it was mean or wrong -- it was because it challenged their ideologies.
I think Charlie Kirk thought he was safe because he was a good person. He didn't provoke political division, he tried to reconcile it.
R.I.P.
tracker1 4 hours ago [-]
The irony in this statement as it's exactly what Charlie Kirk himself tried to bring to the table. Even if you don't agree with his positions, he was always calm and rational even in opposition to pure appeals to emotion.
This is a sad, sad day.
darkmighty 3 hours ago [-]
Reply to dead comment below: (by nmz)
Keep trying. It's all you can do. Also, you can't expect everyone to accept your facts. A few % of the population are going to be nutjobs (specially when there are various propaganda networks around which compound it), and that's fine, thankfully I think they aren't majority.
nmz 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cosmicgadget 4 hours ago [-]
Was he involved in any mutual defense pacts I am not aware of?
xenospn 4 hours ago [-]
I seriously doubt this will have any kind of implications beyond a few tweets and headlines for a day or two.
4 hours ago [-]
bamboozled 2 hours ago [-]
I can't really see the parallel there?
crinkly 4 hours ago [-]
Very US centric view. I doubt it. I didn’t know who the hell he was until 3 hours ago and will probably forget he existed within a week.
As for lowering the temperature, good luck. Anyone with above average influence is in a position to try and extract as much personal gain from this already.
It kills me inside because I would like to live in a world where this isn’t the case.
surgical_fire 4 hours ago [-]
This is just another form of belief in US exceptionalism.
No, a political activist largely unknown outside of the US is not going to be the catalyst of a world war. I live across the pond and never even heard of this individual until an hour ago.
You might be afraid that this could inflame political tensions in the US, and not even that is a given. The US has a long story of political violence, this is unlikely to result in any major changes.
If I was a betting man, I would bet that in two months time most will not even remember this. Too much spectacle in the news all the time for any subject to stick for too long.
yahoozoo 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
surgical_fire 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
aesthethiccs 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Hikikomori 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
pjc50 4 hours ago [-]
More of a krystallnacht. I expect there to be some kind of reprisals, through the legal system or otherwise.
Lowering the temperature does require cooperation. There's a prisoner's dilemma effect where the people with the most heated rhetoric tend to get what they want.
I think it was humour. Taking the accusations of executive overreach by the president to absurd lengths.
dexterdog 5 hours ago [-]
It was and I thought that was pretty obvious
iugtmkbdfil834 6 hours ago [-]
I have become something of a statist over the years and I apparently annoy a whole lot of people, when I argue for not upsetting the status quo much further. Needless to say, this obviously is not a good thing if you share that perspective with me. This is actual political violence. And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would. The issue is further societal deterioration in basic standards.
Let me reiterate. Violence is not the answer for one reason and one reason only. Once it starts and everyone joins, it will be very, very hard to stop.
edit: be
treis 5 hours ago [-]
Believe it or not 4 out of the last 30 Presidents were assassinated, an additional 3 were shot, and a few more were shot at or otherwise survived attempts. There's a long history of political violence in the US (and the world). We've been in a bit of a lull of late but what we're experiencing today is not all that abnormal.
nilamo 5 hours ago [-]
Why is your sample size 75% of US history? 30 presidents is a huge number to start with.
tick_tock_tick 2 hours ago [-]
I mean the sitting president was shot on the campaign trail.
dogweather 5 hours ago [-]
Yes - makes me think of the assassination of Shinzo Abe.
The gunman made his own gun, in a country with ultra-strict gun laws. The Unabomber made his own bombs. The Seattle mall Islamist knife attacker refused to stay down after being shot multiple times.
My takeaway: political terrorists are particularly motivated. Secondly, gun laws slow them down but don't stop them.
zdw 4 hours ago [-]
You might want to look into what happened in Japanese politics after the Abe assassination. Public opinion was not unfavorable to the plight and motivations of the attacker.
oskarkk 3 hours ago [-]
I just wanted to mention that. Recently I was wondering what was that even about, and I was surprised to read this on Wikipedia:
> Yamagami told investigators that he had shot Abe in relation to a grudge he held against the Unification Church (UC), a new religious movement to which Abe and his family had political ties, over his mother's bankruptcy in 2002.
> The assassination brought scrutiny from Japanese society and media against the UC's alleged practice of pressuring believers into making exorbitant donations. Japanese dignitaries and legislators were forced to disclose their relationship with the UC, (...) the LDP announced that it would no longer have any relationship with the UC and its associated organisations, and would expel members who did not break ties with the group. (...) [The parliament] passed two bills to restrict the activities of religious organisations such as the UC and provide relief to victims.
> Abe's killing has been described as one of the most effective and successful political assassinations in recent history due to the backlash against the UC that it provoked. The Economist remarked that "... Yamagami's political violence has proved stunningly effective ... Political violence seldom fulfills so many of its perpetrator's aims." Writing for The Atlantic, Robert F. Worth described Yamagami as "among the most successful assassins in history".
xnx 5 hours ago [-]
4 people were killed after being shot in Japan in 2022. More people were killed by gunshots in the US today.
brookst 5 hours ago [-]
Risk mitigation; statistics and funnels. It's all just trying to reduce the likelihood and severity of bad outcomes, not preventing them altogether. Same story as seatbelts and stoplights.
gretch 5 hours ago [-]
> Same story as seatbelts and stoplights
I don't believe this is the same thing.
One is an adversarial problem where a living thinking being is evil and trying to attack you.
In traffic, most people are just trying to get somewhere, and then accidents happen.
brookst 4 hours ago [-]
No, they're the same thing from a risk management perspective. As a defender, you do not (or at least should not) care about motivations. Seatbelts protect against genuine mistakes (by you or others), mechanical failures, road rage, etc.
There's a long funnel of all the things that could happen, probability of each, and total resulting probability. That's no different for being in a car wreck or being shot at.
Now, on a moral level, sure, malice is different from negligence is different from coincidence.
gretch 4 hours ago [-]
> As a defender, you do not (or at least should not) care about motivations
The motivation is not the important part. Sentience is. This person is playing a chess match trying to defeat you.
Consider biology. Cancer is a hard problem to solve, but it's not scheming against you with an intelligence. What about someone in a lab engineering bioweapons?
therouwboat 4 hours ago [-]
It's kinda nice to live in a country where that the evil being doesn't have easy access to guns.
bmicraft 4 hours ago [-]
It's only an accident when taken out of the bigger picture. There is a reason it's often called car collision (or similar nowadays): Because it's a statistical inevitability when taken in aggregate.
gretch 4 hours ago [-]
You focused on the word "accident" but the emphasis is on the concept of being "adversarial".
Do you think traffic lights help if someone goes out with the explicit intent to kill others via their car?
Braxton1980 5 hours ago [-]
Why does a law have to be 100% to be considered worth having?
josephcsible 5 hours ago [-]
It doesn't need to be 100% effective, but it needs to be effective enough to make up for the downsides.
pjc50 5 hours ago [-]
The second amendment people basically argue that the entire purpose of the 2A is to enable the assassination of politicians you don't like.
christophilus 4 hours ago [-]
I don’t doubt you’ve heard someone argue that, but I never have. I’ve always heard it as a right to defense, generally as in a right to defend yourself from oppressive authorities. I never took that to mean assassinations as much as militia actions against militaries.
You can argue whether or not that is an effective approach to securing freedom, but that’s the argument I’m most familiar with.
delecti 4 hours ago [-]
The 2A people couch it in metaphor and implication, but "we need guns to stop tyranny" is fundamentally saying that tyrants ought be shot. We can argue whether the semantics of whether death in battle counts as murder, but I think that's just quibbling over the definition of "assassination".
pjc50 4 hours ago [-]
More of a distinction without a difference. Once you get to that situation, you've legitimized murder; now we see what that looks like.
"Militia" action against "military"? Neither side will bother with the scruples of waiting for the enemy to put on a uniform and pick up a weapon. It will be death squads vs car bombs.
yostrovs 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
panarchy 5 hours ago [-]
How many gun deaths per capita does Japan have compared to the USA?
ajuc 4 hours ago [-]
There are whole continents of countries showing how effective gun control is. At this point you've got to be ignoring it on purpose.
It's not some statistical difference between almost no violence and no violence. It's night and day. Orders of magnitude. Teens walking back from parties through the middle of the city at 1 am with their parents permission vs clan wars.
thinkingtoilet 6 hours ago [-]
It was actual political violence when MN state representative Melissa Hortman was killed. It was political violence when Gabby Giffords was shot. Actual political violence has been happening. We live in a politically violent time.
boringg 5 hours ago [-]
Anyone see whats happening in Nepal?
brookst 5 hours ago [-]
Honest question -- when was there a politically non-violent time? I'm hard pressed to think of a decade without a notable political killing.
iugtmkbdfil834 5 hours ago [-]
I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am concerned about the increasing frequency of such events more than anything else, because, to your point, why things did happen in decades prior, it was not nearly as common.
scythe 5 hours ago [-]
Gabby Giffords's shooting was tragic. But thankfully it was an isolated incident.
In the past year-or-so we have seen two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, the assassination of the CEO of an insurance company, the assassination of Rep. Hortman, and now this. That's five political assassinations/attempts in a year.
It would seem fair to argue we are now firmly in a state of contagion which is unlike the situation in 2012 when Giffords was shot.
Additionally, I’ve seen a troubling amount of online sentiment positively in favor of the Trump assassination attempts, the murder of Brian Thompson. The sentiment in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder looks like it might be similarly troubling.
overfeed 2 hours ago [-]
The rhetoric on Paul Pelosi's hammer attack was unhinged - it also was political violence.
I don't doubt the same figures who made lurid comments, mocked or ridiculed the attack will now act more measured and asking for decorum due to the victims "team".
January 6 was mass political violence, and I my unprofessional opinion is that the pardons marked a turning point in how engaging in political violence is viewed; all is forgiven if/when your team wins.
Hyper-partisanship, and choosing not playing by the rules when it benefits you will be America's downfall. At some point, people on the other side of the political fence stopped being seen as opponents,but became "enemies", I think cable news/entertainment shoulders much blame on this, but the politicians themselves know outrage turns out the vote. I wonder if they'll attempt to lower the temperature or raise it further.
snatekay 2 hours ago [-]
I agree that the Pelosi attack was political violence and the rhetoric was unhinged, and I agree that January 6 was mass political violence. I didn’t include them (or some others that came to mind) since I was keeping it to the parent post’s “past year-or-so.” But they serve just as well at making the point, that louder and louder subsets of society are claiming these attacks are actually good, which is a disturbing societal shift. I remember when Gifford was shot; the discourse was all about assigning blame for the bad thing, as opposed to saying it was a good thing. Feels like we’re moving in a bad direction, as your examples and my examples both illustrate.
overfeed 27 minutes ago [-]
> But they serve just as well at making the point, that louder and louder subsets of society are claiming these attacks are actually good, which is a disturbing societal shift.
There has been widespread discontent for a while now - it's the vein Obama and Trump tapped to win their respective first terms. AFAICT, it is an evolving class war[1], with American characteristics.
1. One could argue which side tore up the social contract first, and quibble with the definition of what counts as "violence"
dttze 3 hours ago [-]
See also: Israel’s numerous assassinations globally that are supported by the US.
noosphr 6 hours ago [-]
It was political violence when Trump was shot on stage too.
I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.
johnmaguire 6 hours ago [-]
> I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.
I haven't noticed a fundamental change.
noosphr 5 hours ago [-]
If you haven't noticed a difference between his first and second terms may I suggest you go for a vacation outside the US and try coming back in? For bonus points make a mistake on your forms.
US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports.
I know plenty of people who will be giving NeurIPS a miss _on the advice of their governments_. This _did not_ happen during his first term.
jandrewrogers 5 hours ago [-]
> US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11
You mean that time when millions of American citizens were placed on the No Fly List with no recourse essentially at random? You can't be serious. After 9/11 was far worse.
I've been in and out of the US several times this year through several ports of entry and it has been hassle-free so far. They don't even ask me questions, they just wave me through.
mandeepj 5 hours ago [-]
> This _did not_ happen during his first term.
He and his enablers played that argument during his 2024 campaign as well, but everyone is missing a crucial aspect of it. During his first term, he was surrounded by a large number of career administration staff, who put guardrails around him. This time it's all 'Yes men' and his well-wishers. Notably, no one from the previous admin staff had endorsed him for 2024. That should have given a clue to people. But, nope.
> US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports
Apologies, but "citation needed"?
(As a non-US citizen) I flew into JFK earlier this year and did my (first) Global Entry interview. It was the shortest and most polite immigration interview I've ever had anywhere, and I've had a few.
jakeydus 4 hours ago [-]
To be fair global entry is the greased skids of US customs. It's meant to be more efficient.
lazyasciiart 5 hours ago [-]
The country may have fundamentally changed, but I suspect that comment was about Trump. Everyone knew they were planning to destroy the place if he got a second term, they wrote a book explaining it.
johnmaguire 5 hours ago [-]
Yes, I was referring to Trump, not the state of the country. Republicans have full control this time around, but the goals and rhetoric have not changed. Trump was not "radicalized."
simonh 5 hours ago [-]
The differences we’re seeing were all planned years in advance. This time around Trump had the time and experience to build his own team instead of taking the team the Republican establishment handed him. As for policies, it’s all in Agenda 47, his manifesto, including universal and reciprocal tariffs, ending birthright citizenship, immigration crackdowns, he laid out exactly what he was going to do back in 2023.
Hikikomori 4 hours ago [-]
Has nothing to do with trump being shot as project2025 has been planned for many years.
dfxm12 5 hours ago [-]
If you say it is political violence, I feel it is important to note, it was by a recently registered Republican.
iugtmkbdfil834 5 hours ago [-]
Heh. You know. I don't want to be too flippant, but I will respond to this, because it raises an interesting point.
I would like to hope that you recognize that registration of political affiliation is just one data point. Spring it does not make. You know how I got registered as a republican? I got incorrectly registered as one during judge election volunteering.
I am not saying it means nothing. What I am saying is: some nuance is helpful in conversations like this.
dfxm12 4 hours ago [-]
PA has closed primaries though, so he likely would have fixed it if it was a mistake. In any case, if you're looking for nuance, there's not a lot of it in political violence in the US.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Adkisson, Dylan Roof, the Tree of Life shooting, J6, the 2022 Buffalo shooter, Jacksonville 2023, Allen, TX 2023, etc.
Nearly all political violence in the US is committed by people espousing right wing ideology, so if it walks and talks like a duck, is telling you it's a duck...
mothballed 6 hours ago [-]
The moment trump was shot (or whatever ricocheted and hit his face) and the picture was taken of him with the flag, I knew he had the election won. There was just no way for an opponent to top that photo op.
Crookes basically handed the election to Trump.
koolba 5 hours ago [-]
> There was just no way for an opponent to top that photo op.
Rising up with your fist clenched right after you were shot isn't something you train for either. That's a natural reaction from instinct.
It's morbid curiosity to analyze it, but I don't think it would have had the same net effect if it was Harris.
ceejayoz 5 hours ago [-]
Trump has spent decades in practical training to be media savvy.
bingabingabinga 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
foobarchu 5 hours ago [-]
There's no way Trump has the chutzpah to intentionally get shot and hit, no matter how many guarantees he has that it won't be fatal or long-term damaging.
lp0_on_fire 1 hours ago [-]
“Photo op”.
A man was killed that day.
Braxton1980 5 hours ago [-]
He didn't seem fundamentally changed though. In fact he used it as a political prop.
silverquiet 5 hours ago [-]
> And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would.
Disclaimer that this is early and I may be wrong, but I read that he had a security detail (which seems rather likely). I doubt an attacker with a knife would have had success.
joecool1029 5 hours ago [-]
They still get through and do damage. Salman Rushdie and Jair Bolsonaro come to mind on recent-ish high profile knife stabbings.
JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago [-]
> Once it starts and everyone joins, it will very, very hard to stop
More directly, when violence becomes a normalized means of politics, it doesn’t benefit the bourgeoisie.
iugtmkbdfil834 6 hours ago [-]
Cross, I know we interacted before. I sincerely hope you do not advocate that ends justify the means. "The bourgeoisie" as you call them, will be fine ( more resources at their disposal to ensure that happens ). They always are fine. You know who actually does suffer? Regular people.
AngryData 5 hours ago [-]
Regular people suffer no matter what the problem is, they have always been the front line to blunt the effects of economic, political, or military tolls. The whole reason people resort to political violence is to inflate a problem so large that not even the "bourgeoisie" can completely shield themselves from it. If someone feels they are suffering or dead without doing anything, then suffering or dieing from actually taking action against your perceived oppressors seems like a decent option.
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago [-]
> not even the "bourgeoisie" can completely shield themselves from it
The bourgeoisie can't. The aristocracy can. That's the point.
JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago [-]
> "The bourgeoisie" as you call them, will be fine
I meant the bourgeoisie as in the middle class. A lot of idiots think rolling out guillotines will hurt the rich and help the poor.
It won’t. It almost never has in the last millennium. If violence becomes a tool of politics, the rich will command violence at greater scale and with more impunity than anyone who cannot command an audience at the White House.
bilbo0s 5 hours ago [-]
If violence becomes a tool of politics, the rich will command violence at greater scale and with more impunity than anyone who cannot command an audience at the White House.
I actually wish that were the case.
The problem today is that we've scaled up the damage that a single attacker can do. I won't go too far into it, but think of it this way, what happens when someone wakes up to the fact that they can use autonomous ordinance (e.g. - Drones)?
We made a big mistake with this whole "incivility is cool" thing in public discourse. In retrospect, it's kind of obvious that it set us on a slippery slope.
JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago [-]
> We made a big mistake with this whole "incivility is cool" thing in public discourse
I remain a fan of bringing back the Athenian institution of ostracism. If more than a certain fraction of voters in an election write down the same person’s name, they’re banned from running for office or have to leave the country for N years. (And if they can’t or won’t do the latter, are placed under house arrest.)
5 hours ago [-]
silverquiet 5 hours ago [-]
I've always thought that the middle class were proles as well, or petit-bourgeoisie at best. I don't think you're wrong, but one thing that I've noticed in my time of thinking about and discussing societal problems in the US is that nothing ever really seems to help the poor anyway.
mothballed 5 hours ago [-]
Haitian Revolution comes to mind of "the bourgeoisie" that were actually in country, basically got slaughtered, at least the white ones. If you frame it to include the ones even higher up on French soil, maybe not though.
JumpCrisscross 43 minutes ago [-]
> Haitian Revolution comes to mind of "the bourgeoisie" that were actually in country
Yes. The bourgeoisie don’t get away. The aristocracy do.
If you work in tech, you’re part of the American bourgeoisie. If you have a college degree, you’re bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the middle class.
digitalbullshit 4 hours ago [-]
Hello. I witnessed racial and religious persecution.
I can tell you my stories. But I always wonder what is the alternative when someone like me is attacked? Should I give my left cheek? Should I attempt to be a pacifist?
People who are against violence by all means necessary are privileged because they never have to witness someone’s head roll down. So they don’t know how it feels to be the receiving end of suffering.
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 3 hours ago [-]
<< People who are against violence by all means necessary are privileged
I think you misunderstand the point. My argument is that each act of political violence ( especially on a national stage ) further degrades existing society. That ongoing degradation is a real problem and, yes, individual suffering is irrelevant to it, because, society is a greater good.
You may say those say it are privileged, but to that I say that I like having working society. It keeps being us civil. I like it to stay that way.
If you feel otherwise, please elaborate. It is possible, I am misunderstanding you.
cosmicgadget 6 hours ago [-]
I wonder about the statistics of gun assassinations vs non-gun assasinations.
Bender 5 hours ago [-]
I've tried to tease that apart and failed. All of the sites hosting statistics I could find count suicide and justifiable homicide as in self defense in the statistics as homicide. I wish I could find a trust worthy source that differentiates in a truly unbiased scientific manor.
cosmicgadget 4 hours ago [-]
Could start with high profile assassination attempts by non-state actors. Trump - gun x2, Kirk - gun, Reagan - gun, Kennedy - gun, Kennedy - gun, Abe (Japan) - gun, Abe (Union) - gun, Bush - shoe.
parl_match 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
iugtmkbdfil834 5 hours ago [-]
<< A reason that the left has been less violent is that there's a general ideological belief in taking on systems instead of people.
I think you are mistaken in thinking that 'left' ( quotation, because while I want to keep the identifier for clarity's sake, I think it does not properly reflect US political spectrum ) is not violent or that somehow their violence is lower in percentage.
The reason I am hesitatant to go for that discussion is because it has a good chance of derailing the conversation.
Can we just agree this is a bad thing for now instead?
bmicraft 4 hours ago [-]
> I think you are mistaken in thinking that 'left' [...] somehow their violence is lower in percentage
I don't know about the US, but I've certainly seen stats from mostly center sources support that claim for my country
JacobThreeThree 4 hours ago [-]
>Despite the constant braying of right-leaning people, left-wing violence is a tiny fraction of domestic terrorism compared to the right.
Only if you buy into the various biased studies that are conducted by those who sympathize with the left.
mhitza 4 hours ago [-]
I'm of the strong opinion that statism is the way of corrupting any ideological revolution. From communism, to democracy.
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion as to why letting the status quo be is a good thing. The path society is on is clearly towards a cyberpunk distopia, than anything that would unburden and improve the human existance of the many.
ikrenji 5 hours ago [-]
this has everything to do with guns. the more guns in society the more gun violence there is. is not rocket science
themafia 5 hours ago [-]
In the USA: There are more suicides than murders every year. The ratio is typically 2:1. The "deaths due to gun violence" statistic includes suicides. It's not exactly that plain and simple either.
ceejayoz 5 hours ago [-]
Access to guns makes suicide attempts much more likely to succeed. You're describing a related aspect of the same problem.
"Firearms are the most lethal method of suicide attempts, and about half of suicide attempts take place within 10 minutes of the current suicide thought, so having access to firearms is a suicide risk factor. The availability of firearms has been linked to suicides in a number of peer-reviewed studies. In one such study, researchers examined the association between firearm availability and suicide while also accounting for the potential confounding influence of state-level suicidal behaviors (as measured by suicide attempts). Researchers found that higher rates of gun ownership were associated with increased suicide by firearm deaths, but not with other types of suicide. Taking a look at suicide deaths starting from the date of a handgun purchase and comparing them to people who did not purchase handguns, another study found that people who purchased handguns were more likely to die from suicide by firearm than those who did not--with men 8 times more likely and women 35 times more likely compared to non-owners."
15155 4 hours ago [-]
Why should this negate my rights?
ceejayoz 3 hours ago [-]
Every right we have is balanced against the rights of others. The First Amendment doesn’t mean you can found a murder cult.
The debate is largely over where to draw the lines. Virtually everyone is fine with limiting access to certain weapons, for example.
throwmeaway222 5 hours ago [-]
It has been stated before, but perhaps we should only allow older people to have guns, probably 40ish. Of course that filters out all but one mass murders - Las Vegas (at least from brain memory).
themafia 5 hours ago [-]
I would think addressing the reasons people commit suicide leads to a better society. I would think that simply removing a popular tool for them only hides a symptom of a broader problem.
The other break in your statistic is people who own guns and commit suicide, and people who own guns and have a family member steal them to commit suicide. The later is far more common. Which suggests that part of the issue is unrestricted access to firearms by children in the home of a gun owning parent.
ceejayoz 5 hours ago [-]
> I would think addressing the reasons people commit suicide leads to a better society.
Sure. But one of those reasons is "I feel very bad and I have access to a gun".
"The rate of non-firearm suicides is relatively stable across all groups, ranging from a low rate of 6.5 in states with the most firearm laws to a high of 6.9 in states with the lowest number of firearm laws. The absolute difference of 0.4 is statistically significant, but small. Non-firearm suicides remain relatively stable across groups, suggesting that other types of suicides are not more likely in areas where guns are harder to get."
mgh95 5 hours ago [-]
> Sure. But one of those reasons is "I feel very bad and I have access to a gun".
This is perhaps one of the worst ways of looking at it. People kill themselves slowly by many means, including alcoholism, smoking, risky activities (reckless driving, etc.). These are grouped broadly under the term "Deaths of Despair" (see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221228/). It may be more informative to look at other countries, such as Russia, Norway and Finland, which have incredibly high rates of alocholism leading to a high rate of deaths of despair.
There are many ways to reliably kill yourself. Guns are just the quickest. A serious discussion on the topic cannot avoid this fact.
ceejayoz 4 hours ago [-]
The faster the method, the less time there is to change your mind. An alcoholic can go to rehab. A smoker can take up vaping. The guy with a shotgun wound to the face… is in a spot of bother.
mgh95 4 hours ago [-]
Yes but addressing it as far as "can go to rehab" misses the point: deaths from chronic fatty liver and its complications or lung cancer are dramatically elevated in these countries. It is quite literally "too late". The problem needs to be addressed much earlier.
ceejayoz 4 hours ago [-]
I can buy a gun and use it in a matter of hours. Less - potentially seconds - if I already own one.
I cannot give myself chronic fatty liver disease or lung cancer that quickly. I think you know this.
mgh95 4 hours ago [-]
I do but why is the argument you presented is about how guns are the cause of the deaths. The deaths of despair occur with or without firearms. The focus on the firearms par of "firearm suicides" does not reduce suicides.
ceejayoz 4 hours ago [-]
Again, the statistics demonstrate that the non-gun suicide rates are about the same between highly and lightly regulated American states. That is a hard point to dodge.
mgh95 2 hours ago [-]
With respect, I think you ignored the point I'm making for the sake of pushing an agenda. Suicides are deaths of despair. Whether someone ultimately kills themselves with a firearm or a needle is secondary to the policy goal: to attempt to make America better for people to not want to kill themselves (barring an inherent medical issue related to chemical imbalance causing depression).
Are those "suicides" in the classical sense? No. But they are deaths of despair, and from a public health and policy standpoint, must be approached in a manner similar to suicide.
I don't believe you have even attempted (or acknowledged) an opposing point exists on this topic. Your points amount to banal agenda pushing as opposed to seeking to understand the root causes of many challenges today. This is emblematic of (and partially why) there is such division in the USA today: a lack of willingness to study and understand societal problems, particularly those that are multifaceted and require broader reasoning about the topic.
ceejayoz 1 hours ago [-]
> Suicides are deaths of despair.
Sure. And my very clear point is that guns help make temporary - even momentary! - despair turn into a permanent end.
I don’t find the pro-gun crowd all that interested in improving social services outside of distracting from the gun issue.
EricDeb 5 hours ago [-]
guns are a very efficient tool for murder or suicide. They absolutely will increase the number of deaths due to their effectiveness. Whether that's worth the societal price is up to the people.
greycol 2 hours ago [-]
Sure but the people asking to track gun deaths properly are rebuffed by the people who want to keep guns, so even the guys who want to keep guns infer better stats will make them look worse.
indecisive_user 5 hours ago [-]
Canada and Finland both have a lot of civilian firearms per capita but not a lot of gun violence
The US is at 120.5 guns per 100 civilians, and Canada is at 34.5
I think being ~4x the ratio of guns per capita, (and 30x the total!) has to do something, right?
carlosjobim 5 hours ago [-]
According to that Wikipedia link there are 1 million registered firearms in the USA and 400 million unregistered firearms. Could somebody explain these numbers, since they seem very odd?
jandrewrogers 4 hours ago [-]
Only a tiny minority of firearms need to be registered. My guess is that covers NFA weapons like machine-guns, which are uncommon. Virtually all typical firearms people own don't need to be registered.
No one really knows how many firearms there are in the US or who owns them. Just the fact that something like 15 million firearms are sold every year in the US gives a sense of the scale. The number of firearms in the US is staggering, no one knows the true number, and they have an indefinite lifespan if stored in halfway decent conditions.
Jtsummers 5 hours ago [-]
Most weapons in the US don't require registration.
edaemon 5 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure how Wikipedia is distinguishing them but for the most part firearms do not have to be registered in the United States. Some states require firearms to be registered but most do not. Unregistered firearms can nonetheless be counted because they are inventoried and sold legally (firearms dealers must be licensed and regulated), even though the end purchaser is not registered anywhere.
Federally, only specific categories like fully-automatic machine guns and short-barreled rifles have to be registered.
vel0city 4 hours ago [-]
Certain kinds of firearms are required to be registered, like machine guns, short barrel rifles, and short barrel shotguns.
Tons of guns are not those limited categories, so they are not required to be registered.
Its entirely possible to sell a gun in the US without any kind of paperwork depending on the type of firearm sold, the buyer of the firearm, and the seller of the firearm. I'm in Texas, so I'll use that as an example. Lets say I want to sell a regular shotgun I currently own to a friend. IANAL, this is not legal advice, but my understanding from reading the applicable laws would be all I have to do is verify they are over the age of 18 and that I think they are probably legally able to own a gun (I have no prior knowledge of any legal restrictions against them owning the gun). We can meet up, check he's probably over 18 and can probably legally own a gun and is a Texas resident, he can hand me cash or whatever for trade, I can give him the gun, and we go our separate ways. I do not need to do a background check. I do not need to file any registration. Nobody would know this guy now owns this gun. I do not need to keep any record of this sale at all. This shotgun has been an unregistered gun for its entire exstence.
This wouldn't necessarily be true if I trade some certain amount of guns as then I would probably need a federal firearms license and thus have some additional restrictions on facilitiating a sale. This also isn't necessarily true in other states which have additional restrictions on gun sales. But if I haven't done any gun sales in a long while, such restrictions wouldn't apply (according to my current understanding of the law, IANAL, not legal advice).
RemainsOfTheDay 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
mvdtnz 5 hours ago [-]
So we can conclude that proliferation of guns are a necessary but not sufficient condition for excessive gun violence. Remove the necessary condition, remove the violence.
Braxton1980 5 hours ago [-]
It could be a combination of guns and something else. While I hate this type of argument, what else explains the high rate of gun violence in the US?
eldaisfish 5 hours ago [-]
easy access to guns plus a culture glorifying access to guns.
pb7 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dogweather 5 hours ago [-]
Australia has a lot of violence as well - it's simply not gun violence. I believe your conclusion is incorrect.
i.e. about 1/7th the amount of intentional homicides.
hitarpetar 5 hours ago [-]
how does the Australian murder rate compare to American?
s5300 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
ToucanLoucan 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
iugtmkbdfil834 5 hours ago [-]
<< Do I understand why it's happening?
I think most of us understand the why. That part is not exactly a secret. Naturally, it does not help that the why is a list of multiple factors playing into it and most pick the favorites and I am sure each power center will spin this to their particular benefit further polarizing society.
What I am really saying is:
We should try to cool things down.
bell-cot 5 hours ago [-]
> Violence is very, very often the answer because power only understands greater power.
Unfortunately, power's usual counter-move to that "answer" is a vastly-more-violent rebuttal. With minimal concern for "collateral damage", or other euphemisms for innocents being maimed and killed at scale.
5 hours ago [-]
cbeach 5 hours ago [-]
Violence didn’t bring us the weekend.
The arch-capitalist Henry Ford created the precedent for the weekend because he wanted people to have leisure time to be able to use his cars.
ceejayoz 5 hours ago [-]
> Violence didn’t bring us the weekend.
Violence definitely happened in the US labor movement.
"The present-day concept of the relatively longer "week-end" first arose in the industrial north of Britain in the early 19th century... In 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, a predecessor of today’s AFL-CIO, called for all workers to have eight-hour days by May 1, 1886, playing a crucial role in the push for a five-day workweek."
EnergyAmy 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jmyeet 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
throwmeaway222 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
iugtmkbdfil834 5 hours ago [-]
<< This country has soundly rejected any form of sensible gun control.
Hmm. Do you know why? Having seen the basic pattern of action of anti-gun people, I have come to realization that nothing is ever enough. They will just keep pushing for more stuff regardless of 'wins' they score.
Granted, some of it is various organizations and they really don't want to say 'mission accomplished'. Still, my point remains. I no longer really accept any changes to status quo.
Tade0 4 hours ago [-]
> I no longer really accept any changes to status quo.
How about, at the very least, making it mandatory to report firearm theft? IIRC currently only 15 states actually have such a requirement.
I'm not American and for a long time I could not understand why American fiction, be it books or movies, assumes guns are available even in a zombie apocalypse. That is until I learned the above fact.
The fact that one can steal a gun and have no one report that makes firearms essentially a natural resource in the US.
jmyeet 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
FireBeyond 4 hours ago [-]
I think though joked about, one of the most telling things about the NRA is their absolute militancy about gun rights... when it suits them. As you pointed out.
And as also evidenced by things like "From my cold, dead hands! ... unless you're at an NRA convention, in which case please use these lockers or leave your gun at home, and walk through this metal detector, please."
You can email hn@ycombinator.com to verify, but I'm willing to bet the charged comment mob flagged it before a mod had a chance to see the post and protect it. This jives with other posts, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277177, being "allowed". The second may have met the same fate, or possibly have been considered a dupe by some users who had already seen the other postings of the same story active.
If you can catch posts you think are unfairly flagged as they happen you can also send them to hn@ycombinator.com. Even if it's a day late they can unflag it, second chance it, and/or watch the comments.
The mods hold a strong opinion that making the moderation log public in some way (so these kinds of things can be seen directly) would cause more problems and discontent than it would solve. I strongly disagree, but I respect that the mods have always delivered satisfactory answers for me when using the emailing process - which is their main counterpoint to the need for a public log.
zahlman 12 minutes ago [-]
Your second link stayed up and was quite popular. The first one is clearly not in the same category: the CBC reporting on current events is quite apart from an Axios editorial.
digitaLandscape 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
twixfel 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
benbayard 4 hours ago [-]
My original comment was getting a lot of traction originally and has been on a downward spiral since, down to 41 at the time of this.
zug_zug 2 hours ago [-]
Yeah, it's kind of ironic... the man was known for "I'm just debating" ideas outside the overton window. So by that same token, asking whether the world is better without him is sort of right down that same alley, "just debating" something outside the overton window.
zerohp 4 hours ago [-]
* * *
zahlman 15 minutes ago [-]
> HN is a techno right wing site
We're talking about the same site that constantly has submissions from politically biased sources alluding to various ways that the orange man is bad, where comments pushing standard right-wing talking points are frequently flagged and killed within minutes, and a recent Ask HN seriously entertained the question of whether HN is "fascist" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44598731) because the "orange man is bad" posts get flagged?
4 hours ago [-]
another_twist 4 hours ago [-]
Not fair. Its not right wing or any wing. I think the decent thing to do is not speak ill of the dead. I didnt like him, I barely took notice of what he did. He was not on any side just on the side of opportunity. But there is no solution to be found in violence.
benbayard 4 hours ago [-]
I just didn't expect it to be so obvious.
Spastche 3 hours ago [-]
this place does a very good of portraying it's self as neutral, rational and logical, but it's definitely not any of that.
Ross = Silk Road person .. charged with "engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, distributing narcotics by means of the internet, conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to traffic fraudulent identity documents, and conspiracy to commit computer hacking." [Wikipedia]
lifeisgood99 1 hours ago [-]
He was also pardoned by Trump.
bxsioshc 55 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
afavour 6 hours ago [-]
Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but... this extremely unfortunate event is going to be a very telling test for the media and society at large.
A Democratic state representative in Minnesota was brutally murdered and another attacked by the same man only a couple of months ago, back in June. How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines? How much coverage were they given, and how much coverage will Kirk be given?
My cynical side suspects we are about to hear a lot about "violence from the left" in a way we did not about the right back in June.
mlinhares 6 hours ago [-]
Not even the democrats made it an important thing, the whole party is a failure and we're all paying the price for its lack of a spine.
typeofhuman 4 hours ago [-]
It's a party that can't have a spine because it has no axioms, no values, no fundamental truths.
You can't build without a foundation.
bilbo0s 3 hours ago [-]
it has no axioms, no values, no fundamental truths
That’s pretty much both parties.
It’s why we are where we are.
18 minutes ago [-]
tolerance 5 hours ago [-]
In bad taste only because what you’re questioning may have little to do with which side they were on.
The better question to ask is, how many subscribers did the Democratic state representative from Minnesota and the other have?
bilbo0s 5 hours ago [-]
This is so true and so sad at the same time that it almost portends a kind of tragic fatal destiny to the US. You can almost see factions warring for no other purpose than to gain "followers" and "likes". (Might even make an argument that we're already there?)
Just sad.
tolerance 4 hours ago [-]
What you’ve described sounds like the logical outcome of Democracy in a post-digital world. I can envision a world where the future Secretary of State was a former Reddit moderator. Or worse. A Lemmy maintainer.
amanaplanacanal 5 minutes ago [-]
We already have a TV personality for president. I'm not sure it would be much different.
6 hours ago [-]
6 hours ago [-]
jmdwifvjmrgbj 6 hours ago [-]
This is not totally true. One Democratic representative was killed with her husband. The other representative was shot but survived.
afavour 6 hours ago [-]
Thanks, you're totally right. Corrected my comment.
pwenzel 5 hours ago [-]
Doesn't help when Trump simply responded to Minnesota assassinations with:
"you know, I could be nice and call him [Governor Walz], but why waste time?"
It was an attempt to quell the No Kings protests scheduled to happen the same day.
HaZeust 5 hours ago [-]
I'm glad this was shared and that this did not go unnoticed, it made me know where things were going. Figureheads weren't even pretending to care anymore - escalations are in order way before any call for de-escalation will be made.
sigzero 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mring33621 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
xnx 4 hours ago [-]
> A Democratic state representative in Minnesota was brutally murdered
...and her husband and dog. The killer also had a long list of other targets.
rdtsc 5 hours ago [-]
> How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines? How much coverage were they given, and how much coverage will Kirk be given?
I couldn't have named Kirk if I saw him or heard about him before he shot and it entered the news. Not sure what that tells us -- we should know more who our representatives are, or know about various "influencers" in politics and such?
EDIT: I saw you initially mentioned two representatives who were murdered but now it looks like there is only one. So even though you criticize others for not knowing who these murdered representatives were, it seems you don't even know who they were or if they were even murdered.
> Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but...
Well this is how usually talking in bad taste early starts ;-). It's kind of like saying "No offense, but ... $insert_offense_here".
PaulDavisThe1st 5 hours ago [-]
One key difference here is that the MN Democrats killed and injured were relatively niche/local participants in the Democratic party in MN (none of that that makes their death or injury any more acceptable or less appalling). Kirk is a highly significant figure in the right wing media world.
germinalphrase 4 hours ago [-]
Melissa Hortman wasn’t a niche local politician - she was the speaker of the Minnesota House.
PaulDavisThe1st 3 hours ago [-]
Would you care to estimate the number of Americans who even knew her name?
She had power in MN, but had not become a "national" politician (yet).
germinalphrase 2 hours ago [-]
I made no claim that she was a national figure. Merely pointing out that calling a politician holding one of the highest offices in state government a niche, local politician intentionally diminishes them.
PaulDavisThe1st 55 minutes ago [-]
I was not intentionally trying to diminish her.
I suspect that unless you live in New Mexico, you have no idea who the speaker of the NM House is. That's not a diminshment of the office or the person holding it, it's a recognition that while such positions come with significant power within the context of a state, they are quite hidden from residents of other states.
bdangubic 4 hours ago [-]
MN Democrats were not random “niche” “Democrats” but US CONGRESSMEN
yonaguska 5 hours ago [-]
The motives in that case don't seem to immediately be as clear cut yet. I've been waiting for this trial or more information myself because that shooter has made some very bizarre claims. He admitted that he was a Trump supporter and pro-life, but that had nothing to do with why he did it. He then made the claim that Tim Waltz had hired him to carry out the execution. It's very odd- but I can't say why media orgs didn't cover it for very long at all.
bena 6 hours ago [-]
We fail this test over and over and the fact that you don't realize it is telling in and of itself. Not as a remark on you, but on the media in general.
waterTanuki 2 hours ago [-]
You already see it everywhere in this thread. People completely whitewashing Kirk's image as a "peaceful debater", and gaslighting anyone who had even the slightest disagreement with his politics to "behave" themselves. Remember when the sitting U.S. president said contacting the Gov. of Minnesota (Tim Walz) after Melissa Hortman's assassination was a "waste of time" not just a few months ago? And it couldn't be more ironic that Kirk at this very same event said people dying was the price to pay for a completely unrestricted 2A.
This isn't a "both sides" issue. One side has shown time and time again it will resort to cruelty, violence, and severely harmful rhetoric. That anyone here would try to wave their hands around like it's "everyone's" fault is insane.
russellbeattie 5 hours ago [-]
Those were my thoughts exactly.
There was no presidential message expressing sympathy and outrage then and complete radio silence from Republicans in general. And the amount of misinformation from the right was incredible. Even in this thread of nominally intelligent people, they're still repeating falsehoods.
Any expression of shock and dismay from conservatives now is pure theater. The right wing is absolutely fine with violence. Accusations of the violent left is of course a talking point projection as usual.
> Mr. Boelter developed a strong distrust of government, especially Democrats. According to Mr. Carlson, he believed that the criminal prosecutions of Donald J. Trump were politically motivated, and that a victory by the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, would lead to civil war. He followed the Infowars website founded by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Mmkay.
tstrimple 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
antonymoose 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
johnmaguire 6 hours ago [-]
It's not so much a matter of who "knows better." There's an element of whether you trust a murderer, or are all the facts and evidence around their case, more.
ceejayoz 6 hours ago [-]
> Direct from the horse’s mouth…
That's about the worst place to get your answers here.
antonymoose 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 5 hours ago [-]
The… NY Post is far left now?
5 hours ago [-]
alchemical_piss 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jawarner 6 hours ago [-]
Take a look at the next sentence from your linked article.
“I am pro-life personaly [sic] but it wasn’t those,” he said, using the jail’s internal messaging system. “I will just say there is a lot of information that will come out in future that people will look at and judge for themselves that goes back 24 months before the 14th. If the gov ever let’s [sic] it get out.”
dttze 5 hours ago [-]
You’re a fool if you think he is telling the truth.
kennywinker 6 hours ago [-]
I’d believe him if he said that before he’d lawyered up.
Now, looks like building a defense to me.
kennywinker 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tstrimple 5 hours ago [-]
For every single conservative each mass shooting was done by a transgender illegal immigrant Democrat until thoroughly disproven through dozens of means. Then they will just ignore the "lone wolf" white male Christian and just expect everyone else to move on with them in thoughts and prayers. It's time to stop engaging with conservatives as if they were serious people worthy of serious replies.
throwmeaway222 5 hours ago [-]
that is simply not true, and have you seen the news in the last 5 years?
> Federal prosecutors confirmed 45 Democrats were listed, including dozens of Minnesota lawmakers and members of Congress such as Rep. Angie Craig, Rep. Ilhan Omar, and Sen. Tina Smith. It also included members of Planned Parenthood, philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the organization, and several healthcare centers across the Midwest.
> Authorities in Minnesota said Monday that the man arrested in a Saturday attack that killed one state lawmaker and left another wounded had a "hit list" of 45 elected officials — all Democrats.
kennywinker 5 hours ago [-]
Whataboutism?
Nobody is whatabouting any of the violence. They are however pointing out that media isn’t an impartial observer, and that skews everyone’s perception of what is happening.
Anyway someone else responded with citations for the dem hit list, which backs up everything i said except “he voted for trump” which is impossible to know because we have secret ballots but he told his friend he voted for trump. (Citation: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/vanc...)
Now tell me honestly, if the guy who shot charlie kirk turns out to have no known political affiliations but a hit list of republican politicians and activists - you’d be saying it’s complicated?
jmye 5 hours ago [-]
> Please provide sources for all of your claims, I made sure to verify what I wrote before I wrote it.
And then provided none of those supposed “verifications” for what are probably very honorable and honest reasons.
ZeroGravitas 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
kfrzcode 5 hours ago [-]
He was a Christian and a intellectual thought leader in one of the more reasonable groups of conservative youth in the USA. You can paint TPUSA however you like but political engagement is political engagement, whether it's happening with the same color uniform you decide is the better choice or not.
Welcoming and encouraging the free exchange of thought and ideas in an open forum. Free speech and American values are based directly in morality which comes to us from a higher power. This is all quite clear in the writings of the Founding Fathers and other contemporaries, but of course nowadays "American values" is shibboleth for "Nazi dogwhistles" to some population.
Cornbilly 4 hours ago [-]
>a intellectual thought leader in one of the more reasonable groups of conservative youth
If calling for the military occupation of US cities is at all reasonable, I struggle to imagine what is unreasonable in your world view.
kfrzcode 3 hours ago [-]
Unreasonable is killing someone because you disagree with their opinion.
Cornbilly 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
kfrzcode 2 hours ago [-]
Give me liberty, or give me death.
twixfel 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
phendrenad2 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
diddid 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
like_any_other 5 hours ago [-]
> How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines?
I don't know - how long did these stories stay in the headlines?
A 26 year old man from Irondale, Alabama was later arrested and charged in connection with the bombing. Prosecutors stated that prior to the bombing, the suspect had been spotted placing stickers on government buildings, displaying "antifa, anti-police and anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement sentiments" and had expressed "belief that violence should be directed against the government" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Marshall#Bombing
10 arrested after ambush on Texas ICE detention facility [..] When an Alvarado police officer arrived on the scene, one of the individuals shot him in the neck. Another individual shot 20 to 30 rounds at the facility correction officers, according to Larson. - https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-arrested-after-ambush-texas-ice...
Last but not lest, there was also an assassination attempt on Trump, though I concede that one did get plenty of attention.
mrtksn 6 hours ago [-]
Think of it as a hardening. From outsider perspective, IMHO your left is very weak and inconsistent and it's not even left from a European perspective.
The far right developed stars, stallions and philosophers that are effective in the popular culture no matter how vile some of those can be. There are up and coming leftist Americans but they will need to hustle to develop intro strong leaders. The mainstream figures from the American left like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders are just too lightweight.
Edit: funny how this comment fluctuates between 0 and 2 points. This edit will probably tip the balance though :)
5 hours ago [-]
heyjamesknight 5 hours ago [-]
> and it's not even left from a European perspective.
This is a meme that needs to die. Its just not true.
The Democratic party in the US is right in line with Labor/Socialist/Whatever Mainstream Leftist Party you want to point at in Europe. It has members who end up on various sides of the left-wing spectrum. There are no "far left" parties in the US because we have a two party system.
There are obviously topics where this is not true. But that goes both ways: almost no country on Earth has the level of abortion access that the Democratic party in the US demands. And there are examples of European right wing parties who fight for zero abortion access, which is not the GOP platform currently.
Amezarak 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah, there are just so many mismatches it doesn't make sense.
- Nearly all European countries have and support a very high consumption tax (VAT). In the US, nobody would be really for this (although some conservatives favor such taxes), but US liberals would be extremely against it due to the regressive nature of consumption taxes.
- The majority of EU countries institute voter ID laws, something supported only by conservatives in the US. States with voter ID laws almost always allow some valid voter ID to be gotten for free, but they are still opposed by liberals.
There are plenty of other examples when you start thinking about it.
p_ing 4 hours ago [-]
We have entire 100% Democratic-run states that use regressive consumption taxing to fund the State government.
lotsofpulp 5 hours ago [-]
The far right likes listening to despots and falling in line, so they would be expected to develop “stars”, whereas others are skeptical of know it all lecturers and aim for consensus.
mrtksn 5 hours ago [-]
Europe does have left wings pop stars like Zizec and Varoufakis though.
ken-m 6 hours ago [-]
This is in extremely bad taste. There is no "but".
guesswho_ 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
bitlax 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
petabyt 7 hours ago [-]
Prayers for Charlie and his family, violence against people you disagree with is never the answer
treetalker 6 hours ago [-]
I agree that we should not try to resolve America's current problems with violence. (And to be clear, I am an ardent pacifist and urge change in the ways of King, Gandhi, etc.)
Still, violence has been the answer in many (most?) political revolutions, including the American revolution and separation from Britain.
pcthrowaway 6 hours ago [-]
I'd recommend you watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N1HT0Fjtw) video by Norman Finkelstein about Gandhi. A lot of people get him wrong apparently; he wasn't a pacifist in the way you are suggesting.
TL;DW Gandhi knew that to resist the British, they would need a critical mass of people resisting (armed or not). Armed resistance against a superior force is futile. His whole idea of Satyagraha was intentionally self-sacrificial for the nonviolent protestors who would die, because he knew it would stir the masses to action.
I also agree that violence is tragic and we should always take care not to glorify or idealize it, but we should also contextualize it when used by people resisting systems of oppression. As Nelson Mandela said:
> A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle,and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor.At a point, one can only fight fire with fire
FireBeyond 4 hours ago [-]
> A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a point, one can only fight fire with fire.
Which often leads to this point, as in Lord of War:
> Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, the Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.
GuinansEyebrows 5 hours ago [-]
another book (that i have admittedly been dragging my feet on finishing) that covers this idea is 'The Wretched of the Earth' by Frantz Fanon. i have never personally been directly exposed to the ill effects of state-imposed violence to the degree that others have. it's eye-opening to more-seriously consider the positions of those who have.
crooked-v 5 hours ago [-]
Martin Luther King was regularly labeled as a violent rabble-rouser during his lifetime; just look at some of the contemporary political cartoons about him. It was only after his death that he was recast as a figure of absolute peace who made racial progress happen just by giving thoughtful speeches.
slumberlust 3 hours ago [-]
Are you saying he was a violent person or that was just the image pushed by the opposition?
lovich 6 hours ago [-]
Anyone who says violence is _never_ the answer is frankly, naive to history and power.
Violence and politics are both on a spectrum and means to the same end of asserting your will. Vom Kriege is obviously not the forefront of philosophy anymore but it’s a good place to start if anyone reading this hasn’t come across that idea and wants to learn more.
Even your non violent examples of King and Ghandi has very violent wings on the side showing society that if a resolution wasn’t achieved by peaceful ends then violence it is. Remember that the civil rights act didn’t get enough support to be passed until after King was assassinated and mass riots rose across the nation
treetalker 6 hours ago [-]
In Savannah, Georgia, there stand historic cannon with an inscription in French (translated here): The final argument of kings.
w0de0 3 hours ago [-]
“…and I am therefore justified in demanding the surrender of the city of Savannah, and its dependent forts, and shall wait a reasonable time for your answer, before opening with heavy ordnance.
“Should you entertain the proposition, I am prepared to grant liberal terms to the inhabitants and garrison; but should I be forced to resort to assault, or the slower and surer process of starvation, I shall then feel justified in resorting to the harshest measures, and shall make little effort to restrain my army—burning to avenge the national wrong which they attach to Savannah…”
- W. Tecumseh Sherman’s ultimatum to the garrison of this city, December 1864
Sherman’s March to the Sea was an apotheosis of political violence. It deliberately targeted non-military infrastructure.
How long would American slavery have persisted without the march (the war to which it belongs)?
How could non-violence have triumphed in the same crusade?
HaZeust 5 hours ago [-]
And the Virginia flag has a graphically depicted murder with an inscription in Latin (translated here): Thus always to tyrants.
JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago [-]
> Anyone who says violence is _never_ the answer is frankly, naive to history and power
Violence is sometimes the answer. Domestic assassinations almost never are. Kirk is about to become a martyr.
thevillagechief 5 hours ago [-]
Unfortunately headlines and memories are extremely short-lived. Not sure anyone will be talking about this in a month or two. Which is a lesson I try to remind myself whenever I take myself too seriously.
tempodox 4 hours ago [-]
And who knows what retribution measures his death will be the justification for.
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago [-]
> what retribution measures his death will be the justification for
To be fair, crazy people will justify their craziness with anything. The problem is less what this may be used to justify and more that it creates a more-permissive environment for further political violence.
mensetmanusman 5 hours ago [-]
Actually few conflicts are peacefully resolved purely by violence.
jeffbee 6 hours ago [-]
And the American civil war.
shadowgovt 6 hours ago [-]
Depending on how you turn the lens, the Civil War is an excellent example of violence not being the answer.
The Confederacy tried to replace their Constitutional government and the policies instituted by the leaders elected by the people with a violence-enforced new state inside the territory of their existing one and got (justifiably) multi-generationally brutalized for their trouble. The town I grew up in and moved away from was still raising funds to rebuild some of the places that were burned to the ground in the war. That was fundraising in the 1980s.
Every time someone points to the 1776 war as a success story I feel compelled to point out that half the descendants of that war's victors tried a very similar thing in 1861 to absolutely ruinous result.
(On this topic: Fort Sumter is an interesting story. While it was never taken during the war, it basically became a target-practice and weapons field-test location for the Union navy: every time they had a new technique or a new cannon they wanted to try out, they'd try it on the fort. By the end of the war, the fort was "standing" only in the sense that the bulk of its above-ground works had been blasted flat and were shoved together into an earthworks bunker; the Confederates were basically sheltering in a hole that a lobbed shell could fall into at any time.
And while the fort and its northways sister kept Union ships out of the harbor, it didn't stop them from firing past the fort into Charleston itself, since "war crimes" and "civilian populations" weren't really a concept yet.
People very much went into that war thinking there wouldn't be consequences for ordinary folk. They were very much wrong.)
gretch 4 hours ago [-]
Okay but black people were freed from chattel slavery. It's true that it was followed closely by jim crow south, but given an option between the 2, none of us are picking chattel slavery right?
s1artibartfast 3 hours ago [-]
Yet most countries were able to eliminate slavery without a war killing a significant portion of their citizens.
gretch 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, congrats to them and all of the freed slaves. We could not do that, but we did the next best thing.
shadowgovt 4 hours ago [-]
No, of course not. My point is that the South started a war because they believed they were so right that the only recourse was political violence. Their reward for it was to lose everything they feared they were going to lose... And more.
Americans have this unfortunate tendency towards exceptionalist self-image. They remember the Revolutionary War and forget the Civil War. They remember World War 2 and forget Vietnam. They believe when they wield violence it is because they are right and the cause is just, when history shows that, even for them, the victor in such conflicts tends to have very little to do with just cause and a lot more to do with dumb luck (or, if I'm being a bit more generous, "material and strategic reality divorced from the justness of the casus belli").
gretch 4 hours ago [-]
Ah I see, you're saying it was a bad decision for the South to start the war.
I agree history records fort sumter as the official start of the war, but I guess I was looking at it big picture that "a war was on it's way" regardless of the singular event that sparked full war.
My perspective on the civil war is "good thing it happened and the Union won, otherwise who knows how long black people would have been enslaved". It would have been nice to end slavery without the war, but Lincoln tried to negotiate to this end extensively and couldn't secure it.
Also, yes I agree the vietnam war is severely undertaught. And in the modern era, Afghanistan.
tracker1 4 hours ago [-]
I mostly agree, though I think slavery likely would have ended with industrialization anyway, a few decades later.
It's also worth noting that most people don't realize there are more black people enslaved today than in the US Civil War, not to mention other enslaved groups.
tracker1 4 hours ago [-]
Depends on how you feel about a foreign occupied military outpost in your state/country that you've broken ties with.
This isn't in support of the reasons the ties were broken, but I can absolutely see if say Germany leaves the EU, then they'd probably want an EU military occupied base in Germany to leave said base.
lazyasciiart 5 hours ago [-]
And it was even a failure for the North - sure, in theory they won, and in practice they just let the South stay as they were but poorer and with a few Black people able to leave.
mapontosevenths 5 hours ago [-]
The confederates should have been punished, publicly.
throw_m239339 3 hours ago [-]
> The confederates should have been punished, publicly.
No, it would have led to decades or centuries of resentment between the north and the south and eventually another civil war among those lines. It would have destroyed the union for good. The only purpose of the civil war for the North was to save the union, humiliating the south would have ensured that it would never really happen.
fzeroracer 2 hours ago [-]
The North 'saved' the union by allowing the South to continue its brutal practices against the freedmen leading to almost a hundred years of violence, lynching and the Black Codes designed to keep control over the 'freed' slaves.
Thaddeus Stevens was proven correct in his opinion that the south should've been treated like a conquered state and the land forcibly given to the freedmen.
throw_m239339 2 hours ago [-]
Yet here we are, and the civil right act passed. On the other hand, The allies humiliating the Germans with the Versailles Treaty led to World War II.
The people who want retribution are never the ones to listen after an armistice.
ganksalot 5 hours ago [-]
reconstruction was sabotaged by the south.
Cornbilly 4 hours ago [-]
"I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage" - Charlie Kirk
lvl155 5 hours ago [-]
I agree with you. Violence is never the answer. Same goes for all the wars including the ones going on right now. And same for implicit and explicit violence and physical harm to make money.
6 hours ago [-]
esarbe 5 hours ago [-]
While what you say is true; you don't know anything about the shooter or the motive.
2 hours ago [-]
vlovich123 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
harimau777 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
briandw 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
elil17 6 hours ago [-]
Charlie Kirk said repeatedly said it was okay to have a society where people routinely get shot and killed. Pointing that out right now highlights just how wrong it is.
Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been shot. The way to have prevented that would have been gun control.
DrillShopper 6 hours ago [-]
No, pointing out someone being odious does not equate to saying they deserve it.
To make it clear - I am pretty much politically diametrically opposed to Charlie Kirk, but I don't think he should have been shot.
thinkingtoilet 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago [-]
> Why does he get to say that when others are murdered but others can't say that when he is murdered?
Because we aren’t Charlie Kirk?
This isn’t to high when they go low crap. This is about basic human decency. It’s also about not turning him into a martyr.
thinkingtoilet 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
briandw 6 hours ago [-]
It's a simple matter of 2 wrongs not making it right. How can you in the same sentence say that Kirk is wrong for endorsing violence, while at the same time endorsing this shooting?
thinkingtoilet 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
myvoiceismypass 5 hours ago [-]
No one here is “endorsing” the shooting. Simply pointing out that empathy is not a guarantee in life.
rkomorn 6 hours ago [-]
I think Kirk is a giant sack of crap, but as a rule, I want to not behave in ways that I find objectionable in others.
So, really, it's not about Kirk. It's about me (or us: the folks I tend to side with ideologically).
I don't think this falls under the paradox of tolerance, by the way.
s5300 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
animitronix 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mattstir 4 hours ago [-]
That sentiment comes across a bit oddly... if the people in power in Germany hadn't started using terror and violence against those they didn't like, WWII wouldn't have happened.
lovich 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
JacobThreeThree 4 hours ago [-]
So your criticism of him is that "I assume that he called for violence even though I have no evidence that he did"?
lovich 3 hours ago [-]
Yea it was, and as multiple other people in this thread then followed up with links on, turns out I was correct.
potsandpans 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Sparkle-san 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lynndotpy 6 hours ago [-]
I agree that Charlie Kirk was both responsible for fomenting political violence and was the victim of political violence, but I disagree with the causal suggestion. I think it's more likely to be the opposite. When he said gun deaths are an acceptable price to pay for gun rights, I think that must have come from a position of never imagining he'd be far less likely to be one of the deaths.
noarchy 6 hours ago [-]
From the article:
“
Kirk went on to say, “And by the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out … Bail him out, and then go ask him some questions.”
"
xyzzzzzzz 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
quantified 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
logicchains 7 hours ago [-]
I'd wager you not a single right-winger saw that video and thought "we need to ban guns". They're thinking "I need more guns to protect me from this kind of leftist violence".
treetalker 7 hours ago [-]
Is there evidence that the motive of this act was some clear "leftist" position?
Whoppertime 6 hours ago [-]
We rarely hear about motives. Paddock was responsible for the deadliest shooting in American history. We never got a motive. We got a bumpstock ban which was deemed unconstitutional
myvoiceismypass 5 hours ago [-]
Loud voices on the right are already assuming and saying that, essentially making it the new truth whether that’s correct or not.
slater 7 hours ago [-]
Not yet, and might not be, but when has that ever stopped them?
TimorousBestie 6 hours ago [-]
The second amendment fundamentalists are decidedly thawing. I expect at least some of them are thinking, “we need to ban guns from those people” for some value of “those people.”
The response to the last high-profile public shooting was, if you’ll recall, noise in the DoJ about taking gun rights away from transgender people. So some kinds of gun control are apparently on the table.
yongjik 6 hours ago [-]
The second amendment was passed when there were slaves, and I guess the 2A supporters at that time didn't see it as contradiction.
These people aren't mellowing on their position on 2A; they're instead starting to think "Hmm maybe some of these 'people' shouldn't be considered fully people from legal point of view ..."
TimorousBestie 6 hours ago [-]
I agree that they don’t necessarily view it as a mellowing of their position, but as a matter of policy the net effect is the same.
All my life I’ve heard conservative talk radio types (and more recently, conservative influencers) chant “shall not be infringed” as a mantra and oppose any restrictions whatsoever (at least, post-Reagan; see the comment down-thread). That old state of affairs has subtly changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)
After the Civil War many Democrat dominated Southern state governments enacted Black Codes that regulated virtually every aspect of freed people’s lives. A common element was restricting possession and carrying of firearms by Black people (or by anyone without a license), often implemented through local ordinances, licensing requirements, or explicit prohibitions.
The Black Codes precede the Mulford Act by a hundred years.
ceejayoz 4 hours ago [-]
Which party did “post-war southern Democrats” eventually join?
Not sure why is this down-voted? Seems reasonable.
peder 6 hours ago [-]
Because it's talking past each other. Very few people are literally asking for divine intervention, they're conveying wishes for a good outcome
quantified 5 hours ago [-]
What leads you to that conclusion? It seems that referring to disbelief in prayer is controversial, and belief in prayer is not grounded in reality.
catlover76 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
amradio1989 6 hours ago [-]
Its not reasonable at all. I wouldn't downvote it, but its devoid of facts and is loaded with false premises.
I'm tempted to call it rage-bait, but I choose to assume the poster meant no harm.
quantified 5 hours ago [-]
I intend motivation to choose actions that might make a difference. Can anyone make the case that prayer actually works? Consider the massacre of children actually praying at a Catholic school a couple weeks ago. Was that the result of someone praying for it to happen? Was any deity looking out for its flock? Whereas making guns a lot harder to obtain would definitely reduce gun usage.
USA is outpacing everyone. I guess you hear things but the data and reality don’t really reflect that. America has problems like everyone but a declining empire it is not.
wredcoll 5 hours ago [-]
> For people who seem to think this is what Kirk deserved because he said things from different view points, you need to reclaim yoursel
Kirk both personally and as part of his group advocated for using violence to achieve goals.
This doesn't make him particularly unique, but lets stop with this idea that speech exists in some kind of abstract realm with no bearing on "reality".
There was a guy in vietnam about 70 years ago who made a lot of speeches about what he wanted to achieve and then a few million people died.
It turns out words matter.
badc0ffee 5 hours ago [-]
> Kirk both personally and as part of his group advocated for using violence to achieve goals.
Did he? He was pro-gun, but that's not the same as being pro- political violence.
Is that not pro- political violence, albeit at some vague threshold that's hoped to never be breached?
wredcoll 4 hours ago [-]
> political violence
This is an interesting phrase that pops up every so often. What exactly is "political violence" and how does it differ from, uh, regular "violence"?
If someone shoots at me because he wants to steal my wallet, is that different from someone shooting at me because I'm black? Or because I voted for something? What if I shoot someone shooting at someone else? Is political violence supposed to be more morally reprehensible? Or maybe it's less?
badc0ffee 4 hours ago [-]
> This is an interesting phrase that pops up every so often. What exactly is "political violence" and how does it differ from, uh, regular "violence"?
I know your entire comment is rhetorical questions, but I'm going to answer them. The difference is intent. Political violence is violence against your political enemies to silence them and discourage their allies.
> If someone shoots at me because he wants to steal my wallet, is that different from someone shooting at me because I'm black? Or because I voted for something? What if I shoot someone shooting at someone else? Is political violence supposed to be more morally reprehensible?
IMO: Yes, yes, yes, no. But none of this has to do with him advocating for guns. He's thinking about defence. He lives in a country where everyone else is armed.
I don't own a gun. More gun owners does make the overall climate of violence worse. But I probably would own a gun if I lived in the US.
Cornbilly 4 hours ago [-]
You mean the guy that was just advocating for the military occupation of US cities? Or was he just mistaken that the military is a hippie commune?
mvdtnz 5 hours ago [-]
Do you have specific examples of Kirk himself advocating for violence?
> “Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks.” With a smirk, he added: “Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”
toughquestion 2 hours ago [-]
Nowhere in that quote nor article does he call for or support political violence. Do you have any other sources?
ceejayoz 2 hours ago [-]
I can’t force you to see things you are unwilling to perceive. Consider how you might feel about a prominent liberal figure trying to pay bail for one of Trump’s attempted assassins.
thatsadude 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wredcoll 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
DiggyJohnson 5 hours ago [-]
> Kirk both personally and as part of his group advocated for using violence to achieve goals.
Maybe he just assumed that would only be the deaths of other people.
homeonthemtn 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tripplyons 6 hours ago [-]
Violence is not the answer to incivility. You should respond with civility and let democracy function.
greedo 5 hours ago [-]
Tolerating intolerance doesn't work out well...
dionian 5 hours ago [-]
Yet charlie used his words
dttze 5 hours ago [-]
The kind of mentality for those who do not understand power or know how to wield it.
mensetmanusman 5 hours ago [-]
This is exactly what Putin believes.
xwowsersx 6 hours ago [-]
Really dislike this. It risks sounding like a justification, because even if it only means someone will inevitably react violently, its vagueness makes it read as though violence is excusable or natural.
Not so. People can and should endure rudeness, even disgusting behavior, without throwing so much as a punch.
Our entire legal system is built on the premise that violence is not the natural/inevitable outcome of incivility. Courts, contracts, and laws exist precisely to channel disputes, insults, etc. into nonviolent processes.
If violence were the automatic consequence of rudeness, there'd be no point in having civil courts/workplace dispute procedures/defamation law... or even law enforcement protocols in general. The system assumes that people can and must respond to incivility without physical aggression and it punishes those who don't.
skippyboxedhero 6 hours ago [-]
It isn't a justification, it is an acknowledgement of the reality that most people do not have self-control. In politics, this is part of a theme where certain political viewpoints deny that humans have any innate negative nature and that they only behave that way because of structural factors.
Laws exist for this purpose, certainly true. But this fails to go far enough because there is a greater context of norms that govern behaviour in many ways. Not only in situations before the law is required but that govern how lawyers and judges behave.
This is a far more complex problem than people think. To be clear, the decline in law and order is bad, the decline in ethical behaviour from lawgivers is worse but there is a far broader failure in values that will require a generation of turmoil to erase.
I am not one for internet censorship but you look on here, on Twitter, on Reddit, and you read pages and pages of stuff that you would rarely see anywhere online twenty years ago...and this is accompanied not by the outrage that you see everywhere but by a celebration of the intense moral purification that many think we are undergoing. Human nature does not change (i live in the UK so it is obviously particularly jarring to experience people joyfully celebrating murder and also see people go to jail for calling the police muppets...weird world).
Computer0 5 hours ago [-]
Really dislike this. It risks sounding like a justification, for governments working against the interests of the humans living inside it.
GuinansEyebrows 6 hours ago [-]
i don't read it as a justification at all. it's a very pragmatic observation; and not one that goes without saying, because if we have any interest in a positive peace, we have to understand the factors that threaten it.
> Our entire legal system is built on the premise that violence is not the natural/inevitable outcome of incivility. Courts, contracts, and laws exist precisely to channel disputes, insults, etc. into nonviolent processes.
i think our legal system is built on the necessity of response to the natural outcome of incivility. we have an extremely punitive system in the USA - the entire judiciary is set up to respond to incidents of incivility, not prevent them (no matter how much tough-on-crime politicians like to convince us that stiff punishments act as deterrents to things like murder or rape).
skippyboxedhero 5 hours ago [-]
The US is a relatively permissive societies. Justice is frequently seen not to be done. Law and order is, mostly, non-existent with courts used as a last resort (and even then, very loosely).
I am always puzzled that people think other people believe the purpose of law and order is "deterrent"...have you ever met anyone who says this? It is simple: some people are criminals, if they are in jail then they are unable to continue committing crimes, if you let them out they will commit crimes...this has been seen in the US, in many European countries, over and over. Further, the purpose of stiff punishment is also so that victims and the public see justice being done. If you live in a society where you see people abuse others without consequence, you will leave that society. That is it. Simple. Basic logic that was understood four thousand years ago but which continues to be impenetrable to people with all the advantages of modern life.
lazyasciiart 5 hours ago [-]
> am always puzzled that people think other people believe the purpose of law and order is "deterrent"...have you ever met anyone who says this?
………yes, many of them. Do you talk to real people about prison policy a lot?
> if you let them out they will commit crimes
I guess not, since we have plenty of evidence that 75yo men with one leg and cancer are at 0% risk of recidivism, and yet they’re still locked up.
skippyboxedhero 4 hours ago [-]
Yes, PG in political science and I have worked in policy research. How about you?
The probability of committing a crime is significantly higher if you have committed a crime before. This is constant in every society that doesn't put criminals in jail. You seem to be suggesting some interesting new theory that not having a leg is really what everyone should care about...if you were reading someone else say this would you take this seriously? No, a tiny proportion commit the majority of crime, serious crime in countries like the US is almost all committed by 1% of the population. The solution is simple: put them in jail, crime disappears.
Violent crime is a choice.
mempko 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
gameshot911 3 hours ago [-]
Are you vegetarian/vegan?
mempko 3 hours ago [-]
Good point. The violence against our ecology is dramatic. We are causing the sixth mass extinction.
mykowebhn 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
3 hours ago [-]
PartiallyTyped 3 hours ago [-]
Flags in WH are half down. None of that for the politicians and their spouses.
Tells you everything you need to know about WH.
anthem2025 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
strathmeyer 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jmyeet 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mapontosevenths 5 hours ago [-]
> Sandy Hook was really a turning point for America.
What changed afterward? I would argue nothing at all. It wasn't a turning point it was a Friday like any other.
jmyeet 5 hours ago [-]
Nothing changed. That's the point. It was an event so horrific where 28 people died, mostly 6 and 7 year olds, and the US as a country chose the guns.
netsharc 5 hours ago [-]
The "virtual realities" people construct to deny actual reality is incredible. Like Alex Jones spouting stuff that those grieving parents are paid actors.
Anything rather than accept the cold truth. At least I partially hope he believes his own stories, because if he knew he was just screaming lies about dead children into people's ears to earn money, then he's a psycopath (obviously that's also a possibility).
I think people invent those realities so they can say their actions are moral and good, and in their reality, for example the Sandy Hook parents are the bad guys because they are part of a conspiracy to take Americans' guns.
If anyone has 2h30m of free time, a good example of a man creating his own reality (and having it crumble bit by bit) is the subject of the documentary The Act of Killing, someone who murdered thousands of people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kJZb2Q1NmE
The director convinced him and his friends to make a movie about their actions (which they proudly boast about anyway), and one scene in the movie has the song "Born Free", "angels" dancing, and the killer being thanked by his "victims", for saving their souls from Communism and sending them to heaven by killing them...
wulfstan 5 hours ago [-]
I really don’t understand why people are downvoting these remarks. We can feel desperately sad and sorry for his wife and child and family while also recognising that he has literally espoused wide availability of guns AND the inevitability of gun deaths as a result.
He talked the talk, and now he has walked the walk.
pb7 5 hours ago [-]
Gun deaths are inevitable because there are bad people that we can't expunge from civilized society that will kill regardless, not because he wanted to be killed by one.
wulfstan 5 hours ago [-]
That isn’t the only reason why there are large numbers of gun deaths in the US.
pb7 4 hours ago [-]
The reason is the demographics. And it'll never be solved because you're not even allowed to talk about it.
wulfstan 4 hours ago [-]
Nope, don’t think it’s the demographics, unless by demographics you mean “easy to buy a gun”.
pb7 4 hours ago [-]
Everyone in Switzerland has a gun, where is their gun violence? What about Finland, Iceland, Austria, New Zealand?
5 hours ago [-]
hnpolicestate 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sudohalt 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
fdhfdjkfhdkj 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
aesthethiccs 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ck2 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
subpixel 3 hours ago [-]
Amen
scoopdewoop 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
aj7 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
brownppllovet 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
thrance 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
seanmcdirmid 3 hours ago [-]
Considering this happened in a red state in a community that leans conservative despite having a university there, I don't see how Trump could spin this as a way to send troops into Chicago.
fundad 3 hours ago [-]
You don't see how the President could sensibly spin this as a way to send troops into Chicago.
moogly 2 hours ago [-]
"[...] I don't see how Trump could [...]"
I'm amazed people are still saying this.
yahoozoo 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
typeofhuman 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bmicraft 4 hours ago [-]
You're making this sound very one-sided
nilespotter 4 hours ago [-]
It is.
geonic 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
another_twist 4 hours ago [-]
Its wrong to speculate here. This is violence and definitely wrong. But an investigation will reveal the motive. We just don't know.
camel_Snake 4 hours ago [-]
Best not to speculate on motivations at this time, IMO. It's the most likely scenario given his notoriety, but we don't know anything yet and that's a slippery slope.
mapontosevenths 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
typeofhuman 5 hours ago [-]
You've clearly not watched his content in full.
msie 2 hours ago [-]
You only need to see some of his Tweets to know what he's all about.
4 hours ago [-]
dyauspitr 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
pjc50 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
DiggyJohnson 5 hours ago [-]
That is a ridiculous thing to say. In my opinion it’s unconscionable. His point was never “the second amendment is good because you can murder those you disagree with.”
pixl97 4 hours ago [-]
I do believe it was closer to "The second amendment is good and we have to accept some people are going to die because of it". I do have doubts that he expected to be one of those victims.
>"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." --Charlie Kirk 2023
Is irony a sickness? It may be unpleasant, but as he says, maybe it's a prudent deal.
Thanks, it doesn’t explain why it keeps getting posted everywhere as some sort of gotcha
mainde 4 hours ago [-]
It's being posted as a gotcha because he fought against firearm control and he was killed with a firearm. His death, like many firearm-related others, would have been significantly less likely to occur if firearm possession was properly regulated and curbed, like it is in many other countries.
firesteelrain 4 hours ago [-]
I understand your point. But even if he said otherwise would still be posting this?
Point is it just seems like a giant gotcha and it’s not fair
mainde 3 hours ago [-]
One could argue that advocating against firearm control and regulation has resulted in significantly increased societal harm, which could also be identified as not fair, if not even evil/hateful, especially from those who have directly suffered from it.
Of course two wrongs don't make one right, and people can be more classy than this, but it's a totally understandable sentiment and response.
I got one, I got one: national guard on college campuses
thomassmith65 5 hours ago [-]
Is it likely the Republicans will ignore this? I have no idea what specific legislation they will come up with.
lostdog 5 hours ago [-]
How about: tech companies must implement mandatory screenings of users' messages and posts to look for violent intent.
bdangubic 5 hours ago [-]
oh man… it’ll be targeted towards complete loss of any little privacy us citizens have left (if there is any).
GoatInGrey 4 hours ago [-]
In the context of recent action on exploring removing 2nd amendment rights for trans individuals on mental health grounds AND getting 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' classified as a mental illness, it's difficult to imagine this playing out in a mundane way.
Levitz 4 hours ago [-]
How solid is the first amendment protection for calls for violence?
If this turns out to be real, a direct shot to the left carotid artery. Theoretically could be survivable but not without serious deficit and stroke. Agree likely fatal.
tomrod 6 hours ago [-]
The other indicators are pretty clearly a spinal shot. Extremely likely he is dead.
I'm going to hug my family a little tighter tonight. 46th school shooting of the year, and the 47th also happening in Colorado.
nicce 5 hours ago [-]
He lost conscious immediately which is not explainable with blood loss alone that fast - which may indicate that there was a higher impact from the shot.
Calavar 3 hours ago [-]
It's not a case of losing blood, it's a case of failing to move blood to the right place. If the shot took out the carotid, then (nearly) 50% of the blood supply to his brain is gone because of a piping failure. That can absolutely cause instantaneous loss of consciousness, no direct brain trauma necessary.
This is very different than bleeding from, say, a major artery in a leg. In that case the issue isn't loss of piping to the brain, it's losing blood until the total blood volume in the body isn't sufficient to maintain a workable blood pressure, and yes that can take multiple minutes before a person loses consciousness.
nicce 3 hours ago [-]
You can live with single carotid [1]. But maybe the change is too fast. It is exremely difficult to say without knowing more.
I am a physician, so I can say this with a high degree of confidence.
That snippet is referring to the circle of Willis*, which is a "backup" circuit that can route around a blockage to the blood flow to the brain on one side.
The thing is the circle of Willis is tiny and near vestigial (there is a substantial fraction of the population where it doesn't even make a full circuit), whereas the carotid is one of the largest blood vessels in the body. The circle of Willis isn't nearly large enough to reroute all that flow. It has to be made bigger over time
through a process called collateralization, and that's a process that happens over months to years, not minutes or seconds.
In short, the circle of Willis will save you from years of high cholesterol that lead to a huge cholesterol plaque completely blocking off one of your carotids. It won't save you from your carotid being severed by a bullet.
*And some other tinier vessels, but mainly the circle of Willis
FireBeyond 4 hours ago [-]
Not a physician, medical examiner, or the like. But a paramedic who has attended more than one fatality shooting. My educated wild ass guess is that hitting the neck with a high-velocity rifle would cause the shockwaves of the impact to be very, very close to the brainstem and to have a significant effect on it.
nicce 4 hours ago [-]
I was trying to frame it differently - like - it must have hit some harder tissue before it can cause the shockwaves, right?
tomrod 4 hours ago [-]
The air itself would be concussive.
But regardless, the specific mechanism of his death is clear. He died by gunshot.
programjames 5 hours ago [-]
Note: the police do not have the suspect in custody. The comments about, "here's the assassin being arrested," are libel.
[Graphic description] What kind of gun could that have been? Incredible amount of kinetic energy—you can actually see a hydraulic pressure wave oscillating through his entire chest. This was obviously fatal, if anyone wasn't sure. Probably died instantly, given the neurological "fencing" response (suggests spinal cord was hit—never mind the artery, he was already dead).
AngryData 5 hours ago [-]
Really any kind of deer hunting rifle will do that. Any .30 cal or larger rifle is going to cause catastrophic damage to almost everything within atleast an inch of the bullets path, and massive bruising to 4 inches out around it, and that wound area only goes up as you go up through .30 cal bullet sizes. You have to go down into medium and lower handgun calibers for bullet wounds to start becoming mostly localized to the hole itself
Ironically the prevalence of AR-15s has made people underestimate the amount of power and damage that most deer hunting rifles possess. 5.56 is like the bare minimum you can get away with to reliably disable or mortally wound a human or similarly sized animal, which is why the military used it because it saves weight so soldiers can carry more of it even if they have to hike 20 miles to their objective. Most hunting rifles are serious overkill for killing their target because hunters want instant take downs, not an animal that is able to stand up and get an adrenaline boost and sprint away if even for just 15 seconds into the brush because the shot was a half inch to the left. .30_06, a common deer round and used in the M1 Garand of WWII, is just under twice the muzzle energy of 5.56.
hinkley 6 hours ago [-]
Go watch high speed footage of anyone shooting a gun at ballistic gel (ballistic gel is a material selected for having a similar density and fluid dynamics behavior to mammalian flesh.)
A lot of the damage of a bullet is this concussive damage, not the piercing damage. Hollywood has been lying to you (apparently real gun experts hate the movie “shoulder shot” because there’s a lot of things to damage there, especially once you take the concussive force into consideration).
For those who are on the fence, don’t watch it. I just did and I regret it. Suffice it to say that the blood loss alone will be critical condition at the very best.
kryogen1c 5 hours ago [-]
> What kind of gun could that have been?
There are many different kinds of ammunition design. Some pierce and punch holes, some fragment and tumble, some balloon and expand, some cause large tears and cavities.
Ballistic science is actually a fairly complicated rabbit hole
rossant 5 hours ago [-]
> Probably died instantly, given the neurological "fencing" response (suggests spinal cord was hit—never mind the artery, he was already dead).
Could you expand on this? What does neurological "fencing" response mean, and what in the video indicates this is it?
perihelions 5 hours ago [-]
It's a neurological sign associated with traumatic brain injury. That unnatural reflex of the arms you can see in that video.
It's useful to recognize that pose! It's often people who could benefit from quick medical attention, if someone notices the symptom.
5 hours ago [-]
corey_moncure 5 hours ago [-]
Decorticate posturing of the hands
master_crab 5 hours ago [-]
Any assault rifle round will do this.
Also: smaller assault rounds like 5.56 can in fact do more damage than larger ones in some case because of its tendency to bounce around in the body.
int_19h 4 hours ago [-]
Any hunting rifle round will do this as well, except the smallest calibers like .22 LR that are meant for hunting squirrels and the like.
But also, no, the smaller rounds don't have a "tendency to bounce around in the body". It sounds like you're referring to the phenomenon known as tumbling, where the wound track ends up being curved because the bullet loses stability as it hits. This happens because bullets are heavier at the base and thus unstable; while in air, they are stabilized by rotation imparted on them by the rifling, but once they hit anything dense (like, well, human body) it would take a lot more spinning to keep them stable, so all bullets do that. It does not involve any bouncing, however.
Light and fast bullets like 5.56 are particularly unstable and will do it faster, though. But even then, for 5.56, the primary damage mechanism is from bullet fragmentation: between the bullet being fairly long and thin, and high velocity of impact, the bullet literally gets torn apart, but the resulting pieces still retain most of kinetic energy. Except now, each piece, being irregular, travels on its own random trajectory, creating numerous small wound channels in strong proximity, which then collapse into one large wound cavity. But, again, this is mostly a function of bullet velocity and construction (e.g. presence or absence of cannelure), not caliber as such.
Wow! I should've heeded your NSFW warning. That was very disturbing.
5 hours ago [-]
6 hours ago [-]
catlover76 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jader201 5 hours ago [-]
Should these even be shared?
I mean, people are watching (I haven't) and wishing they hadn't.
nickthegreek 5 hours ago [-]
Yes. People should have the choice to watch and understand what political violence. This is a powerful video and one that I don’t recommend everyone watch (that is a personal choice). If you are a person who has chosen to cheer on political violence, then I do suggest you watch. It’s is important to have a clear understanding of what that entails and the realities of that choice.
jader201 5 hours ago [-]
Fair points. I guess some level of uneasiness can be a good thing for some folks.
But I also recognize it can possibly trigger anxiety (overwhelming, in some cases) for some folks, even if you don't realize that it might (until it's too late).
Not suggesting we turn to censorship. But at the same time, I guess I'm mostly looking out for folks that may not be aware of the effects it could possibly have (e.g. naive and/or not taking warnings seriously enough).
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5 hours ago [-]
Others are watching and expressing interest. I have similarly chosen not to watch the video, which is the responsible choice for me if I think I will find it disturbing (I probably will).
6 hours ago [-]
ibaikov 5 hours ago [-]
He kicked back hard, so the shooter was using a powerful rifle, I suppose a sniper rifle. Wound is huge, not a pistol wound.
He was shot in the neck because the shooter is amateur and didn't account for the bullet drop on this distance.
lm28469 5 hours ago [-]
This isn't call of duty, a basic hunting rifle will do the same holes as a "sniper rifle"
ibaikov 4 hours ago [-]
I did not say it was something like an m82. I just wanted to say I believe it wasn't a pistol.
poszlem 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
slater 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
irl_zebra 5 hours ago [-]
Of course not, as far as I can tell they don't even have the perpetrator in custody. It's unfortunately normal for the extremes on either side to immediately accuse the extremes of the other side of being guilty when something like this happens.
poszlem 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
slater 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
zaps 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wnevets 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jsheard 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Ajedi32 5 hours ago [-]
"Give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, 1775
Same sentiment. For a lot of people, freedom is more valuable than even life itself.
k099 4 hours ago [-]
The difference is, Henry was only offering himself.
jadamson 21 minutes ago [-]
> "Give me liberty or give me death!" is a quotation attributed to American politician and orator Patrick Henry from a speech he made to the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia. Henry is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the convention to pass a resolution delivering Virginian troops for the Revolutionary War.
Were the troops his clones?
dionian 5 hours ago [-]
I agree with Henry
4 hours ago [-]
kristofferR 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
firesteelrain 5 hours ago [-]
Why are comments like this exact quote being posted everywhere?
FireBeyond 4 hours ago [-]
Kirk felt that preventable gun deaths were an acceptable cost to the continuation of the Second Amendment.
This time, it was he that fell victim to a preventable gun death. No more, no less.
laverya 4 hours ago [-]
Even California and Hawaii don't ban hunting rifles. Same with Australia and the UK. Can you name a single country that totally bans the ownership of all firearms and enforces it? Would you like to live there?
(The rifle used isn't known yet, but only one shot was fired)
FireBeyond 37 minutes ago [-]
Interesting choice of countries - as someone who was actually born in the UK, grew up in Australia, and now lives in the US, I have no idea what the relevance of those details has to what I said.
I merely remarked that someone else considered preventable gun deaths an acceptable cost to what he considered as sacrosanct. Well, tragic as his death is, I'm not the one who considered it an acceptable cost.
twixfel 3 hours ago [-]
OK but these assassinations an assassination attempts are happening in the US, not the UK.
laverya 3 hours ago [-]
Agreed, but the difference in the use of rifles in assassination attempts between the US and UK/EU/AUS/etc can't purely be because of a lack of gun control in the US if the same rifles are available in those other countries too. (semiautomatic military style rifles like used in the first attempt on Trump are almost always more restricted overseas, but again this was only a single shot and could easily have been from a bolt-action rifle)
yacthing 5 hours ago [-]
It's a form of "I told you so". It's insensitive, but probably appropriate given the importance of moving forward gun control efforts.
dpkirchner 4 hours ago [-]
I'm tired of us non-right-wingers being expected to be more sensitive.
typeofhuman 4 hours ago [-]
Gun control efforts never prevent gun crime.
cosmicgadget 4 hours ago [-]
> While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.
yacthing 4 hours ago [-]
What's your definition of "prevent"?
Eliminate? Of course it doesn't. Especially in a country with 400 million guns already out there.
Reduce? Of course it does.
faku812 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bobsomers 3 hours ago [-]
It's pretty hard to kill 40 people in 5 seconds with a knife.
4 hours ago [-]
idontwantthis 4 hours ago [-]
Show me a knife that can kill at 200 yds.
yacthing 4 hours ago [-]
Wow, I didn't expect to see so many disingenuous right-wing talking points on HN.
dyauspitr 4 hours ago [-]
Because it’s ironic since by his own admission his death is is acceptable and not a big deal.
5 hours ago [-]
slt2021 5 hours ago [-]
its not the 2nd amendment that killed him, it is political violence.
Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. Remember, it is only law abiding citizens who are affected by the gun laws. Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment
joshlemer 4 hours ago [-]
> Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment.
This is kind of an argument from tautology that is disconnected to reality. In the real world, supply of criminality and violence is elastic, if you raise the cost, you lower the amount supplied. Crimes and violence committed are affected by committers having the opportunity and tenacity to do so. If you erect more barriers to achieving it, make it less convenient or straight forward to do it, you'll deter some percentage of violence/criminality who just give up or don't make it past the hurdle or whatever.
Otherwise, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, we could get a whole bunch of dumb conclusions, like:
We should just abolish auditing and other anti-corruption accountability mechanisms. By definition, cheats don't need to follow the law, so auditing doesn't catch them, it just imposes extra paperwork on law-abiding citizens!
seanmcdirmid 5 hours ago [-]
> Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws.
Definitely, considering what is happening in Nepal ATM. However, some kind of ban on gun supply (not just controlling them) definitely has an impact on your country's murder rate. You can't just expect 20 million guns produced in the USA for consumers not to get in the hands of people who want to do bad things with them. Really, I would be happy if they just lowered that number a lot (to say 1 million) without any other gun control laws, the murder rate across the whole continent would fall.
slt2021 5 hours ago [-]
or just jail criminals El Salvador style. Bukele showed us that having a high crime environment is a policy choice, an explicit policy chosen by the government
seanmcdirmid 5 hours ago [-]
Police state measures are only temporary, El Salvador can't sustain a 2% incarceration rate forever.
pjc50 4 hours ago [-]
Doesn't the US have something like a 3% incarceration rate already, for years?
seanmcdirmid 4 hours ago [-]
You just have to use search no?
El Salvador:
Rate: Over 1,000 per 100,000 residents as of early 2024, with a specific rate of 1,659 per 100,000 in March 2024.
USA:
The U.S. incarceration rate was approximately 541 per 100,000 residents in 2022, with nearly two million people in state or federal prisons and local jails. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate among independent democracies and is home to the world's largest prison population.
(we don't get a rate for 2024, but it probably hasn't grown much since then)
wpm 4 hours ago [-]
Is it sustainable?
crooked-v 4 hours ago [-]
Criminals, plus the other (and this is a very lowball number) 50,000+ people incarcerated for life with no due process. El Salvador has incarcated 2.5% of the entire adult population, most of those in sham mass trials where an entire group of people get marched through the same kangaroo court with no individual legal process.
yepitwas 2 hours ago [-]
One of the most popular arguments in favor of the necessity of the second amendment as an individual (not collective) right is precisely so ordinary people can engage in political violence.
The current president even suggested doing so was ok, in his first campaign, naming the amendment in the process. (Anyone who was paying attention at the time and noticed this didn’t immediately end his campaign like it definitely would have in any prior election in living memory, should have been able to guess we were about to have a spike in political violence)
There’s no “defense of liberty” justification for the individual right to bear arms that isn’t also saying “political violence is sometimes necessary”.
(I happen to think that justification’s silly, personally—I’m not endorsing it)
cm2187 4 hours ago [-]
particularly if he was killed indeed with a hunting rifle. You can find those in pretty much any country.
4 hours ago [-]
esarbe 5 hours ago [-]
What makes you think this was political violence?
bdhe 5 hours ago [-]
> Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws.
If a simplistic definition of political violence is targeted killings of political leaders, then this is trivially false. Look at Europe, Australia and other countries with comparable statistics to US and look at the number of events you'd classify as political violence. It is likely zero. The only person I can think of from recent memory is Shinzo Abe.
In the US alone, thanks to no gun control, we have attempts at Presidential candidates, and successful killings of state-level law makers, CEOs, and now, political influencers.
4 hours ago [-]
slt2021 5 hours ago [-]
>>thanks to no gun control
talking about gun control as a form of solution is talking about spilled milk under the bridge. There are 100 guns per capita in the US and even if gun sales are banned, the black market will be enough to supply guns for another century
01100011 5 hours ago [-]
Por que no los dos?
evelant 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mapontosevenths 5 hours ago [-]
> Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " - The US Constitution
Neither do private citizens.
What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane."
It means what it says, not what some gun owners like to pretend it says and the simple truth is that making them harder to get does actually reduce crime every single time it's been tried.
jandrewrogers 5 hours ago [-]
The definition of "militia" has been explicitly written into US law since the 18th century, you don't need to guess at its meaning. It essentially includes every able-bodied male and explicitly recognizes that this militia exists separate from any "organized" militia. Being part of the militia is not an exclusive club, a large percentage of all Americans are a member as a matter of law.
That said, I would argue that the definition should be updated to include women as well.
mapontosevenths 5 hours ago [-]
Actually, lets let James Madison (who wrote the amendment) explain what a militia is:
Madison said "the advantage of being armed," together with "the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
You will note that the 18th century is quite some time AFTER the constitution was drafted.
zamadatix 4 hours ago [-]
I often get the indexing confused myself - the 18th century is the 1700s.
mapontosevenths 4 hours ago [-]
You are right of course. Thanks for explaining rather than just downvoting.
skulk 5 hours ago [-]
This is off-topic, but it always amuses me that the sentence isn't even a grammatically correct construction in English, and I don't think it was in the 1770s or whenever this was written.
- A well regulated Militia: noun phrase,
- being necessary to the security of a free State: parenthetical phrase,
- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: another noun phrase
- shall not be: verb
- infringed: adjective
Two consecutive noun phrases separated by a parenthetical is not valid English grammar. The only time I can imagine you'd see consecutive noun phrases is as part of a list of at least 3 elements (like "x, y, and z"), but there is no list here.
dexterdog 5 hours ago [-]
> What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear?
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unclear? If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part.
> Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane."
What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation?
mapontosevenths 4 hours ago [-]
> What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation?
Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw?
>If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part.
I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written.
WillPostForFood 5 hours ago [-]
It is unclear, it is easy to misread using inaccurate modern interpretation of the words.
well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time
militia = everyone, all citizens. In counterpoint to the army, professional paid soldiers.
mapontosevenths 5 hours ago [-]
> well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time
No it doesn't. Even then that usage was uncommon. This is something later scholars made up to justify their position.
5 hours ago [-]
HaZeust 5 hours ago [-]
Heller put your claims to sleep. For better or worse, this ideologue lost.
mapontosevenths 5 hours ago [-]
It did, but it was a politically motivated decision that had most serious scholars without an agenda agree was flawed. Scalia decided to treat the miltia bit as if it were entirely prefatory, which of course begs the question "why did the put it in there if they didn't mean it?"
Again, common sense says that it means what it says and you don't get to ignore the bits you don't like.
ohdeargodno 4 hours ago [-]
"I can't stand the word empathy. I think empathy is a made up new age term that does a lot of damage" -- Charlie Kirk, who would be very angry at your condolences apparently.
But then again, when it comes to quoting a culture war grifter, you can find a lot of stupid ass quotes.
slg 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Hammershaft 5 hours ago [-]
I don't agree with Kirk's politics but it really doesn't take much effort to recognize that no, he didn't say he wanted to live in a country with gun violence. I think an honest interpretation is that he valued the freedom to own guns, despite recognizing that freedom might result in violence or death.
dijit 5 hours ago [-]
i think you’re both saying the same thing here.
Gun violence doesn’t just happen to other people, it happens randomly and to anyone, even those who choose not to own guns.
Pointing out the irony that he died because of gun violence despite stating that gun violence is an acceptable cost is mean spirited and insensitive in the moment, but not incorrect.
He advocated for circumstances for which this could happen, he probably just assumed it would never happen to him.
slg 5 hours ago [-]
I didn’t say Kirk wants this to happen, I said he wants to live in a country in which this happens. He knew gun violence was a trade off for the policies in which he advocated and he was willing to make that trade.
ImJamal 5 hours ago [-]
He didn't wish for stuff like this to happen. He was saying that the 2nd amendment is more important than losing it even if some people die as a result.
This is no different than many of us who think that the 1st amendment is worth retaining even if people use it to hire hitman or coordinate kidnappings and what not.
slg 5 hours ago [-]
Part of the problem with defining the 2nd amendment as a defense against tyranny, like Kirk did, is that none of us have any control over how one crazy individual defines tyranny. I don’t fear what that hypothetical crazy individual can do with their 1st amendment rights, but I do fear what they can do with their 2nd amendment rights.
ImJamal 5 hours ago [-]
> I don’t fear what that hypothetical crazy individual can do with their 1st amendment rights
Plenty of people use free speech to do bad things. Look at Trump using his rhetoric to get into power. Or outside the US you can see all sorts of crazy leaders gaining power.
slg 4 hours ago [-]
Sorry, I’m not going to follow you down this path. Violence is more dangerous than words. It’s one of the first lessons we all learn as kids, sticks and stones…
ImJamal 4 hours ago [-]
I'm not saying that words are more dangerous. I'm saying that allowing certain speech can lead to violence yet many of us would still like to protect free speech.
slg 4 hours ago [-]
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. Inciting violence is not protected speech.
ImJamal 2 hours ago [-]
I'm talking about indirect calls to violence that are protected. Trump's rhetoric, despite an explicit statement to not break the law, led to January 6th.
4 hours ago [-]
klaff 5 hours ago [-]
What does the first amendment have to do with hiring a hit man?
ImJamal 5 hours ago [-]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. People support encryption saying they have the right to private communication and algorithms are protected under the first amendment. People use encrypted communication to do unsavory things like hiring hitmen, viewing child porn, etc.
jakeinspace 4 hours ago [-]
Neither of those things are considered protected speech, and you can be imprisoned for conspiracy to commit kidnapping/murder even if neither actually occur.
ImJamal 2 hours ago [-]
And murder is against the law and not a proper use of the 2nd amendment. My point is that people can abuse their rights to do bad things. We don't use people doing bad things with their speech to remove the 1st amendment.
aj7 5 hours ago [-]
The entire right banks in the fact that the left has a passivist mentality in the U.S. That said, when the left is violent, they are brutally suppressed.
criddell 4 hours ago [-]
The last time the NRA fought for gun control (AFAIK) is in response to Black Panther open carrying back in the 1960’s.
cyclecount 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
redwood 3 hours ago [-]
What kind of garbage is this
hersko 3 hours ago [-]
Kirk was a massive supporter of Israel. Hinklle is literally a crazy person. You cannot honestly believe this.
Tankenstein 4 hours ago [-]
This person posts large amounts of misinformation, best not to read into it.
aynyc 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Levitz 5 hours ago [-]
You don't deserve death just because you justify a situation in which some people die.
If a person is against, say, laws against tobacco, that person doesn't deserve lung cancer. If a person argues for leniency on criminals, they don't deserve to be murdered.
I am baffled that I have to explain this. I don't think you understand the logic you are defending or its consequences.
voxl 4 hours ago [-]
It's irony not an argument. From people that refuse to acknowledge that gun laws need to be changed and have a brain rot interpretation of the 2nd amendment in an age where a supreme Court is treating the document more like guidelines.
FireBeyond 4 hours ago [-]
There was no statement of deserving.
Kirk felt that preventable gun deaths were an acceptable cost to the continuation of the Second Amendment.
He fell victim to a preventable gun death. No more, no less.
aynyc 4 hours ago [-]
It's irony.
s1mplicissimus 4 hours ago [-]
Where did you read about deserving?
Kirk didn't believe he was going to be affected by the open gun policies he supported and now he died due to not fully unrelated causes. Pointing that out doesn't imply thinking he deserved it.
Aeglaecia 4 hours ago [-]
as much as one can assume the intent of having posted a quote, a quote in isolation is factual
lab14 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
soupbowl 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lab14 3 hours ago [-]
That's one way of seeing it, but antagonizing and alienating a big portion of the general population like blacks, immigrants, gays, trans and everyone who doesn't share your same religious views, in a country where teenagers can get easy access to assault rifles, might be a bit dangerous to say the least.
Quarrelsome 3 hours ago [-]
this left/right idea is part of the tribal divide and leads to people thinking this sort of thing is ok. Consider a different framing.
In this case, an individual shot someone. Its not like a political party was calling for his murder.
cmdli 3 hours ago [-]
I think this is disingenuous. Charlie Kirk's content was specifically around "triggering the libs". He deliberately tried to make people angry, not looking to make any kind of common ground for discussion.
osrec 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
draw_down 5 hours ago [-]
[dead]
OCASMv2 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ch4s3 4 hours ago [-]
I really hate the use of this phrase, it lacks specificity and has a sort of unknown unknowns quality whereby we are meant to believe that some speaker utters vilification until some threshold is met and some unknowable person will be impelled to violence. It feels like one of those concepts that oozes out of intelligence connected think tanks and into the discourse. It completely lacks any predictive power and is entirely about crafting narratives around lone actors committing political violence.
retox 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cranberryturkey 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dbg31415 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mandeepj 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
garbthetill 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Sparkle-san 6 hours ago [-]
Most of us don't understand it either. The majority of citizens support some degree of gun control reform and yet congress refuses to act. And even if they did, it seems like the supreme court has decided to interpret the 2nd amendment in such an obtuse manner that any reform at all would likely be unconstitutional.
nomel 4 hours ago [-]
> Most of us don't understand it either.
No, this is completely false, for the general population [1]:
> Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?
> 2024 Oct 1-12: Yes: 20% No: 79% No opinion: 1%
Your next sentence
> The majority of citizens support some degree of gun control reform and yet congress refuses to act.
is somewhat true, at 56%. But, this question involves things like more restrictions for those with mental illness, criminal backgrounds, etc. Any conclusion about this question must understand how broad it is, and have the 79% support of gun ownership, above, in mind. See the rest of the results for a more wholistic perspective.
> No, this is completely false, for the general population [1]:
> But this is true, at 56%, with caveats
Yeah, that's why I said some degree of control instead of "a majority supports completely banning handguns".
iugtmkbdfil834 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
quamserena 6 hours ago [-]
Tyranny of the majority is bad, so instead we have a few ten thousand people in PA decide the fate of the country for everyone.
Sparkle-san 6 hours ago [-]
The only thing worse than tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority.
iugtmkbdfil834 6 hours ago [-]
Is it when it does or when it does not benefit your particular position on whatever issue? I am not being difficult, I am tryign to understand your frame of mind. It is possible you are already too far gone.
Sparkle-san 5 hours ago [-]
It's when the minority functionally has more rights/say in things than the majority. Take the electoral college for instance, I consider the fact that you could win an election with only 23% of the population voting for you makes it fundamentally flawed and should be removed.
The same can be said for how we distribute seats in the senate and house. The difference in population between the largest and smallest state when the constitution was ratified was around 12x. It's now 70x and I consider that to be unacceptable in terms of weight of power wielded by those smaller states.
iugtmkbdfil834 5 hours ago [-]
Interesting. If you know how this country was created, you likely know why senate looks the way it looks and why house looks the way it looks. If you are suggesting update, it is well within your rights to argue for that change. However, there are enough people, who think it is important to keep senate seats limited.
I obviously disagree with you on civics, but what would you suggest? I already think there is way too much concentrated power ( I absolutely do not want it ruled by biggest available mob per given state ), but I think we disagree over why.
Can you tell me why that is?
hnpolicestate 6 hours ago [-]
It's more like tyranny of inalienable rights which is a good thing in my opinion. Every society should have a bill of rights that the public nor state can't change. That's how you protect against fascism.
Sparkle-san 5 hours ago [-]
If our bill of rights was truly immutable, slavery would still be legal and women wouldn't be able to vote. Doesn't sound like protecting against fascism to me.
hnpolicestate 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dang 2 hours ago [-]
We've banned this account. You can't post like this here, regardless of who you're attacking.
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.
Sparkle-san 5 hours ago [-]
Boy howdy, that escalated quickly
dingnuts 6 hours ago [-]
I can explain it in one sentence. I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with guns in this country.
Sparkle-san 6 hours ago [-]
That doesn't preclude things with bipartisan support like:
- uniform background checks including private purchase
- waiting periods
- red flag laws
- raising the age to 21
swarnie 6 hours ago [-]
They can nuke you from orbit with the click of a button, nothing you can acquire legal or otherwise can prevent that if they so wish.
skellington 6 hours ago [-]
I know you're just willfully dumb, but other people reading might think you actually have a point.
No army in the world including the US could stop a civilian uprising of even a million people who have just rifles and the will to fight. They don't need nukes, tanks, or airplanes. If a large enough percentage of people, say 2% of the population, decided to fight a civil war, the US army/gov would fall in a few months if the rebels knew what they were doing.
It would be a guerilla war. And all of the critical infrastructure in the US could be destroyed in a month. No gas. No electricity. Smaller uprisings would be easily squashed.
Now, would this ever happen? Unlikely. Americans can barely get their fat asses out of bed much less do military operations for weeks at a time. Things would have to get incredibly bad and a leader would have to organize it. But it is possible.
alchemical_piss 5 hours ago [-]
My problem with this thought is that a civil war = government forces vs cilivilan militias.
I imagine it more a weakened government (but still with a functioning military) supported by civilian militias backing the government, versus various large and small insurgencies possibly with foreign backing.
Sparkle-san 6 hours ago [-]
I mean, don't color me surprised if a civilian uses a drone to commit an act of violence in the future. We're on the precipice of autonomous drone assassinations.
vel0city 5 hours ago [-]
I take it they'll use a nuke to get this shooter then?
No?
They'll use it on the next one then?
No?
The US practially isn't going to use nukes on the US. Its practically not going to use nukes on pretty much anyone.
yfw 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
brendoelfrendo 6 hours ago [-]
I don’t mean to be snarky or insensitive, but it is really ironic to ask that question in a thread discussing the assassination of a far-right political figure.
delecti 6 hours ago [-]
I agree with your point, but lets not get ahead of ourselves; it's currently only an attempted assassination.
wredcoll 6 hours ago [-]
Hahaha. You're right, that is a funny context.
6 hours ago [-]
lazide 6 hours ago [-]
You know they quite literally have the worlds largest nuclear arsenal, yes?
ilkhan4 6 hours ago [-]
This argument is always kind of silly to me. You really think they'd use a weapon of mass destruction just to take out a few people they don't like? On their home soil? I mean, I find myself being surprised by Trump daily, but still... It's far more likely that they'd use more surgical means, like the ICE raids, to root out people they don't like. In that case, I'd say being armed would make at least somewhat of a difference, or at least give pause.
Some guys with AK-47s kept the world's most powerful military pretty busy for 20 years, so I wouldn't underestimate the value of a few rifles against authoritarianism.
lazide 5 hours ago [-]
Do you think they’d bother shooting anyone themselves?
Either of these situations are going to be stochastic and with difficult attribution.
And don’t forget - they want a degree of unhinged shooting back, it feeds the authoritarian tendencies and ‘justifies’ the increasingly unhinged violent responses.
Flere-Imsaho 6 hours ago [-]
> I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with guns in this country.
How about: "I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with tanks in this country."
Are you going to buy some tanks? How about F35s?
objektif 6 hours ago [-]
I would have agreed with you but look at what is happening in some Asian countries right now. Imagine a situation where the thugs knock on your door with their guns. I will probably never own guns but there is an argument to make.
dylan604 6 hours ago [-]
When those thugs show up at your door with all of the weapons drawn and at the ready, what do you think you and your little hand gun or even riffle are going to do? Wound the first person at the door before you get lit up? To what purpose?
dylan604 6 hours ago [-]
> you US guys can live in an environment were your next door neighbor, the person beside you in the supermarket etc can carry a lethal weapon that can end your life.
Something to consider is that even though one can, the vast majority do not. Typically, the only time I see people utilizing their right to open carry are the exact types of people you think would do that. They are a very small number in the real world. However, they get so much attention that it distorts the perception that everyone does it. I'm certain there are more people carrying concealed weapons than I pay attention to, but it's not like it is the Old West where you have to leave your weapons outside before entering the saloon.
If this is how you think it is, then you have fallen for the hype machine. Yes, lots of people own weapons. Some of those people own lots of weapons. Only a small number of them carry like you seem to think.
Most of the mass shooting events are not these open carry types. That seems to also confuse things
greedo 6 hours ago [-]
Florida has 2.3 million people with CCP. Roughly 10%.
California has roughly 70k, less than .5%.
Texas has 1.5 million, 7.4%.
again, just because you are permitted/licensed does not mean that you do all of the time. there are enough places where it is posted that you are not allowed inside if you are carrying. people often get it so that if they ever need to they can, but not that they will 100% of the time
a lot of people in Texas do not bother with a conceal permit because it is already an open carry state yet the vast majority of people do not walk around with a pistol on their hip or a rifle slung on their chest.
Etheryte 6 hours ago [-]
The comment you're replying to doesn't say anything about open vs conceal carry, that's completely irrelevant to the point.
dylan604 6 hours ago [-]
"the person beside you in the supermarket etc can carry a lethal weapon that can end your life."
not really sure what comment you read, but you clearly didn't read the one I replied to
That quote doesn't say anything about open or conceal carry. It simply says people own guns, nothing about how they carry them on their person.
dylan604 4 hours ago [-]
There’s only two ways of carrying a weapon; open or concealed. Not really sure what you’re driving at here, nor the why.
jahsome 6 hours ago [-]
Where I live there is a non zero number of establishments with weapon lockers in front.
non_aligned 6 hours ago [-]
I'm not here to defend the US, but here's one way to look at it: the death toll of alcohol abuse is much higher, so how can one conceivably defend a society that allows its consumption? Almost everywhere in the West, the answer is basically "we like it, we like the freedom of being able to drink, and it's an acceptable price if tens of thousands of people die".
It's essentially the same thing, except unique to the US. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but your exasperation is essentially the same as my exasperation, as a non-drinker, that I or my children can be randomly killed by someone driving under the influence - and everyone is somehow kinda OK with that.
insane_dreamer 6 hours ago [-]
> The death toll of alcohol abuse is much higher
It's much higher because of the US unique car culture and car-centric infrastructure:
14.2 deaths / 100K inhabitants in the US
4.8 / 100K in France
3.35 / 100K in Germany (despite autobahns)
2.1 / 100K in Japan
Sure, drinking is a problem. But people drink in other countries too (as much or more). But they don't have to drive a car everywhere because they have more sensible infrastructure.
Let's compare with the homocide rate in the US:
5.9 - 6.8 / 100K (depending on source)
Yes, that's half the car fatality rate, but not all car fatalities are due to alcohol abuse.
But the big takeaway is that you have 3 times as much chance of dying from a gun in the US as dying from a car in Japan.
varjag 6 hours ago [-]
Am also in Europe but consider how as a pedestrian you're passed by hundreds drivers daily each of whom can end your life any moment at a whim. Not saying that weapons carry is a great idea just explaining how it works.
valec 6 hours ago [-]
it's material conditions that lead to violence, not the tools.
sure tools make it easier, but gun control didn't stop the pm of japan from getting assassinated.
if people weren't so desperate, polarized, and angry, i would bet my entire life's savings gun deaths would be decimated
There is no but. There are 700x more gun homicides in the US vs the UK, with just 5x the population. You are the only developed country in the world where active shooter response training is a thing. Tools do make it easier, so it should be hard to get them, especially when they are specifically made for no other use than killing people.
happytoexplain 6 hours ago [-]
Why not both?
cosmicgadget 6 hours ago [-]
If only there were some evidence that things happen more frequently when they are easier to do.
TimorousBestie 6 hours ago [-]
Shinzo Abe was shot with an improvised firearm, not a gun.
Like, he built it out of PVC and duct tape and random parts. He didn’t buy a legal weapon, and he didn’t obtain a consumer firearm illegally.
objektif 6 hours ago [-]
This is not a good argument. How many people in Japan die from gun shots in a typical year. Tools are absolutely the problem. With that many craY guns out in the US you are simply significantly increasing chances of shit happening.
standardly 6 hours ago [-]
Your next door neighbor already can end your life, though. Believe it or not, a gun is not the only way to kill someone. The question is, do you trust your neighbor (or do they have a life-long history of mental health issues, bullying, extreme politcal views, etc)
TheBigSalad 6 hours ago [-]
We like the added sense of danger.
briandw 6 hours ago [-]
About 20% of the male population of Switzerland keeps an assault rile at home.
elil17 6 hours ago [-]
There's an attitude of, to quote Charlie Kirk, "It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment."
FergusArgyll 6 hours ago [-]
It's a cultural thing & very hard to explain to people outside it. Imagine banning cheese and wine in France or something. For a very large part of America that's what its like
HaZeust 6 hours ago [-]
It genuinely comes down to an American belief that "the individual is the primary unit" and must be equipped with tools to secure his safety, security, and well-being through his own actions. ALL of the idealogues around gun ownership loop around this single virtue. To take several examples:
- "When seconds matter, police take minutes"
- "Guns are the last line of defense against tyranny"
- "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
- "Your home, your property, and your family must be your right to protect"
throwaway-blaze 6 hours ago [-]
To some degree, it comes from the same reason high speed rail doesn't work here in the US while it's a pleasure in Europe. The vast majority of places in this country are truly out in the sticks, and defending yourself from wildlife or humans with bad intent are real worries. In our cities, we have gun control laws similar to Europe.
Open and concealed carry, both unlicensed, extremely common in Phoenix which is the 5th largest city in the USA. 3d print yourself a frame, mail order the unregulated parts, stick it down your waistband, and you are legally good to go.
defrost 6 hours ago [-]
It's true Sweden has a gun homicide rate more than seven times lower than the US.
It's also true that seat belts don't prevent road deaths.
carom 6 hours ago [-]
Interesting interpreting those as individualist. First can be read as a concern for family. Second is community and society. Third is also protection of community, you would be making a choice to intervene (an individual would leave). Fourth also is not the individual but again, family.
HaZeust 5 hours ago [-]
It's the right to have a capacity for individual action, which is expected to be exercised for the good of society - this has been an original premise for as long as Western Originalism has been a thing. Locke advocated for individual capacity for action, and believed people enter into social contracts to protect those rights for themselves and others. Rousseauist beliefs include the idea that liberties exist within the context of serving the common good.
throwway120385 6 hours ago [-]
Yeah. As an American these arguments are really absurd though. When was the last time a lone hero with a gun stopped gun violence? I think those arguments are really just the gun companies trying to market this idea of the "lone individual" as a hero protecting their personal space. It helps them sell more guns. But when the rubber meets the road, a "good guy" packing is more likely to shoot a bystander than an assailant.
The marketing seemingly appeals to men on the same grounds as video games -- there's some great protagonist who saves everyone with their powerful and timely shooting.
My man was only 22 year old, no CCW license, even broke the rules of the mall and carried anyway. And he smoked a mall shooter before he could barely even get started, with a pistol from like 60 feet away.
throwaway-blaze 6 hours ago [-]
That simply isn't true and the statistics on "good guys with guns" do not show that they are more likely to shoot a bystander. I dont; want everyone on the street packing, either, but at least use real info to make arguments.
HaZeust 6 hours ago [-]
In a country that has more guns than people, you ought to have more faith in humanity when gun violence isn't nearly as high as you would think.
throwway120385 4 hours ago [-]
Are you asking me to accept a country where parents have to consider sending their kid to school in a bullet proof backpack because the school shootings are a matter of course? How high should I be willing to accept? Should I be okay with shootings in traffic, or at bars, or at concerts?
What do you think should be done about that? Should I just accept that my son might not live to adulthood because some maladjusted kid gets a rifle from their parents and decides to start shooting their classmates? This is the only country in the world where that regularly happens.
6 hours ago [-]
jleyank 6 hours ago [-]
If guns are the last defense against tyranny then they bloody well better get to work. Unless that was all BS and they’re on tyranny’s side.
Thought I’d provide a follow on. They could make noise, protest, support court cases, criticize politicians, …. All short of actually using the arms. Crickets.
Exactly, you can't just change the law or constitution. You can but it wouldn't do anything.
Fact is the cat is out of the bag. FGC-9 can be 3d printed and the barrel and bolt carrier made out of unregulated parts available anywhere with shipping access to China, or with a bit more effort anyplace with a lathe.
Gun powder is more an issue, but even then black powder is easy enough to make and with electronics can be ignited electrically without any sort of special cap or primer.
It can be culturally changed, but even then, if the criminal culture doesn't changed -- now you have a bunch of criminals with guns smiling that the rest of people are disarmed.
mlinhares 6 hours ago [-]
Its not a cultural thing, its marketing, this did not exist, it was completely created out of thin air. Americans were not buying assault rifles and posing with guns out of the army, people have been made to believe this is normal, natural and "cultural" and its absolutely not.
DonHopkins 6 hours ago [-]
“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death ... 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.”
I'm sure when he said that, he never thought he'd be the one paying for that right. Would be interesting to see if this does or does not affect that stance
DonHopkins 5 hours ago [-]
He spent his last words ignorantly arguing against transgendered Americans and gun control.
Audience member: “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”
Kirk: “Too many.”
The same audience member went on say the number is five, and proceeded to ask if Kirk knows how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years.
Kirk: “Counting or not counting gang violence?”
Seconds later, the sound of a pop is heard and the crowd screams as Kirk gets shot and recoils in his seat.
Remember: The vast majority of mass attacks in the US have no connection to transgender people. From January 2013 to the present, of the more than 5,700 mass shootings in America (defined as four or more victims shot and killed), five shooters were confirmed as transgender, said Mark Bryant, founding executive director of the Gun Violence Archive.
ToucanLoucan 6 hours ago [-]
It's really not that large. A lot of people need guns; folks who live in super remote areas where wildlife needs managing, folks who enjoy actual hunting, but these types of gunowners are generally fine filling out their paperwork and getting licensed. They see guns as tools.
Then there are the ammosexuals and they're the ones that honestly scare the shit out of me and need their guns confiscated. Like I'm all for the purchase and enjoyment of stupid shit, God knows I own my share of things other people would call ridiculous; but guns are unique in that inflicting harm to others is literally why they exist. It's the only reason you'd have one, and the way these guys (and it is far and away mostly guys) talk with GLEE about the notion of being able to legally kill someone for breaking into their houses... if I wasn't already a hermit, this shit would make me one.
dfxm12 6 hours ago [-]
I get the good guy vs bad guy with a gun argument
I don't. People are rarely objectively good or bad. Good people can have a bad day. Good people can have a drink or two and turn into bad people. Good people can have their guns stolen from them by bad people. Good people can leave their guns unlocked where their children can find them and do who knows what with them. etc.
yfw 6 hours ago [-]
Best place to live? Surely youre imagining the nice cities and not Mississippi
packetlost 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
mythrwy 6 hours ago [-]
Rural Mississippi is great if you like that kind of thing. I do.
axiolite 6 hours ago [-]
> the person beside you in the supermarket etc can carry a lethal weapon that can end your life.
You're referring to a steak knife, correct?
_moof 6 hours ago [-]
> America is...objectively the best place to live in the world rn
I'm American and a frequent international traveler, and I could not disagree more. Almost every other country I've been to has been superior in every way that truly matters. The only reason I stay here is because I don't want to abandon my loved ones.
objektif 6 hours ago [-]
Can you name a few of those countries?
GuinansEyebrows 6 hours ago [-]
not GP but... thailand, ireland and the netherlands come to mind.
umanwizard 5 hours ago [-]
Economic development matters. We can't say Thailand is better than the US in every way that matters when it's a much poorer country than the US.
Of course, maybe Thailand is better than the US in some or even a lot of the ways that matter, but not all of them.
GDP per capita (PPP):
Thailand: 26323, USA: 89105
GDP per capita (nominal):
Thailand: 7767, USA: 89105
Human Development Index:
Thailand: 0.798, USA: 0.938
s1artibartfast 2 hours ago [-]
Being a rich American with a top US salary and living in Thailand mitigates many of the downsides seen by poor Thai.
elil17 6 hours ago [-]
>America is an amazing country & objectively the best place to live in the world rn
Really? By what objective metric? Certainly in the top 50%, but the best?
llm_nerd 6 hours ago [-]
"objectively the best place to live in the world rn"
I feel like you were just patronizing the crowd and this is pablum, but the US is one of the angriest, most dissatisfied countries on the planet. It always does poorly on happiness metrics, doesn't do great on corruption indexes, and has a median lifespan and child mortality rate more in the developing country range.
In no universe is there an objective reality where it's the best place to live.
But too much is made about deadly weapons. Every one of us has access to knives. Most of us drive 5000lb vehicles, with which a flick of the wrist could kill many. We all have infinite choices in our life that could take lives.
But we don't, because ultimately there are social issues at play that are simply more important than access to weapons. Loads of countries have access to weapons and it doesn't translate in murder rate at all.
I've literally seen old dudes with a rifle slung over their shoulder walking around in an EU country (Czechia)... It's not really about the guns.
NoMoreNicksLeft 5 hours ago [-]
Please outline how you would go about changing policy and removing the approximately 400 million firearms in civilian hands within the US. Ignore any political complications like financial cost, or uncooperative media.
There are people willing to go on murder sprees, and they number in the tens of thousands (or more) if anyone attempts this. Many of them are waiting, nearly holding their breath, hoping that the government tries such a thing. Quite possibly, a few of the mass shootings you've heard of were just those who "jumped the gun" (forgive the expression).
shadowgovt 6 hours ago [-]
Visited Europe a few years back for the first time.
There was a day when I woke up, a few days into the trip, and felt very, very light. Just "weight off my shoulders" lighter. Oddly euphoric.
Took me a few hours to realized that it was the subconscious realization that it was extremely unlikely that anyone around me, for miles and miles, was armed with a gun.
To answer your question: we survive it the same way any human being under perpetual stress survives it. We get on with our day and we don't even notice how bent-out-of-shape we are until and unless we're in a circumstance where we aren't anymore.
nemo44x 6 hours ago [-]
Statistically it’s really not an issue. Most gun violence are suicides and gang violence. Yes it’s there and innocent people get shot on occasion but it’s not a big risk for most people.
6 hours ago [-]
fortyseven 6 hours ago [-]
> ...carry a lethal weapon that can end your life.
I'm not promoting guns by saying this, but that can describe a whole lot of things that aren't even usually designated as weapons.
ajross 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
llm_nerd 6 hours ago [-]
> if you want to assassinate a culture warrior jerkwad at a public event
The root post's comparison was to someone beside you at the supermarket, rather than "sniper at a distance". The capacity to kill is almost universally distributed, it's just that the vast majority of us are not murderers.
But sure, it's actually one of the justifications for the 2nd amendment. Firearms really are sort of an equalizer, and do more equally distribute the risk to even the most powerful.
ajross 6 hours ago [-]
You can't make a targeting killing at a supermarket any easier with your car or cleaning products either. Not sure how that changes the calculus. If you want to kill someone with non-gun products, it's very difficult: the evidence being the notably higher number of gun killings over poisonings or deliberate collisions.
With guns, it's literally just a button push kind of UI. That this is controversial is just insane to me. Every 2A nut knows that guns are effective killing machines, that's why they like guns. Yet we end up in these threads anyway watching people try to deny it.
llm_nerd 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ajross 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
llm_nerd 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ajross 5 hours ago [-]
Please try citing numbers if you want to make a numeric argument. The USA has four times as many guns per capita as Finland. And in fact Finland has a much higher gun death rate that the rest of industrial Europe (about 3-4x that of the UK or Germany, for example), which has fewer guns. Finland is, to be sure, safer than the US, with about half the per-capita-per-gun fatality rate. So sure, you can do better than the US without reducing guns.
But clearly guns are the obviously most important driving variable here, and to argue otherwise is just silly.
llm_nerd 4 hours ago [-]
> The USA has four times as many guns per capita as Finland
42% of US households have one or more guns. 37% of Finland households have one or more guns. That US collectors are aficionados doesn't seem relevant. Access to guns is similar.
> And in fact Finland has a much higher gun death rate
This is an amazing claim given everything we've talked about. Finland's homicide rate is the same as Germany's, and significantly lower than the UK. Do you understand how catastrophic this is for your very argument?
There are more guns so murderous people use them, but murderous people have other methods otherwise, as seen by the UK having over 40% more murders despite having 1/7th the number of households with guns...
JimBlackwood 6 hours ago [-]
While I mostly agree with you, but knives exist and Europe has a huge knife problem. Carrying knives is becoming common under teenagers.
wredcoll 6 hours ago [-]
As has been said repeatedly, lots of countries have various amount of violence depending on a wide variety of factors.
Widespread gun ownership invariably makes the problem much, much, worse.
odo1242 6 hours ago [-]
When compared to guns (everything is relative), it's really hard to kill people with a knife and easier to defend against.
ajross 6 hours ago [-]
> Europe has a huge knife problem
No, it doesn't, not in the context we're talking about. A quick Google says per capita knife deaths in the UK are 4.9/Mpop, gun deaths in the US are one hundred thirty seven per million.
Europe should absolutely solve the "knife problem", sure. But even eliminating it entirely would equate to like a 3% reduction in US deaths. Arguing, as you seem to be, that the US should do nothing because Europe has a comparatively tiny problem seems poorly grounded.
jeffbee 6 hours ago [-]
> the person beside you in the supermarket etc can carry a lethal weapon that can end your life.
On a population-weighted basis, this is not everyday life in America.
cosmicgadget 6 hours ago [-]
It's just a matter of time. After Heller and Bruen it is only a matter of time before local authority is stripped away.
ALittleLight 6 hours ago [-]
First, just from a "danger" standpoint - more people in the EU die from heat than from guns in the US. And roughly 8 times more people die from cold than heat in Europe. So, I would say, that we live in an environment where our neighbors are armed the same way you live in an environment where you're often dangerously hot or cold - i.e. we get used to it.
Second, you can walk or drive on a street. Every passerby in a car could kill you if they wanted to by colliding with you. It rarely happens. Stand next to a tall ledge or overpass with crowds walking by and watch the teeming masses - you're unlikely to see any of the thousands of people walking by leap off to their end. Similarly, in life, even though basically anyone could kill you, it's very rare to encounter someone who is in the process of ending their own life, and killing you would basically end, or severely degrade, their own life. Almost nobody wants to do it.
Charlie Kirk is/was kind of an extreme example. He said many things that severely angered hostile people. He went into big crowds and said provocative things many times before being shot. I think in most situations you have to push pretty hard to get to the point where people are angry enough to shoot at you. If you can avoid dangerous neighborhoods and dangerous professions (drugs and gangs) and dangerous people (especially boyfriends/husbands) then you are pretty unlikely to be shot and you benefit from being able to carry guns or keep guns in your home to protect yourself and your family.
For one example, consider the "Grooming gangs" in the UK, where thousands of men raped thousands of girls for decades with the tacit knowledge/permission of authorities - and despite the pleas of the girls and parents for help. Such a thing could be handled quite differently in a society that was well armed. If the police wouldn't help you, you might settle the matter yourself.
logicchains 6 hours ago [-]
Their argument is that the biggest cause of preventable deaths in the 20th century was governments killing their own citizens (genocides in Nazi Germany, communist Russia and communist China led to over a hundred million deaths), and widespread firearm ownership makes it very hard for that to ever happen in America.
wredcoll 5 hours ago [-]
> widespread firearm ownership makes it very hard for that to ever happen in America
Do you think anyone actually believes that? Or is it just cynical marketing everyone goes along with?
golemiprague 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Swoerd 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
mschuster91 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
archagon 6 hours ago [-]
I guess maybe making the biggest buck (at the expense of everyone else).
hnpolicestate 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Swoerd 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
bdangubic 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
chrisco255 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
like_any_other 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
kyrra 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
colinmorelli 6 hours ago [-]
This narrative isn't helpful. Even in this specific case, it's extremely unlikely anyone would have been able to get close enough to him with a knife to kill him without someone noticing.
Guns allow you to kill 1) multiple people, 2) from a distance, and 3) with nobody aware of the imminent threat.
Of course other weapons can also be used to harm people. Of course no solution is perfect. But it's absolutely incorrect to say "the problem isn't so much the tools." The tools undeniably and irrefutably play a role in every study that has ever been conducted on this topic.
See here for the impact of Australia's gun buyback program, which saw zero mass shootings in a decade after their removal, after 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior the removal, as well as an accelerated decline in firearm deaths and suicides:
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
vlovich123 6 hours ago [-]
While true, Australia reclaimed ~650k guns by 1997 and then another ~70k handguns in 2003. By comparison the US is estimated to have around 400M guns, with law enforcement alone having 5M guns (as the “fast and furious” scandal showed, law enforcement guns often end up in the hands of criminals as well).
I don’t know what the answer is for reclaiming the guns, but I think logistically it’ll be hard to implement in the USA even if there wasn’t bad faith attempts to try to thwart regulation (and arguing that there’s still violence with knives and guns aren’t the problem is definitely bad faith/uneducated arguments)
colinmorelli 6 hours ago [-]
Yeah I'm not suggesting the same process could apply in the US, I'm just trying to aggressively refute the point that guns are not the problem (or, at least, a major component of it). We need to be creative about solutions, but people have to want to find a solution to be creative about them, and right now many do not.
vlovich123 5 hours ago [-]
On that we’re 100% agreed. The science is exceedingly clear that guns are the reason for so much gun violence and mass shootings (which makes sense since without guns you couldn’t have either of those by definition).
carlosjobim 5 hours ago [-]
> it's extremely unlikely anyone would have been able to get close enough to him with a knife to kill him without someone noticing.
What do you mean? If you go to any public place in the world, you can get very close to hundreds of people in a very short time. Knife assassinations happen all the time.
colinmorelli 2 hours ago [-]
> in this specific case
You could have quoted the beginning of the sentence, where the point was about this specific case, and how in this particular case, a gun clearly allowed an assassination that would have been challenging to pull off with a knife.
That is not a way as saying killing someone with a knife is impossible. It's a way of saying that guns allow you to kill people in ways and distances that knives do not.
cluckindan 6 hours ago [-]
The Charlotte attacker was a schizophrenic person who had been in and out of prison. Decades ago, public mental health institutions were closed down and the patients left out on the streets, or given a bus ticket to California.
If you want to have a society, you have to care about and for the people.
dymk 6 hours ago [-]
How many people are killed with a knife every year compared to a gun?
Hint: it's not even close to the number of people killed with a firearm
bluedino 6 hours ago [-]
According to Statista, in the USA, for 2023:
Guns (handguns, rifles, etc): 13,529
Knives or cutting instruments: 1,562
Hands/fists/feet/etc: 659
Clubs/hammers/etc: 317
JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago [-]
> Like knives? Like what happened to the random woman on a train in Charlotte?
How many European politicians are knifed?
The only one I can think of is Amess.
happysadpanda2 5 hours ago [-]
There was also Anna Lindh, Sweden, 2003
homeonthemtn 6 hours ago [-]
Yes and the vast quantity of guns doesn't help.
SirFatty 6 hours ago [-]
Knives don't have bump stocks.
brendoelfrendo 6 hours ago [-]
Knives can’t kill people from 200+ yards away.
yawnr 6 hours ago [-]
Yeah totally you know how people throw thousands of knives from a hotel window and kill a ton of people at a concert? Or at a gay club? Or at a school?
Stop this false equivalence argument, I absolutely despise it
lawlessone 6 hours ago [-]
yes knives are a problem, but they're multipurpose so a lot harder to eliminate. You can't afaik use a gun to cut parsnips.
I can't really think of any situation were someone done something evil with a knife that would have worked out better if that evil person had a gun instead.
kyrra 4 hours ago [-]
My point was replying to the OP who said:
> I dont get how you US guys can live in an environment were your next door neighbor, the person beside you in the supermarket etc can carry a lethal weapon that can end your life.
Knife killing can happen for the every-day citizen that doesn't have a security detail. The OP is scared about the neighbor having a weapon to kill them with... and every household already has one in the kitchen.
If you are scared about being killed in a given society, it's more likely a cultural problem rather than a tool problem. Yes, guns make it easier to do. The question is, why are more people doing it now adays? What changed?
Go back a few decades, and you can find plenty of kids in highschool in the US that would keep rifles in the back of their truck in the school parking lot. They would use those guns to go hunting after school. They weren't being used to shoot eachother.
objektif 6 hours ago [-]
Come on no. You can kill 100s with an AR 15 or whatever. The problem is also with the tools.
kyrra 6 hours ago [-]
Has there been a case where a single person killed hundreds with a gun? The worst I know of is the Vegas shooting, which was 60. There have been mass-stabbings that have reached ~30 people killed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_stabbing#Examples_of_mass...).
yfw 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
nothankyou777 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
oceanplexian 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 6 hours ago [-]
> I get the good guy vs bad guy with a gun argument…
Trump was shot surrounded by (in theory) some of the best-trained armed guards on the planet. Uvalde saw several hundred "good guys with a shitload of guns" mill around for over an hour while schoolchildren got massacred by a single shooter.
I can't say I get it.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 hours ago [-]
Even in the cases where the ostensibly-good guy with a gun steps in, it's not necessarily a happy ending.
There was a shooting at a protest in SLC in June[0] in which a volunteer working with the group organizing the protest shot and killed an innocent man while trying to hit someone carrying an assault rifle. (Primarily due to a misunderstanding that could have been avoided.) His intentions were good, thinking he was saving people from someone else who had bad intentions.
I was personally about 50 feet away from the incident. It's hard for me to imagine what a good guy with a gun actually does in practice.
> It's hard for me to imagine what a good guy with a gun actually does in practice.
Something like this?
> A brutal stabbing at a Walmart in Traverse City, Michigan, left 11 people injured on Sunday, but a much larger tragedy was averted thanks to the courage of two bystanders. Leading the charge was former Marine Derrick Perry, now hailed as a hero across social media.
Verified video shows the suspect cornered in the store’s parking lot, motionless as Perry kept him pinned at gunpoint until police moved in.
> His intentions were good, thinking he was saving people from someone else who had bad intentions.
I find the characterization of the shooter having good intentions to be a bit too generous; the person he intended to shoot wasn't doing anything more threatening than just carrying a gun (as the shooter was also doing): https://bsky.app/profile/seananigans.bsky.social/post/3lrp66... . It wasn't being "brandished" or pointed at anyone.
I can't imagine any justifiable reason to fire a gun in such a thick crowd, when no one else has fired their weapon.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 hours ago [-]
> It wasn't being "brandished" or pointed at anyone.
This is kinda missing the point, from my perspective. The reason the shooter thought Gamboa (the guy with the assault rifle) was a threat is because he was walking with an assault rifle in his hands rather than slung over his shoulder. It's the same difference as someone holding their handgun (down pointed at the ground) versus keeping it holstered and it's in how quickly the wielder could aim and fire. It didn't need to be brandished at the moment because it could have been in less than a second.
All things considered, I don't think Gamboa had bad intentions but I do think his actions that day were stupid. The shooter made a bad call for a bad outcome but it still doesn't make sense to pin the blame entirely on them.
pcthrowaway 5 hours ago [-]
The shooter here was a police officer firing on a civilian operating within the confines of the law. The shooter ended up missing and killing someone else.
Note, that to shoot this man, the police officer also held his gun in his hand. I hope you're at least consistent, and would also say "it doesn't make the sense" to put blame "entirely" on someone if that someone goes around shooting police officers as soon as their hands touch their guns.
It makes sense if you cosplay a hero in your nind. No basis in reality
throwawaybob420 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dang 2 hours ago [-]
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines.
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.
All: I suppose I should add that yes, there are many other accounts breaking the site guidelines and some are likely crossing the line at which we should ban them. One thing to realize, though, is that we usually take the account history into account, not just what they're posting in one thread (like today's).
> “Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks.” With a smirk, he added: “Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”
toughquestion 2 hours ago [-]
Nowhere in that quote nor article does he call for or support political violence. Do you have any other sources?
RickJWagner 4 hours ago [-]
My point is that when Kirk engaged people in debate, he fought with ideas and logic. ( Check the numerous video shorts posted. )
We need more people like Charlie Kirk, and less violent thugs. Martin Luther Kings niece has just posted the Kirk has won. When a person is martyred, they will be remembered for the merits of their arguments.
ceejayoz 3 hours ago [-]
He fought with bad faith and Gish gallops. That’s certainly better than doing it with punches, but MLK he wasn’t.
kristofferR 5 hours ago [-]
Come on, give me a break, he said that women should submit to their husbands and that black pilots scare him. He treated everyone that weren't white or male with distain, not respect.
drak0n1c 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
throwmeaway222 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
aaomidi 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tstrimple 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
FergusArgyll 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 6 hours ago [-]
Aircraft are very heavily regulated to prevent accidents. Any time there's a major incident we move heaven and earth to investigate and mitigate it so that particular failure doesn't happen again. As a result, US airlines have had one fatal crash in the last ~16 years or so.
FergusArgyll 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 5 hours ago [-]
> Do you want to stop all airplanes from flying?
No, but I want steps taken to prevent them from crashing.
> (also, you sneakily added 2 qualifiers: US, Airlines)
That's hardly sneaky. We're talking about the US. It would be odd to discuss gun violence and airline safety from, say, Somalia.
LarsDu88 6 hours ago [-]
We have aircraft safety regulations to mitigate deaths from air accidents and we have gun regulations and gun safety regulations for the same reasons.
Let's stop pretending this is a black and white matter
tstrimple 6 hours ago [-]
Have you ever seen me advocate for aircraft deaths to justify the continued existence of human powered aviation? I'm sure you're trying to be clever, but you seem lack the requisite abilities.
FergusArgyll 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
alchemical_piss 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
helqn 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
galangalalgol 4 hours ago [-]
There aren't any instances of politically motivated violence within a society increasing its fairness or plurality. That happens only when a large majority view it as desirable and worth risking harm for. Right now the US, Turkey and Poland are relatively evenly split between those who want more pluralism at the price of a decaying status quo, and those willing to discard that pluralism to fight what they view as existential threats to their society. They might not be wrong about the threats, but discarding political freedoms selectively doesn't work. The point is that in a polarized context, political violence only decreases pluralism, no matter who is better at killing. This political violence becoming self reinforcing is just as deadly to our democracy as a failure of judicial independence. The way back involves climbing out of echo chambers and having calm rational conversations with people who hold views you find incomprehensible. So that you can comprehend them. What are they worried about that drives their priorities? Don't dismiss those worries. The majority in any society want fairness and rule of law and to be able to meet their needs. The minority get us disagreeing on how those common goals should be pursued so that they can prevent it happening. Go find some grounds for agreement.
bena 5 hours ago [-]
He was a religious fundamentalist. Pretty far from a "moderate".
He did not deserve to die for his fundamentalism, but trying to paint him as a moderate who engaged with the process genuinely and in good faith is wildly mischaracterizing his entire life and political career.
reenorap 4 hours ago [-]
Everything you said above is false.
What exactly is a religion fundamentalist? He was a Christian, but what makes him a "fundamentalist"?
What exactly did he do that wasn't in good faith? All he did was talk to people respectfully and engage in open dialogue. He had no notes with him ever, and he just talked with people. And for that he got murdered.
He doesn't support the stoning of gays and that's another outright lie. He's pointing out that she can't pick and choose Bible verses because the verse just before talks about stoning gays.
He's pointing out the hypocrisy of San Francisco letting out people on bail for everything, but if they attack a Pelosi, they can't get bail.
You are the one who is acting in bad faith. People like you are the reason why he's dead. You think that because you disagree with him, it's perfectly okay to lie about him and vilify him and hope he gets killed. It's sick and needs to stop.
SubiculumCode 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
idontwantthis 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 6 hours ago [-]
Just to be clear, that's Kirk's own position.
"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." - https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
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.
All: I suppose I should add that yes, there are many other accounts breaking the site guidelines and some are likely crossing the line at which we should ban them. One thing to realize, though, is that we usually take the account history into account, not just what they're posting in one thread (like today's).
Quarrelsome 3 hours ago [-]
> The left is sick
I don't think that's a particularly helpful statement, given the person responsible is one person, given that the "left" or the "right" aren't really solid concepts and are rather used to describe individuals that vote once every four years for a party that pretends its eiter "right" or "left".
Furthermore as someone outside of America, I sometimes feel like I care about America more than Americans, given the current government and its dismissive attitudes to liberty.
fundad 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
stirfish 2 hours ago [-]
>we have BLM on Twitter claiming they have a right to violence and a right to kill.
You might be seeing bots trying to sew division.
delfugal 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
cAtte_ 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
msie 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
locallost 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ImJamal 5 hours ago [-]
I might just be ignorant, but which violence did he engage in?
mensetmanusman 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
j2bax 5 hours ago [-]
Violet, you're turning violet!
myko 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
AfterHIA 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
LZ_Khan 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
FaridIO 3 hours ago [-]
The problem here is that everyone thinks their ideas aren't radical and that sharing them isn't indoctrination. I once left a religion, peacefully, not loudly or trying to tell anyone else how to live their life. People still in the religion thought I was radical and dangerous to the fabric of society. Charlie invited people to have a debate. Whether he was right or wrong at least to me with my lived experiences feels irrelevant, if that's dangerous to society then society is wrong.
zug_zug 2 hours ago [-]
There may be no systematic way to draw the line between dangerous opinions that need to be silenced and those that do not. There may be many people who draw that line incorrectly.
But that doesn't mean there is no such line. Almost everybody agrees there should be some cost to expressing highly dangerous views -- where we disagree is what that cost needs to be for a given view (reputational, financial, capital).
FaridIO 2 hours ago [-]
And in this hypothetical world where having dangerous opinions has consequences even though sometimes we draw the line incorrectly, I'm assuming you think your personal views could never be marked as such? We still live in a free society where at least the aim is to not hurt people in any way for expressing their own views.
LZ_Khan 2 hours ago [-]
I agree. I personally do not actually think Mr. Kirk was past the line. But for example Hitler and other demagogues were past that line.
4 hours ago [-]
paulryanrogers 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jdefr89 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
zipy124 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Terr_ 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bxsioshc 51 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
halis 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
judah 2 hours ago [-]
I know you meant it sarcastically, but Charlie appreciated thoughts and prayers.
Because faithful Christians like Charlie believe prayer is powerful and effective, even if not in the way we want it to be.
protocolture 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ddddang 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
ziobot 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
mykowebhn 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
krapp 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, there were two more school shootings today you won't hear anything about, certainly not on Hacker News.
But every time a rich white asshole gets shot there's bound to be thousands of comments here and people clutching their pearls and saying it's the end of civil society. But the pile of dead schoolchildren, black people shot by cops, brown people shot by the military, Jews and gay people shot by spree killers? Not a care in the world, that's just background noise.
Trump (or whomever controls his Truth Social account - I seriously doubt he knows how Photoshop works) posts a meme about "Chipocalypse now" bragging about the violence he intends to commit against his own people and no one seems to care. Presidents have been taken down for far less egregious behavior. But it's Chicago, it's full of black people and immigrants so who gives a fuck?
I think you're right. I think Americans are afraid because for the first time in their lives they're being treated the way America has treated everyone who isn't straight, white, Christian and American, that the systems of oppression they built and which feed their empire are actually being turned on them. The only thing I can say is they aren't nearly afraid enough.
fzeroracer 1 hours ago [-]
Hell, as mentioned a few months ago Melissa Hortman got assassinated and she was a sitting representative. Trump used this opportunity to fling further shit, the far right media sphere immediately went to work claiming he was a marxist and that it was a hit ordered by Walz. Every single person in the Charlie Kirk far right media bubble immediately called for violence, government crackdowns and that it was time to finally stop the far left.
It's a damn shame we've gotten to this point but the reason why we're here is obvious and extremely predictable.
voidfunc 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
dickersnoodle 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
parrellel 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
im_down_w_otp 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sebmellen 2 hours ago [-]
While you can make this comment in an objective way, your vitriolic expression of this is not a good way to approach the situation.
For a simple first question, do you know of Iryna Zarutska? Killed with a pocket knife. Do we need to ban pocket knives too? Or do we need to have foundational discussion about how we quell violence and deter violent behavior in this country?
It’s not a given to presume that gun bans are the answer. And expressing that opinion is not something that should get you shot.
im_down_w_otp 1 hours ago [-]
I'm not making a statement about what should be done with guns.
I'm making a statement about a person experiencing the consequences of their stated position.
If he'd staked out a position on the necessity of compelling everyone to engage in autoerotic asphyxiation to achieve maximum satisfaction and then subsequently died from it in a suffocation incident himself, then it wouldn't really be much of a tragedy compared to a bunch of children being randomly strangled to death in their classrooms.
Insofar as I can tell it looks like Charlie Kirk died doing what he loved and in a way that aligned existentially with his zealously professed ideology.
Did he not?
stocksinsmocks 3 hours ago [-]
I think that this is pinned to the front page says a lot about the user base and moderation here. Disappointing.
throwawaybob420 3 hours ago [-]
Yup
GlacierFox 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
5 hours ago [-]
uejfiweun 2 hours ago [-]
Call me crazy, and maybe I'm just out of touch, but something seems... off with the reaction to this. The amount of people on reddit that I'm seeing gloating, openly celebrating this, it's really just something I have never seen before. Not even the Trump assassination attempt had this kind of reaction.
All I'm saying, is that if I was a US adversary, I would absolutely be spinning up a million LLMs to post the most provocative possible stuff. The technology absolutely exists - just yesterday sama@ was talking about the dead internet theory. I'm worried that someone is going to see that horrifying video of the shooting, and then see all these horrifying comments online, and do something equally horrifying.
Graphon1 1 hours ago [-]
do you know the name Luigi Mangione?
uejfiweun 53 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, fair enough. No doubt there is some real-ness to the sentiment. I do think it's an easy way to hurt the US to fan the flames of divisive things like this. But at the end of the day flame doesn't exist without kindling... I guess it's just the world we live in. How depressing.
kylemaxwell 3 hours ago [-]
You cannot have peace without justice.
redwood 3 hours ago [-]
Justice is in the eye of the beholder. There has to come a time of acceptance
slowhadoken 5 hours ago [-]
Liberalism only works if it has moral social currency. This assassination just made a martyr out of Charlie Kirk. Now think about his wife and child.
mpalmer 5 hours ago [-]
The assumptions implicit in this comment are not especially reasonable.
slowhadoken 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
nemo44x 6 hours ago [-]
Turning Point says he’s alive and in the hospital.
Would be incredible if he pulled through. Looked fatal. Who knows if his spinal system was damaged as well.
He has 2 young kids.
nemo44x 5 hours ago [-]
Confirmed he’s dead.
5 hours ago [-]
5 hours ago [-]
5 hours ago [-]
6 hours ago [-]
maxlin 2 hours ago [-]
The guy was the embodiment of the "prove me wrong" meme.
His choice of getting in to the middle of people and answering anyone's questions in a situation where there's no re-takes, no edits, even if he might've felt overbearing, was quite a fire test of the commenter's arguments versus his counter-arguments.
His assassination really is a direct attack on debate itself.
There really isn't a world where the sick people cheering this have any real respect for democratic values of a free world full of all kinds of thinkers. Maybe for something more akin to that one dialog "choice" in Avowed. You know if you know.
nothankyou777 6 hours ago [-]
People who get excited enough about politics in this country to shoot someone are stupid. Love him or hate him, Charlie is just somebody's puppet. If you see them on twitter or television, they are puppets. Puppeteers are smart enough to stay out of the spotlight. There is only one person in recent memory who was smart enough to go after a puppeteer.
rdtsc 6 hours ago [-]
> If you see them on twitter or television, they are puppets. Puppeteers are smart enough to stay out of the spotlight. There is only one person in recent memory who was smart enough to go after a puppeteer.
Sounds like you know more than you're saying. So it's someone controlling him or blackmailing him or something? Who's puppet do you think he is?
I never watched him and only vaguely remembered his name when it just hit the news.
nothankyou777 5 hours ago [-]
Charlie Kirk is neither here nor there. It has been a known feature of "democracy" since the Greeks. He who pays the piper picks the tune. Charlie wouldn't be able to spend all day propagandizing college midwits if someone weren't picking up the tab. Without high-net-worth individuals and corporate benefactors, he would have to get a real job. I have a bridge to sell to anyone who thinks these ideology "non-profits" are funded in any meaningful way by $25 checks from old ladies. Modern writers from Noam Chomsky to Oswald Spengler go into greater and clearer detail than I ever could.
yndoendo 4 hours ago [-]
Adding to ...
A person does not have to be a _neither here no there_ to be a conduit by the wealthy and powerful. Single voter issues are another means.
_Rob Schenck_ [0] anti-abortion activism was a great tool for politicians to gain power. _The Dark Money Game_ [1] documentary goes it great length of highlight this feature of "democracy". His mind set at the time was that the wealthy are paying to end abortion and that is a good thing. Indirectly, he helped the speaker of the house, Larry Householder [2], gain enough power to launder money through bribery and force tax payers to bail to a corrupt power company's fail nuclear infrastructure [3].
Rob Schenck has since supported legalized abortion after sitting on the bed side of a women who slowly suffered to death from complications which an abortion would of kept her alive.
Not to detract from your larger point, but if he had gotten a 'real job', it's almost certain the tab for that job would also be picked up by high-net-worth individuals and corporate benefactors. Except that job would be in the direct service of making them richer rather than promoting their ideology (which is probably in service of making them richer after all anyway). I mean wouldn't Fox News talking head count as a real job?
nothankyou777 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
saulpw 5 hours ago [-]
Almost all of the builders, mechanics, landscapers, chefs, etc that I know are also employed by corporations. If the only 'real jobs' are independent contractors then I guess we're all house slaves.
nothankyou777 53 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
jrm4 5 hours ago [-]
One might wonder, however, if it's kind of different now because it can be "less personal?"
Like, it doesn't have to be "a small number of very powerful rich benefactors who know exactly what they're doing" -- it could be some less rich, or less powerful people who know how to leverage "the internet;" or even something like "the internet sort of made this on its own?"
ikrenji 5 hours ago [-]
which books would you recommend? chomsky/spengler
nothankyou777 54 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
HaZeust 5 hours ago [-]
>"Charlie Kirk is neither here nor there"
Best way I've ever seen it put. There is no "essential" Charlie Kirk, just as there's no "essential" of any of these talking heads. They are a reflection of beliefs from the person's payroll they're on. He didn't even think twice about the Epstein files with the MAGA base imploded, and was happy to say - to a camera - that he "Trusts his friends" to sort it out.
>"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" - Charlie Kirk, 2023
Who was the one person in recent memory to go after a puppeteer??
thinkcontext 1 hours ago [-]
I took it as a reference to the assassination of UnitedHealthcare's CEO.
testbjjl 3 hours ago [-]
Gawker Magazine
ludamn 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
avazhi 4 hours ago [-]
Never really followed this guy and only knew of him because he'd randomly be mentioned in news stories.
Regardless of your political bent, this sort of shit is sickening and genuinely disturbing, particularly when it occurs at (as this did) at a university whose ostensible raison d'etre is to ventilate different ideas, offensive or not. I realise this event wasn't a 'debate' per se but nevertheless it's the ethos and optics that matter.
There's also the incredibly myopic immaturity inherent in using violence for the sole or primary purpose of silencing the speaker and signalling to others that violence is somehow an acceptable form of dialogue. The myopic absurdity of this is of course that it is a cycle that can never end if all participants share that view, ensuring that it is inevitably self-defeating. Violence can make sense under certain circumstances - coups, revolutions, wars - but in the context of mere rhetoric it's abhorrent to witness.
Just a grotesque reflection in a long list of them that we as a species, or very many of us - perhaps more than we want to admit - are extremely violent and brutal.
Sickening and sobering, and again you could plug in any speaker/polemicist from whichever part of the political spectrum in here and it would be no less true.
ncr100 2 hours ago [-]
I'd say we _can_ be violent / brutal / unfair. I'm e.g. not violent / brutal when putting my clean dishes away.
This may have been an offensive reply to the original comment:
It's important for Me to play Devil's Advocate, here, because the original statement overlooks the amazingly constructive qualities humanity offers.
Overlooking == under-capitalizing. Which is an error. And judgement is important to hang onto in a crisis.
This is a crisis.
avazhi 2 hours ago [-]
I wasn't overlooking mankind's potential to do amazing things. I'm reflecting on the fact that despite our ability and propensity to do amazing things, we are also at base more violent, far more violent, than I think we give ourselves credit for. I'm sure this sentiment isn't new. I can remember the opening page of Blood Meridian being a newspaper clipping from Arizona reporting on the fact that, essentially, we've been scalping (ie violently brutalising) one another for tens of thousands of years. Perhaps it's a sine qua non of being human.
Despite all our fancy gadgets and fancy thinking and fancy philosophies, we aren't really all that different from those who lived a thousand or ten thousand years ago.
bradhe 3 hours ago [-]
What if the person in question preaches violence? I don’t know that he did, I don’t follow the guy, but more just wondering where the line should be drawn.
avazhi 2 hours ago [-]
If a person espoused and encouraged assassination as a means to achieve his political or philosophical goals then it's difficult to see how he could be surprised if he himself were to be assassinated or affected by violence. In a sense that would just be logical cause and effect.
But to my knowledge Kirk never did and 'live by the sword, die by the sword' wouldn't apply here. In fact I can't think of an instance in recent history where this would have applied - the logical implications inherent in such rhetoric are obvious to most people immediately. Even the Russians as a general rule don't murder their exiled former rulers - the new Czar figures he could be next, and wouldn't want to set a precedent.
PenguinCoder 56 minutes ago [-]
He literally said a few gun deaths a year is an okay price to pay for the right to bear arms. He became part of that statistic today. Quite evidently a _live by the sword, die by the sword_ moment.
avazhi 41 minutes ago [-]
If you can't tell the difference between the quote you've attributed to him, on the one hand, and actively encouraging assassination and political violence on the other, then I don't know what to tell you other than that they are categorically different statements. The statement "I think a few people dying in car accidents is a valid price to pay for being able to travel quickly in cars between point A and B" very obviously is not the same thing as the statement "I encourage people to kill themselves in their cars while driving" or "I am glad people routinely die in car crashes". It's expressing the balancing of two things, endorsing State A over State B (Guns vs No Guns) without endorsing violence itself; seen another way, it's endorsing A over B without necessarily saying A is the ultimate ideal - it's just that A is in that person's opinion preferable to B. Personally I think the benefits of getting vaccinated outweigh the risks and indeed I'd say the benefits of being vaccinated are worth the harms they may cause, even to myself; surely it's obvious to you that I can extol vaccine benefits over their known harms while simultaneously hoping that nobody is in fact harmed by them, even thought I know some subset of the population will be (by myocarditis, for example). You've conflated the expression of a preference for active malice.
Apathy or acceptance of something is passive; incitement and encouragement of something is active. Surely that's obvious.
As far as I know he never advocated murder through assassination or targeted extrajudicial killing. His views on guns and indeed the fact he was speaking about gun violence when he was shot may qualify as ironic, but his philosophical views on the availability of guns to the public were not tantamount to actively encouraging violence.
PenguinCoder 21 minutes ago [-]
> actively encouraging assassination and political violence on the other
Quit putting words in my mouth.
I am not encouraging violence or assassination of political differences. I merely said, his death is quite literally _live by the sword, die by the sword_. That's it. He advocated for freedom of firearms, and died by one. Nothing further to it to read into. This is not malice or extolling violence.
Here's a couple of sources of the quote I attribute to him, since you don't believe me or are willfully, obtusely, ignoring what he said.
You've got some issues with reading comprehension. I was (quite obviously) not referring to you there - I was pointing out that those are two different things (in reference to what Mr Kirk said, not you).
I also never denied that the quote was accurate. I drew a distinction between his quote, on the one hand, and actively advocating violence on the other. The only part of this discussion that involved you was related to your apparent inability to understand that distinction.
Getting the vibe this isn't going to be fruitful. Good day.
newman8r 1 hours ago [-]
What does 'preaching violence' mean to you? Because to some people, simply supporting the talking points of the political party they don't like counts as violence.
Your comment HERE could even be interpreted by some as preaching for violence - because you're implying that there's a line you can cross where the opinions you share justify your death.
another_twist 3 hours ago [-]
The only reason I know of him is the master debate episode from South Park. I wanted context. Fwiw, he was a bad debater but he openly said he didnt know about something in public and thats something I dont see people doing often. I appreciated that.
6 hours ago [-]
fortran77 2 hours ago [-]
I think @dang has a duty to report all those gloating over an assassination to the FBI.
Jtsummers 36 minutes ago [-]
That's a bizarre position to take. It's in poor taste, certainly, but not something that warrants reporting to the FBI. Comments like those indicate neither an intent to commit similar actions nor that they aided in today's actions.
paulvnickerson 2 hours ago [-]
It's not a gun problem that we have in this country. Iryna Zarutska was murdered with a pocket knife. What we have is a spiritual sickness, which cannot be legislated...
The only thing I can think of that the government can do is to clamp down hard on violence, including speech which advocates for violence (e.g. glorifying Luigi Mangione, calling everyone a Nazi/fascist, etc.). Freedom of speech ends where it actually turns into violence.
tln 58 minutes ago [-]
I'm not sure we have a "the government" with all the federation involved; and a treacherous administration.
Reducing rights to speech that advocates for violence makes some sense, but what I'd like to see is reducing the lies and disinformation. Install a duty of candor to everyone who speaks in greatly public ways
exabrial 49 minutes ago [-]
This man died promoting non-violence.
AfterHIA 5 hours ago [-]
Adult Utah Valley University student here. CS-Humanities dual major. My two cents.
I feel sick to my stomach. Charlie was a pundit but he didn't deserve this. Not at our university. I've always felt in danger at UVU as the whole complex makes Michel Foucault look like a Hebraic prophet. I wasn't on campus at the time- I'm currently attending a guest class at BYU across town.
I'm going to drop out of university. There's no point anymore. The society I wanted to live in as a child has started to eat itself. What makes me sick is that before the announcement my attitude was very, "let's make cynical jokes; he'll most likely be ok..." this all happened 15 minutes away from my house. I'm afraid of violence toward my left-leaning family. I'm currently battling chronic illness (lungs, throat, stomach. Don't smoke!) and I can't take this stress anymore. I love you uncle Douglas Engelbart; I wanted to take on the work Alan Kay did in his life. I wanted to make tools to expand human intellect. I wanted to help make good on the Licklider dream. Now my dream is manipulate a doctor into giving me a diagnosis so I can enter into palliative care and take Methadone until I die.
deepfriedchokes 4 hours ago [-]
You and your fellow students experienced something extremely traumatic. Perhaps go to therapy first to process how you are feeling before making any significant life choices.
watersb 4 hours ago [-]
Chronic illness is horrible. And times are tough.
It's a scary day.
You can still build something, teach something, help those who love you.
The despair is real but it goes away.
imperialdrive 4 hours ago [-]
Yikes, that's a rough outlook. Not disagreeing with it, just poking at it a bit from a distance, and hoping that you experience a change in direction after a couple days.
Poomba 4 hours ago [-]
Most jobs are boring jobs, like being a software engineer dont provide much benefit to society, so I dont get why you should drop out?
dpbriggs 4 hours ago [-]
Don't do anything drastic.
miamibre 3 hours ago [-]
It's a shame that these events will continue to become a more common occurrence here and there are quite a few parallels to the 1960's-1970's where there were a lot of political killings in the US due to many social issues. Unpopular conflicts abroad, civil rights demonstrations, etc.
Currently we have a president that is very antagonistic and constantly goading the opposition and on the other hand we have political PARTIES (emphasis on the plural) that are also stoking violent sentiment across their constituents to gain political favor. It's clear to me that the blame game that is going to ensue will result in no change in the upward trajectory of these kinds of events because one side will accuse the other and make no attempts to reach across the aisle to deescalate the situation.
Times like these I just turn off the news and try to be a good neighbor because there really isn't much else I can do.
By non-violent I mean not celebrating violence nor excusing it, but also more than that: I mean metabolizing the violence you feel in yourself, until you no longer have a need to express it aggressively.
The feelings we all have about violence are strong and fully human and I'm not judging them. I believe it's our responsibility to each carry our own share of these feelings, rather than firing them at others, including in the petty forms that aggression takes on an internet forum.
If you don't share that belief, that's fine, but we do need you to follow the site guidelines when commenting here, and they certainly cover the above request. So if you're going to comment, please make sure you're familiar with and following them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
My favorite poem, my -- my favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country ...
We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of [people] in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.
Bobby Kennedy, 1968
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2kWIa8wSC0
Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
So perhaps a better excerpt in light of recent events would be
>> And another reason that I'm happy to live in [the second half of the 20th century] is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today.
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemou...
In the context of the 1960s, governments and nuclear weapons. But more broadly the same holds true for individuals.
Either we learn to live together despite our differences, or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other.
It’s awful that anyone dies.
Let’s not escalate this on either side. We don’t need another Hitler, and we don’t need a French Revolution either. We just need people that stop trying to outdo each other.
The unfortunate history of the US is that violence tends to win.
Bobby Kennedy made that speech, was assassinated shortly afterwards, and Nixon won, prolonging the Vietnam War for another 6 years. Bobby Kennedy, also made a historic speech in Indianapolis that quelled rioting after the MLK assassination. You might imagine a different history in the 1970's if he had been elected president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2kWIa8wSC0
Slavery was only ended by violence, and there were still people born in the civil war that saw MLK assassinated for promoting peace.
Meanwhile Charlie Kirk was on record saying, "Some deaths were worth it..."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-qu...
Edited to add: My parents were alive, and it hurt them deeply to see MLK, JFK, RFK assassinated.
Charlie Kirk wasn't old enough to witness the assassinations of the 1960's. I wonder if he'd have a different view if he was.
I don't think this is quite true, it may have ended it faster, but I don't think it would still exist today if the civil war had not happened. Most other countries ended slavery without a violent civil war, especially if you think about the way technology vastly outweighed the usefulness of having slaves.
And then when Charlie Kirk says "Some deaths were worth it...", he is talking about accidents and abuses of guns by shooters. He doesn't mean that violence is the answer to politics, it would be great if nobody died from mass shootings. But he is saying that having the right to bear arms to defend yourself is preferable to the alternative where you have no right to do that.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer
GP is currently the highest comment, and on other sites I've visited, while too many people cheer this or call for violent retaliation, most of the highly-upvoted comments (both liberal and conservative) condemn it and argue for de-escalation.
Anger and fear are powerful emotions, but so is hope. Barack Obama campaigned on hope and became President, winning his first election with the highest %votes since 1988. Donald Trump also became President in part due to hope; his supporters expected him to improve their lives, while most of Hillary Clinton's and Kamala Harris's supporters just expected them to not make things worse. Now lots of people desperately need hope, and if things get worse more will.
Irrational hope can be dangerous: all the time, people make decisions that backfire horribly, and deep down they knew those decisions would backfire horribly, but they made them anyways out of desperation for an unlikely success. Perhaps this is another example, where the assassin delusionally hoped it would somehow promote and further their desires, but it will almost certainly do the opposite.
But hope can also be rational, and unlike anger and fear (which at best prevent bad things), hope can intrinsically be for causing good things. If a group or candidate that runs on hope for a better world gets enough attention and perceived status, it could turn public perception back to unity and optimism.
35% of americans are happy with how the current administration has been handling immigrants
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigratio...
approval of ICE is around 40%
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/27/republicans-...
edit: it's funny to see my post above offended(?) people who want to believe that americans are kind and loving, despite uh being on a post where everyone is arguing about how bad the political violence and polarization situation is in the US
Meanwhile, in Australia, it is a bipartisan policy. Read this article about what the centre-left Albanese government just did: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/04/labor... (that article technically isn’t about “illegal immigrants”, it is about a group of people who are predominantly legal immigrants who have had their visas cancelled due to criminal convictions-but they don’t treat the illegal immigrants any better)
The contentious issue is not whether the law is being enforced, but rather how it is enforced. Most first-world countries do it with a certain amount of decorum. We've been doing it since Trump regained office with a shock-and-awe approach that is highly disruptive, violent, and of questionable legality.
I don't agree with a lot of the things Charlie Kirk said, and as someone who is not an American, there was also a lot of things he said I simply didn't care about because they didn't apply to me. I also found that his way of communicating was more geared towards encouraging discussions that would generate views. But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
American politics isn't politics, it's one step short of being like football hooliganism for supposedly smart people.
And the news networks eat that shit up. They love a boogeyman, because it's good for ratings.
I feel we're riding a knife's edge and there's a hurricane brewing in the gulf of absurdity.
====
Incidentally, I feel like this is why it is so hard to actually learn from history. You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.
As someone whose parents, grandparents, and entire family lived in Italy through WWII (and one grandfather who lost an eye in WWI), nobody liked talking about it.
If they did talk about it, it was usually brief and imbued with a feeling of "thank God it's over. what a tragedy that we were all used as pawns by the political class for nothing more than selfish ambitions."
It was essentially not done because it would be too effective.
I walked all the way back from the famous entrance gate, along the train tracks, to the monument at the back. The place was huge and imagining people suffering there during that type of weather was especially heartbreaking. I was luckily able to convince the taxi driver to wait for me. I have some black and white photos I took of it somewhere on my shelves. That visit sticks with me more powerfully than almost anywhere else I've been.
It reveals something deep about the human condition. Auchwitz was a perfectly lovely place for many of the employees as long as they disassociated themselves from all the suffering and evil around them.
A personal salute to all those who fought to preserve it.
There is a great video on the Poles who worked to preserve it. A lot of it is ... Unspeakable.
There's the story about the guy who says he was the hardest working man in Vietnam, and then when pressed about what he did, he states he was a trucker to the great surprise of anyone listening.
When asked why he thought that, he says "well I was the only one."
https://vietnamnews.vn/sunday/features/947180/female-drivers...
The joke is that everyone else he went to war with was claiming to be something else, so he must have delivered all the supplies himself.
The response is interesting to me, because having fought in a war, though I am not a US veteran -- I instantly got it. And the place I heard it from was more veteran dominated, and everyone instantly understood/appreciated the joke.
I would go so far as to say going to meetings physically was also a counterbalance.
When you're around other people, even ones who share your beliefs, and say 'I think we should murder that guy!' then in most crowds someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
It's when you exclusively socially exist in online spaces that the most extreme actions suddenly become encouraged.
Or as Josh Johnson recently quipped, "The internet is all gas no brakes."
We might be thinking of different types of gatherings/meetings. Specifically, I was thinking of someone with a particular set of extremist ideals that get together for a monthly meeting with others with those same extremist ideals. Someone in that group would likely not say "are you okay" rather they'd say "hellzya brother!" or whatever they'd actually phrase it. These types of meetings are also known to have someone speak intentionally seeking to get a member to act as a lone wolf to actually carry out the comment you're hoping someone would tamper. Now, one doesn't need to go to meetings for that encouragement. They just open up whatever app/forum.
Where are these people going that they just see encouragement without resistance?
Over the last week or so we've had: serious riots in France, catastrophic riots in Nepal, a scandal in the UK featuring the ambassador to the US, hostile drone incursions into Poland, the murder of Charlie Kirk, the ICE raid on visiting South Korean workers, soldiers on the streets of DC and a threatened incursion into Chicago, a school shooting, revelations about the biggest paedophile scandal of the century and its links to the rich and famous, including the current president, and Israel attacking most of the countries around it.
In the background is the continuing war in Ukraine, China's increasing militarisation and threatened technological lead over the US, the situation in Gaza, the disassembly of the established US federal system of government, existential and economic dread over the impact of AI, and climate change.
If everyone's feeling a little edgy, there may be good reasons for that.
Here, I get to read all about the latest insanity in the last 24 hrs from…. 4 major countries in Crisis?
Tchau, from central Brazil (today).
-- James Callender, The Prospect Before Us, 1800
What went poorly is our society's collective response. From the medical and governmental establishment, there was much hemming and hawing over what measures to take for way too long (masking, distancing, closing of public spaces, etc). Taking _any_ countermeasures against the spread of the virus also somehow became a culture war issue. I'm assuming GP meant "left or right" by "either side" so make of that what you will.
> There was no science behind social distancing, or masks, or the (so called, it's not an actual one) vaccine
These assertions are provably wrong. Regarding "social distancing" specifically:
As to the science behind "masks" and "vaccines", the former can be trivially shown to limit the distance of oral particulate expulsion and the latter has enough published medical research to make verifying vaccine efficacy a matter of accepting facts.> Edit: I would like to remind people that downvotes do not, and never will, make me wrong
It is not the downvotes which make you wrong.
0 - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9002256/
It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand differing approaches, but it's the extreme polarisation that flabbergasts me.
And the next time this happens (which it probably will given the statistics), the US will probably handle it much better and the lock down will be less severe. I'm Korean American, and something like 10 years before covid, Korea had gone through an earlier pandemic (swine flu?), so when covid hit, it wasn't that big a deal. They already all knew what to do and the lock down wasn't as severe.
Yeah, our lockdown was overkill in many instances, but it was all so new to us. There's a good chance it'll be a lot better managed the next time.
There's a lot of criticism of places that kept schools closed for longer than was necessary, in retrospect. But we really didn't know whether it would always be the case that the risks to children were low. The virus could have mutated in a way that brought more risk. Or there could have been chronic effects that could only be seen after the passage of time. Given the infectiousness of the virus, it could have been so much worse.
I get the vaccine hesitancy. But I think a lot of people were not willing to accept that vaccination is not just about their own safety, but a collective safety issue.
What's the Pindar quote again? "War is sweet to those who have no experience of it. But the experienced man trembles exceedingly in his heart at its approach"
Nevertheless, I realize that it's usually a zeitgeist more than any particular thing that really flows through history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_realism
I remember being grateful about how that doesn't really happen in the US (Trump being the most recent, but he survived). I guess I was wrong... and, in that case, Garcia Marquez might agree with you.
You could be forgiven for not knowing, since the collective coverage and attention to it since has probably been less, total, than what this received in the last couple hours.
Great quote. I feel the same way about 9/11 - the feeling of confusion, like "wtf is going on?!" IMHO, only those who lived it can really relate.
The response to 9/11 was one of the most foolhardy possible, and it's astounding that any other nature would attempt the same with it still in living memory.
The modern context is we have gone from a benevolent nation to a blidgerent nation. Not really progress. But the context is decisive.
RIP Charlie Kirk, no human deserves that. The rest of us left are still not necessarily better people after that exact moment, hopefully everyone takes a pause.
Do you think we have a Presidency with the same sensibility? They sent the national guard with zero pretense all over the country. This is about to get serious.
A school shooter isn’t trying to say “shut down all schools”.
But a terrorist flying a plane into one of the most important symbols of your most important city is certainly trying to send your society a message.
Same with this killing
Think about how you would feel if some guys beat you and your friends up in a bar fight, vs someone individually stalking you and beating you up outside your own house. You got beaten up in both cases, but the bar fight beating will unlikely make you feel as vulnerable and scared to leave the house as being stalked and targeted individually
This is the sort of violence that begets more violence.
It's like when a conservative person is canceled they throw an absolute fit, then turn around and cancel someone on the left, without making any connection.
I am definitely worried what Trump and republicans will do as a response.
More posts debating the justification for killing 11 people in a boat in the Caribbean who did not pose an imminent threat.
HN rules do not prevent any of these discussions.
But here we have a individual who advocated those killings.
Here we have an individual who publicly justified school massacres by saying those senseless deaths are a worthwhile price to pay for gun rights in the US.
On HN it's perfectly fine to justify all this violence, to argue that the violence is regrettable but necessary, but any equivalent discussion about this one individual is somehow beyond the pale.
I'm an outside observer, but isn't that the point of the right to bear arms in your constitution? I don't think the people who wrote it were naive enough to not understand guns could be used for evil purposes, so inherently they supported the price of the deaths of innocents as a trade off for the benefits of guns, right?
1. The goal of the second amendment was never "everyone should be able to have as many guns as they have, and if people use a gun to kill a dozen children then so be it", it was "it should be illegal for the government to take away people's weapons because the first step a tyrant would take is to disarm the populace so they couldn't fight back." That goal doesn't hold water anymore in a world where a computer geek working for the US military in a basement in Virginia can drone strike a wedding on the other side of the world. Instead, the NRA has made "guns good" into something that too many people make their whole personality, and the people who are actually trying to destroy society use that as a weapon to prevent any positive change when someone murders a dozen kids by making people feel like the only choice is between "anyone can have guns and children are murdered every day" or "the government takes your weapons and forces any dissidents into siberian-esque gulags".
2. Firearms were far less common, far less accessible, and far less deadly than they are now. Compared to what was available at the time, modern-day weapons like the AR15 are effectively weapons of mass destruction. If you went into a school with a civil war-era rifle and tried to kill as many people as you could, you'd maybe get one shot off which might not even kill someone if you hit them, and then you'd get tackled while you were trying to reload.
The relative lethality of a particular style of rifle doesn't seem to matter. Better guns than muskets were available at the time, and they didn't seem to think it necessary to limit that amendment.
I don't think your opinions about the history and purpose of the second amendment holds water.
However I was speaking in the context of the tradeoffs of danger and the awareness of what blood you get on your hands for agreeing. Although the writers of this bill couldn't forsee AR15s and drone strikes, I'm sure they could forsee that there was a cost to freedom to bear arms.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There’s endless legal debate how this should be interpreted, but it’s not obvious that there was an assumption that there would be mass individual gun ownership.
What they couldn't have predicted is that the Bill of Rights would also apply to the individual state and local governments since that wasn't true until the 14th amendment almost 100 years later and didn't really kick off until the 1900s. This is obviously important to understand what the original amendments mean.
That being the case, I would say their opinions and beliefs are pretty important to the current national climate.
The logic behind the 2nd amendment doesn't hold once Uncle Sam has nuclear tipped icbms and I'm not allowed to have them. I'm also not allowed to have tanks or rocket launchers or even high rate of fire Gatling style guns.
To paraphrase, "if you think the 2nd amendment is what's keeping the government off your back, you don't understand how tanks work"
Looks like a storm is coming.
Neither was covid-19: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
This seems vague. Can you elaborate on the claim you’re making?
According to that study, 23% approved of the statement "I approve hostile activism to drive change by threatening or committing violence". It's even higher if you only focus on 18-34 year olds.
Full report here: https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2025-0...
The military took over for security purposes, and asked the leadership of the movement whom they wanted for an interim government. It was not the happy, peaceful democracy we all long for. It was a costly victory. But I feel happy the legitimate grievances the protestors held will lead to change. I hope they can find some candidates who will stand for them and reduce corruption, and do the best they can to help with the economy.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former... ("Former Nepal PM Jhala Nath Khanal’s wife Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar burnt alive as protesters set his house on fire")
IMO it's far too early for anyone to declare any kind of victory, in that unresolved, chaotic power vacuum. No one can guess where that will go.
It's a tough proposition. The goal is for the elite to have the awareness, humility, and political courage to not let things get so bad. But that point is well before Dauphines lose their heads. It's when peasant children are asking for bread and not getting any. Maybe before even that. Don't reach that tipping point and you won't careen towards the other atrocities.
Yes, in 2025.
Sadly the United States abolishing slavery for ~4 million within its own borders in the 1860s did not represent humanity as a whole.
On paper the problem is solved because it’s illegal to openly buy and sell another person. In practice the exact same treatment and de facto ownership and exploitation of other people remain without any meaningful enforcement in many parts of the world.
I blame how slavery is taught for the confusion. Slavery itself is a legal state where one's autonomy is fully controlled by another. Forced labor is something people commonly use slaves for, but the absence of labor didn't make one free - a slave allowed to retire was still enslaved as was a newborn born into slavery even before they're first made to work.
It's notable that all of those are pre-democratic.
GP stated this.
Parent replied with a list of scenarios where violence created progress, albeit none of which featured universal democracy before the violence.
IOW, they are loudly agreeing with each other.
They are very different levels of democratic access.
By contrast, acts of bombings and other political violence were both more common and widespread in the 1970's and 1980's than now.[1] In those cases, people took great personal risks.
[Edit: removed Nepal, mentioned in other comments]
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OPSR_TP...
I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.
Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant.
> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.
Except for in Japan? I noticed in all those reports Japan was at or near the bottom of countries measured for trust in their government. I was never able to find polling with regard to sentiment on Shinzo Abe's assassination but the majority of the country opposed the state funeral for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Re...
One person in a thousand prepared to commit violence for political ends can be enough to turn a country into chaos.
Logically, we should start stockpiling force, lest others use more against us.
Yes; this idea has been recently floated by a handful of states, but it’s nothing but headline-catching theatre. It will do nothing and those actions are just as illegal (via the Supremacy clause) as the current administration’s withholding previously appropriated funds. But; I’ll tell you who has the upper hand in making the other side do what they want…
As for taking shots at ICE, there’s long-running precedence for this and we haven’t lost previously because of it.
"If my side doesn't win then the only way forward is violent."
We didn't go to war with the Nazis because they wanted a border and were buying people flights home.
When the rule of law is eroded, which it has been, in the US and worldwide. Then it does indeed become more rational to use violence to restore the rule of law. Unfortunately it also increases the motivation towards violence for personal gain, that makes the task of restoring the rule of law all that more difficult. Countries have spent years trying to recover that stability once it is lost.
You need protection, non corruption and a level of equality to be protected by that rule of law.
I think that is what mostly has been eroded - also the poorest 10% need a reason to believe in rule of law.
As far as the poorest 10%, though: There is always a poorest 10%. And a poorest 50%. If you're in the middle class or higher, you have every reason to prevent the poor from revolting and taking what you have. This can be accomplished by a vast array of carrots and sticks. Some countries lean more toward the carrot - we call them liberal democracies. Autocratic states use the stick.
But although greater wealth inequality may be a good indicator of the tendency of the lowest 10% to become lawless, it is not a good indicator of which method is used to keep them in check. Cuba has pretty amazingly low levels of wealth inequality - essentially everyone's poor. Keeping them from rebelling, however, is all stick, precisely because any kind of economic carrot would undermine the philosophy that it's better for everyone to be poor than to have wealth inequality.
For the most part, the bottom 10% in most liberal democracies are much better off than most people in most autocratic states.
Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. Yet I saw a poster the other day titled "class warfare" with a picture of graveyard saying that's where the "rich" will be buried. People don't understand at all how counties and economies work and how this system we live in works vs. the alternatives (I'm in Canada btw).
The others don't matter if it's lacking, because social contracts without contracts meaning anything are worthless.
> Hate begets hate; violence begets violence[...]Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate[...]but to win[...]friendship and understanding.
> The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence[...]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_begets_violence#Words....
No, it is not the "last generation of a functioning world" and we will solve climate change like we solve every other problem.
A more likely explanation is that pro-violence propaganda began swamping social media in 2016, which is 9 years ago. 18 year olds have been exposed to it nonstop since they were 9 and 34 year olds since they were 25.
The people who are disposed to anger and violence move along the radicalization sales funnel relatively slowly. But already once you've shown interest, you start seeing increasingly angry content and only angry content. There is a lot of rhetoric specifically telling people they should be angry, should not try to help things, and should resort to violence, and actively get others to promote violence.
Being surrounded socially by that day in and day out is a challenge to anyone, and if you're predisposed to anger it can become intoxicating.
A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference.
The same sort of campaigns were run at a smaller scale during the Cold War and have been successful in provoking hot wars.
Hmm, interesting thesis. I'm aware something like half of the Whitmer Kidnapping plotters were feds/informants, to the point a few were exonerated in trial. There's certainly some evidence the government is intentionally provoking violent actors.
It's on record that Russian and Chinese propaganda campaigns in the US were aimed at sowing division generally, more so than any particular viewpoint.
For example, just one that turned up at the top of a quick Google search
> And the analysis shows that everyone from the former president, Dmitry Medvedev, as well as military bloggers, lifestyle influencers and bots, as you mentioned, are all pushing this narrative that the U.S. is on the brink of civil war and thus Texas should secede from the United States, and that Russia will be there to support this.
https://www.kut.org/texasstandard/2024-02-14/russian-propaga...
Those spaces used to be great places for people to ask questions, share interests, and find relief in a community that understood them. But over just a year or two, the whole atmosphere flipped. The focus turned from mutual support to a shared antagonism toward neurotypical people, who were often dehumanized.
It was heartbreaking to watch. Long-time members, people who were just grateful to finally have a place to belong, were suddenly told they weren't welcome anymore if they weren't angry enough. That anger became a tool to police the community, and many of the original, supportive spaces were lost.
In particular regard anti democratic developments, an increasing oligarchy, and increased inequality.
If I was a leader, I would take this really seriously and start to make some hard decisions.
In particular I'd like to apologize to one individual whom I insinuated was posting rage-bait.
To close, this is a tragic time in America. Each act of violence is one act too many.
That said, I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
ok let's try data instead of feels. Per Capita, what is the number of mass shootings per year in the USA, and in Japan. I did't know the answer but asked Gemini.
The most recent year for which there is data, apparently, is 2023, during which there were 604 mass shootings in the USA, and 1 in Japan. Given the respective population counts, the per-capita rate of mass shootings in the United States was about 225 times higher than in Japan.
Given that, are you confident that your observation that "one guy made a gun once in Japan" is a strong refutation of the idea that the US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?
When someone says "mass shooting" we all picture some lunatic with a high capacity magazine going haywire on innocents. But the vast majority of those 604 shootings are from gang members with many prior arrests shooting each other.
I'm not saying gang violence should be tolerated, I'm saying without that cleared up we can't have a real conversation.
The fact that you are just willing to run with such a number says everything we need to know.
Here is an Axios article where Gemini is getting its information from:
> https://www.axios.com/2023/07/31/us-mass-shooting-2-every-da...
The data is available at: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
We are at 300 so far this year. You can click on mass shootings and get an enumerated list for this year with incidents and sources, I'm not sure if you can go back to other years also:
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
You could sample some of the incidents and see if they are being honest or not.
IIRC, the difference lies in how many people are involved versus how many people are killed.
The majority of "mass shootings" are gang related. Just from gang members with many prior felony's shooting each other (and maybe innocents getting hit in the process sometimes)
This is kept from you purposefully.
The vast majority of mass shootings don't make national news, because they happen in high poverty areas. It's not just the inner city, there are parts of rural America that are also quite violent.
It makes the news when someone who "shouldn't be killed" gets killed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United...
That's a very low bar.
Gang related incidents are something entirely different.
The definition should not obscure the two (but it would be politically inconvenient to separate them)
3 Students, Including Attacker, Shot at Colorado High School, Authorities Say
~ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/us/colorado-high-school-s...That's just one below a common mass shooting definition threshold.
It's telling that event, leading news in any other country, will likely get buried below the Kirk shooting as "just another day in the USofA".
How? without decreasing access for sane people or using any of the previous talking points that have been rejected previously. now’s the time to suggest real change that could have an effect but suggesting the tired “no black rifles” will still go nowhere.
Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders. IMO it's clearly worth the tradeoff. Very few of us live in a place where only guns can solve our problems.
The fact that occasionally someone goes to great lengths to kill doesn't mean we should make it easier for everyone.
Australia seemed to have a deeper relationship with guns previously, that stemmed partially out of necessity (farming etc), but there are also a lot of parallels with US culture here – the American dream, being a colony hundreds of years ago, etc, some focus on personal rights and freedoms, being a federation of states, etc. I don't think it was as deep a relationship as the US, but coming from the UK it seemed that Australia had a very different view than the UK.
Australia turned this all around. The culture shifted, and people realised that for the greater good it was something they needed to get past, and they did.
Maybe there's hope for US gun control yet, although the turning point for Australia was a (single) mass shooting. Maybe the US needs a much bigger turning point. I'm a little surprised that the Las Vegas shooting a while ago didn't provide that.
When 1/3 of the country debates whether a different 1/10 to 1/3 of the country has a right to exist and/or live their lives as they wish (within the bounds of the law!), this can't happen.
Step 1: get a supreme court that is able to read the 1st sentence of the 2nd amendment
Step 2: ban sale of guns to individuals not associated with well regulated militias (e.g. state national guards)
Step 3. Offer a reward to turn in privately held guns.
In which case you'd need a strong internal investigatory services in order to root these plots out before they happen by following up on leads and tips.
Well... not to get political, but I think we're hollowing that out too?
Who will necessarily be so strong they'll be capable of pulling such things off to serve their own ends.
It's an intractable problem all the way down.
So let’s define what your definition of strict gun control is. Also, if you want people to care more, stop including suicides because it drastically changes the numbers.
She disagreed, I disagreed with her, she made points I feel were unfair oversimplifications “guns have more rights than women,” but we had a respectful discussion but she didn’t want to talk with me anymore after that. I would’ve talked with her after because I value what people have to say and I want to have discussions. I think we can have discussions but we should never take away the rights of citizens.
... having said that, isn't it funny just how much gun violence there is in the one developed country that allows for open slather gun ownership. It's like, yes, you can never stop a determined person from doing violence, but by reducing the availability and power of fire arms you do stop a lot of fools from doing "mass shooter" levels of damage.
............aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy off.
Such is the state of rhetoric in the USA today. To quote a favourite show of mine:
>Things will not calm down Daniel Jackson things will calm up
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
They let hotel inhabitants leave before burning it down. The finance minister got caught by the mob and survived. Does make it seem quite controlled, imo.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45166972
edit: this too - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45184558
I find it extremely disturbing that half the country are people who are very well educated, earning well above average from their white-collar careers, yet they still think political violence is acceptable or funny.
This country is doomed.
(quick edit) And anyone who doesn't believe me go to Bluesky right now and look.
I have seen right-wing commenters say that the left was saying this. When I asked for examples I got nothing. I got responses, but the left-of-center commenters they pointed to were in the two categories I describe above: those saying the event is terrible and those saying it's ironic.
Now, I'm sure you can find people saying political violence is okay. I'm just saying I haven't seen it at all and therefore it isn't the central tendency in my feed.
Here is some data that seems to say something different. It was posted as a response to Musk’s comment, "The Left is the party of murder."
https://x.com/SocDoneLeft/status/1965887912530293069
Btw It’s really crazy to read what a person who has 225M followers on X writes when he replies "Exactly" directly to claim that people who fund the Left, like Bill Gates, are murderers.
If you believe that one political side is more prone to violence than the other, then say so and show your supporting data.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_Un...
That said, the next challenge is to agree on what constitutes the left-right political spectrum in the US. I would argue it’s too vague to exist. It’s important to realize when a data point is describing gun violence or any source of violence, and whether it is violence against civilians or violence against the government as well.
There's the numerous Obama assassination plots, 2017 Unite the Right rally, Jan 6, the recent assassinations of Democrat politicians, Abbott in 2024 pardoning murderer Daniel Perry who went to a BLM protest with the intention of killing protestors, and the terror groups like the Proud Boys, the 3 Percenters, The Base, the O9A/Cvlt/764.
And that's not to mention the Christchurch mosque shootings, the Club Q or Pulse Nightclub shootings, the El Paso Walmart shooting, the Jacksonville Dollar Tree shooting, or the Charleston church shooting.
And these are just the ones off the top of my head. These aren't cherry picked; the stats disagree with you too. Here is one such study, but you would be hard pressed to find one that shows otherwise: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/
The right commits far more political violence. That is just a simple fact of reality.
(edit) If you are sincerely concerned about political violence, then it's worth keeping up with the far-right accelerationist movement. They have been increasing in activity since 2020, and attacks on gun proponents and conservatives are part of those plots, like The Base's foiled 2020 attack on a gun rights rally in Virginia, or the the foiled 2024 energy grid attack ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atomwaffen_Division_me... )
I think it slipped my mind because there were already too many examples of far-right and conservative terrorist violence, and I was not intending to write an exhaustive comment in the first place.
Trump’s two would be assassins were left aligned.
Man who murdered politicians in Minnesota was right aligned.
It’s probably safe to assume today’s murderer was left aligned.
Seems like it’s a both sides problem.
I mean, sure, it could've been a crazy ex or a former business partner or whatever. But how many crazy ex's can one guy have? And he's pissed off god knows how many people by saying things? Strictly by the numbers this was almost certainly someone who hated him for what he said.
Statistically most people don't go out like Ozzy (i.e. spend a good chunk of your life doing something likely to be the death of you only to get dead by something completely unrelated)
https://www.salon.com/2024/07/18/would-be-assassin-may-have-...
Utah has what they call "constitutional carry." Extremely permissive gun laws. I'd bet there were several people carrying concealed in that crowd, not counting security and police.
Regardless of where you stand on the subject of concealed carry, I don't think its controversial to say we shouldn't be encouraging untrained/unvetted folks to go seek out would-be assassins before they have demonstrated themselves to be a danger. That's exactly how "armed security" shot and killed an actual bystander at the Salt Lake City 50501 demonstration earlier this year.
Even so, most folks who carry prefer concealed carry for tactical reasons, one of which being that unless you have your rifle in a ready position, its not very useful in a self-defense situation, and simply marks you as "shoot this one first". And it turns out that walking around with a rifle in a ready position is generally perceived as aggressive, regardless of actual intent, even by those comfortable with firearms (consider a police officer approaching with a holstered weapon vs one in their hand).
So in the context of this shot, it ought to be relatively easy to pick out the shooter in the moment, the problem is that a ~200m radius around the tent where Kirk was speaking covers a lot of territory, and that's a lot of ground to cover effectively without obviously interfering with students' free movement about their college campus.
https://www.utahpoliticalwatch.news/what-actually-happened-a...
But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."
Whenever I saw him engaging people, he certainly was. Often, they weren't, but he pretty much always was, even going so far as to deescalate. Although what you said is often parroted, there's no much evidence in your favor, if any.
He presented an alternative to the indoctrination students often receive today at college campuses and through the media. He gave students a microphone and a chance to defend their views.
If presenting an alternative political philosophy causes someone to become enraged (or worse), we’re in a really bad state.
> Writes “Unfortunately the left cannot have debate and disagreement.”
> Receives downvotes - literal expressions of disagreement incarnate.
> Updates post to add “(weird way to prove my point, by downvoting)”
I guess you’re implying you’re a liberal?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)
My understanding of the Italian political climate of the 60s, 70s, and 80s is that there were political groups/cells (on both the far right and far left) that organized around violent acts to further their political goals (which involved the eventual authoritarian takeover of the Italian government by either the far right or far left). For example, you can think of the Red Brigades to be akin to the Black Panthers, but with actual terrorism.
In contrast, most political violence in America has been less organized and more individual-driven (e.g., see the Oklahoma City Bombing). For better or worse, the police state in the US has been quite successful in addressing and dispersing political groups that advocate for violence as a viable means for societal change.
Resistance orgs across the ideological spectrum were systematically dismantled after decades of violence because their hierarchical command structures made them vulnerable to infiltration, decapitation and RICO-style prosecutions.
The Weather Underground, Red Army Faction, European Fascist groups and many white supremacist groups all fell to the same structural weaknesses.
Lessons were codified by the KKK and Aryan Nations movements in the USA in the early 90s by Louis Beam[1] who wrote about distributed organisational models.
This was so successful it cross-pollinated to other groups globally. Other movements adopted variations of this structure, from modern far-right and far-left groups to jihadist organisations[2]
This is probably the most significant adaptation in ideological warfare since guerilla doctorine. There has been a large-scale failure in adapting to it.
The internet and social media have just accelerated its effectiveness.
"Inspired by" vs "carried out by" ideological violence today is the norm.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance
[1] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/louis-be...
[2] https://www.memri.org/reports/al-qaeda-military-strategist-a...
It's not so much that we haven't been able to adapt to it as we've simply refrained from doing so. Their violence was in line with the interests of local elites.
He wasn't a "lone wolf".
you really try hard to see "bad commies" uh?
> TPUSA has been described as the fastest growing organization of campus chapters in America, and according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, is the dominant force in campus conservatism.
They've been quite influential, and those campus efforts likely contributed to the Gen Z turnout that helped win in 2024.
He recently went to Cambridge Univ and debated a student who actual knew his routine. It didn't go well for him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0_2iACV-A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mvIktYig9Y
It seems to be a healthy debate for both sides.
It seems to be a healthy debate to someone who doesn't know Charlie's logical fallacies and scripted style.
Given that and the fact that we're in the middle of a new South Park season, a show known for its last-minute incorporation of real-world news into storylines, it will be interesting to see how the show handles this tragic development.
I think a difficulty in searching for such answers is assuming that it was a well reasoned decision. I'm not sure how often attempting to take a life is a purely rational decision, devoid of intense emotional motivations (hatred, self-preservation, fear, revenge, etc.). And that's all assuming the assailant was of somewhat sound mind.
I think one of the dangers of more and more extreme divisions in society is that those divisions cloud our mental processes, threaten our emotional health, and take away opportunities for meaningful civil discourse. All of which can lead to more heinous acts that we struggle to make sense of. One of the scariest parts for me is that this can all be too self reinforcing ("Their side did this bad thing to our side, let's get them back!!!" repeat/escalate...). How do we break the cycle?
There are plenty of dangerous mentally ill people out there who don't use any type of logic or reason as a basis for their decision-making.
The shooter is also in custody already and captured thankfully.
1. He was influential in a influential circle of people who roughly speaking drive what gets discussed and shown to a wider audience. In a favourite-band's favourite-band sense. His jubilee video just recently got 31 million views on youtube and probably a billion more on tiktok and reels.
2. If he wasn't killed by some nut who thought the flying spaghetti monster told him to do it then this is a really clear example of online politics and discourse jumping violently into the physical world. That's a real vibe shift if I have it right that it's basically the first assassination of that kind.
It wouldn't shock me at all if the driving topic here was actually gaza rather than domestic politics.
That is a lot of people
This would be a relevant question in many nations, but it's a bit beside the point in the US. Violence is a deeply respected and loved core of the culture for its own sake. It's an end, not means. Nearly all the US's entertainment, culture and myths are built around a reverence for violence. Even political violence has been pretty much the norm through most of the US's history. Celebrated cases aside, there's been something of a lull since the mid 1970s, but if as now likely it increases again, this will be a boring old reversion to the US's norm.
Yes, you're wrong there (no offense). He's quite popular beyond X (formerly Twitter), particularly amongst the young (~20s) conservative movements. For example, he has almost 4 million subscribers on YouTube and similar on TikTok.
I'd say X isn't even his most popular platform. He's much more popular on video platforms, due to his open campus debates.
I attended one of Charlie's debates this past year and they pretty much let anyone walk up to the mic. It wasn't scripted or censored, that I saw.
> Mom, you don’t understand. I’m getting really good at this. I have my arguments down rock solid. These young college girls are totally unprepared, so I can just destroy them and also edit out all the ones that actually argue back well. It just feels so good.
To me what's been going on is a shakedown run of the new mediums and how they exploit cognitive defects and lack of exposure in audiences.
In a total Marshall McLuhan "The Medium is the Message" kind of way some people like Shapiro, Trump, and Kirk just naturally groove in certain mediums and are able to play them like Ray Charles plays the piano.
And because society doesn't have any sort of natural exposure to this they're able to gain massive audiences and use that influence for nefarious purposes.
I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is though.
On the one had I think that there is going to be a natural feedback mechanism that puts keeps their population in check (which is basically what we just saw today) but that isn't the most desireable outcome.
Crazy people murder all the time, hell he probably did it for a girl. See the movie Taxi Driver.
Yes, you are wrong, he was the leader of the most powerful campus conservative movement group in the country, was an extremely prominent figure in right-wing media, to the point where he is a central figure in pop culture images of the right, and a central target for being too soft of organizing figures for even farthe-right groups.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
Motives for assassinations (attempted or actual) of politicial figures are often incoherent. Political assassins aren’t always (or even often) strategic actors with a clear, rationally designed programs.
I’d heard of him-I’ve lived my whole life in Australia, and although I have a Twitter/X account, I almost never use it, and that’s not a new thing, I dabbled with it but never committed.
Do most Australians know who he was? I don’t have any hard data, but my “No” to that is very confident. But I remember briefly discussing him (in person) with one of my old friends from high school, who is deep into right-wing politics (he’s a member of Australia’s One Nation party, which a lot of people would label “far right”, yet mainstream enough to have a small number of seats in Parliament)
Me too! I follow politics, elections, and world affairs very closely, but I am embarrassed to admit - I had no idea who he was. Although I had heard about 'Turning Point USA'.
The problem is that that kind of influence often goes under the radar for people outside the circles in question, because influence is no longer mediated as centrally as it used to be, it’s more targeted and siloed. That’s a big part of how the current political situation in the US arose.
He also lied about widespread election fraud among other things so there are many reasons a person would want to target him
Charlie Kirk may have been incorrect but he generally seemed to believe his positions.
Even if we assume those numbers are inflated, that's quite a bit of influence if someone is influential only on Twitter.
“Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, died Wednesday after being shot at an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump said.”
He influenced the US President, that seems pretty influential to me. Anecdotally, my kid in high school surprised me by knowing quite a lot about them.
That says a lot more about those "other well-known figures" than it does about him and his already extreme ideology
Why does this keep getting posted everywhere after he got shot? It’s like someone is running a campaign
I have seen it in Reddit comments, Twitter/X, HN, and TikTok. Literally same comment or variation plastered
Plus, this isn’t a 2nd amendment issue
This doesn't condone violence but offers context as to how he would've assessed a similar situation if he weren't the target.
But are we suggesting that he should have deployed counter snipers?
For example, maybe (or maybe not) for you it's just an abstract argument about far-away matters, but when Kirk called Leviticus 20:13 (the one about killing men who lie with men) "God's perfect law", it's not so abstract to gay people.
There are only ~16,000 non-suicide related firearm deaths in the US. There are about 40,000 vehicle related deaths in the US. We could save a lot of lives if we made our society far less car dependent and had more restrictions on allowing people to operate vehicles in public spaces.
Kirk's position was to have guns as unregulated as possible, so I pretty much DGAF when the consequences of his position come home to roost.
Objectively, my position is both serious and not just realistic, but actually lived reality here in Europe. You are free to visit our continent whenever you want, I can only recommend it.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/no-traffic-deaths-in-helsinki-finland-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation
Helsinki may be a lucky coincidence. It doesn't prove it's possible everywhere.
What if that is purpose?
Kirk regularly spoke out against antisemitism on both the left and right. So much so, in fact, Israeli Prime Minister tweeted[0] his condolences, praising Kirk as a strong, positive force for Jewish and Christian values.
[0]: https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1965888327938158764
Bad taste in hindsight obv. but expected I suppose - the MAGA crowd is really grating in a most debased sort of way (eg. Navarro bringing 'caste & evil-brahmins' in India tariff amongst other things). Stupidly, they also advocated guns which their opponents can also get hold of.
Oh well RIP.
All hail Trump, the liberator of the world from the American empire...
Yeah we all know violence has no place in our society and gun's are controversial and politics should be more civil.
[1] https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2025/8/7/widesprea...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
> An estimated 62–153 black men were murdered while surrendering to a mob of former Confederate soldiers and members of the Ku Klux Klan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/opinion/lincoln-schmitt-t...
Hard disagree. Ignoring it is what allows systemic injustice to persist -- why do we care, today, what Eugenicists in the early 1900s had to say? Jim Crow implementers and supporters? Daughters of the Confederacy?
If the reality of history undermines your respect for American philosophical thought, then perhaps the American philosophical thought is not quite worthy of the pedestal it was placed on.
That said I think it’s important to separate good ideas from their troubled past and use them where they still apply. People are not perfect, but a good idea is good no matter where it comes from. Those good ideas shape culture and shape the destiny of nations. That’s what happened in America, and there’s a lot to be learned from the past. Unless the point is to undermine the recipe that made America into what it is today, then it doesn’t make sense to measure people who didn’t live in our time by our sensibilities, morality or ethics.
We can learn their good stuff, and improve on what they didn’t do well.
Seems extremist to take that view, especially when all nations have just as bloody or dark histories.
But a lot of what shaped initial American thought were Enlightenment ideals, primarily the works of John Locke. So the foundation is solid enough, but is there more that can be done to produce effective implementations? Definitely.
It’s important to note that there are good ideas everywhere, and no one culture or nation has had hegemony or monopoly on producing the best works over time.
I personally also like the fact that the way the American revolutionaries thought shaped the progress of American science up to the 20th century. Here’s a recent lecture on this, but there’s no recording that I can find.
https://www.sciencehistory.org/visit/events/americas-scienti...
https://www.usahistorytimeline.com/pages/the-impact-of-the-r...
Second, the Scottish enlightenment wad wonderful! Not unique to America, so recognizing that the darkest parts of our history are decidedly not representive of the Enlightenment, my classical liberal ideals, and I suspect yours too, does nothing to the case that America did a good job adopting some of the ideals of the Enlightenment in the constitution. We could have gone the French route with the horrors of Robspierre, but we didnt, whether due to lack of population density, aristocracy, or any number of factors.
We agree completely that cultural differences, known as diversity, have outsized benefits.
I'll review the science idea.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. We really aren't far apart. I simply see slavery, genocide, and other horrors of the American past as necessary to set context, and in no way does that diminish the astonishing success of our American experiment. Indeed, in spite of these stains on our history, we remain a nation that does the right thing, as Churchill puts it, after exhausting all other options. And that's a uniqur thing to history.
In my view, if we can't acknowledge our past deficits, in no way can we comprehend the present flaws sufficiently to motivate action and collaboration.
Your comment maps precisely to: we've had zero network intrusions, why are we paying these cybersecurity professionals?
So much fascism and authoritarianism was blocked since WW2 because scholars called it out early.
Guess what scholars called out in the US in 2016, but most politicians put party over country? "We scaled back our cybersecurity professionals and saved a ton of budget! On an unrelated note, do we have data breach insurance?"
There is certainly room to punch fascists in the face when hostilities are hot. We can't start there and remain a tolerant society dealing with the paradox of tolerance. The first steps are shunning and ceasing support, isolating the infected into appropriately deprived states of resource loss, and not political violence.
There is a great case study in Daryl Davis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis
An apt comparison would be instituting mandatory cybersecurity training for employees as a direct response to a breach. That is a great step to take post-cleanup but does basically nothing to address the issue at hand.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Depending on your interpretation of "effective" I'm not sure I entirely agree. Political campaigners on both side of the political spectrum have a lot of respect for Charlie Kirk and his ability to raise funds and make a difference in his political activism. From what I've heard, the stuff he did on camera was actually the weaker part of his skill set, its his off-camera work that the GOP will sorely miss.
Slavery, patriarchy, indentured servitude, excessive religiosity, monarchy, rejection of other cultures, all these seem to be good things to leave in the rearview mirror.
The items you listed fluctuate rapidly by popular vote. These others aren't governed by democracy, but by the economic advantage of the wealthy few who control them.
What society are you referring to? And what values? I’m trying to gauge if you’ve looked in a history book ever.
I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way. Either committing or supporting violence against those we disagree with, has no place in a civil society.
You're far from the only account doing this, of course, but (perhaps due to randomness) I've noticed several places you've done it in this thread, in contradiction of both https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45203452 and https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is untrue. You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. But to say he never participated in real debate shows you haven't adequately found information outside your filter bubble. There are many examples like the one below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc.
It’s a bit strange to say that I’m somehow uninformed because of my “filter bubble” seeing as in order to call Charlie Kirk’s performances legitimate debate you would either have to have never heard of his many, many outright lies or believe that it’s acceptable to make stuff up in a debate. (If the latter is the case we simply disagree on what constitutes a real debate)
I’m familiar with his routine, which is why I described his performances as sometimes resembling legitimate debate. He was able to at times take (from your example) twelve minutes out of several hours of owning the libs to engage in a more mild performance, but that’s not the same thing as someone that has a genuinely good-faith interest in debate. That’s just taking a few minutes to make a marketing video for his podcast/speaking tours.
I understand the impulse to be polite about the deceased, but the guy (for just one example) -in the middle of the January wildfires in Los Angeles- took to his audience to say that the destruction that the fires caused was due to a lack of white firefighters. That is both deeply disrespectful and completely false. And entirely on-brand. https://www.rawstory.com/charlie-kirk-white-men/
GP said Charlie Kirk was respectful during debates. You tried to deny this, not by showing one of his college debates, but by taking out of context what he said on one of his shows.
If you actually watched his debates, you wouldn't have said that. https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk/videos
This is absolutely correct.
You just linked to a YouTube channel. Which totally-not-performance legitimate debate do you recommend? ”Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee“ or is “Charlie Kirk Crushes Woke Lies at Michigan State” a better place to start?
Sorry if I sound sarcastic, I’m not. If you had to pick between Versus The Wokies and Crushes Woke Lies which would you suggest best showcases how his debates were not performances meant to inflame but rather reasoned, dispassionate discussion?
You may have seen one of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. Those exist, as do many examples like the below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
This is not correct.
> Wikipedia:
> A bad faith discussion is characterized by insincerity and a lack of genuine commitment to the exchange of ideas, where the primary goal is not to seek truth or understand opposing viewpoints, but to manipulate, deceive, or win the argument regardless of the facts
Discussion is most useful when parties attempt to make the strongest arguments for and against each other's positions to find an optimally logical position and/or to clarify ideological beliefs that underpin those positions. Good faith discussion enables that. Bad faith exchanges are often used to derail, to generate strawmen, to mischaracterize another party's beliefs or thinking, et al.
You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. There are many examples like the one below, which is absolutely a constructive discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
He’s cherry-picking one interaction, has all the editing controls, and even with all that, he literally interrupted the guy less than a minute in.
This is exactly what I meant: the appearance of a debate, with a heavy anvil on the scale.
Actually, not “may or may not.”
Bad faith arguments and cheap rhetorical trickery didn't wash.
The only excerpts from those debates on the Charlie Kirk channel are edited to show him in a good light - the original full videos tell a different tale.
I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took cheap rhetorical shots. I've done that, you've done that, and he did that.
Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
"I am right therefore I win" is all the proof I need that you have watched a lot of Charlie Kirk edits.
Cambridge debating is a microcosm of parliamentary debates in the UK, AU and elsewhere that I'm not entirely sure the US has in government anymore, if ever - the CSPAN footage I've seen largely features lone people showboating unchallenged, often with props.
Your 12 minute video shows a back and forth near Q&A exchange between Kirk and another not entirely opposed with Kirk taking various interpretations of well regulated militia as he saw them with little push back.
It has edits and has been self selected and post produced by Kirk to post on his channel to highlight how "good" he is.
There are many examples of videos like the one below, and if you'd seen any of them, you would absolutely understand why people think this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
Can you explain why you’re flabbergasted?
Kirk was was speaking at Utah Valley University, as part of his "American Comeback Tour."
If you find this horrifying (and I hope you do, because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder), then I encourage you to really think about whether we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds. We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.
My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
It would bring on the end of a society. It might well happen in the US case, they've been heading in a pretty dangerous direction rhetorically. If we take the Soviet Union as a benchmark they probably have a long way to go but that sort of journey seems unnecessary and stupid.
"You shouldn't do anything unjustified" is an uncontroversial and useless prescription.
The “just different beliefs” framing is a dodge. We’re not talking about Coke vs. Pepsi here—we’re talking about beliefs that deny others’ humanity, spread lies, or justify violence. When a “belief” is racist, sexist, conspiratorial, or openly anti-democratic, it’s not just different, it’s harmful. Pretending otherwise is how extremism hides in plain sight.
This is a nonsense argument. It is possible that constantly making apocalyptic statements can result in an apocalypse, and saying that people should stop doing that is not contradictory.
The words you use matter. If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated. If you're not advocating for murderous escalation, then stop using those words (for example).
Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat, who/what maintains the list of words which can replace "democracy" in that section, and what happens when someone disagrees with the maintainer of that list?
At the same time, I do believe there are ways to share such statements while also reinforcing healthy ways to react at the same time. kryogen1c's example ending in "he should be assassinated" crosses the line from bigstrat2003's talk of apocalyptic claims to direct calls to violence about them - the latter of which I agree is bad teaching (but I'd still rather people be encouraged to openly talk openly about those kinds of statements too, rather than be directly pressured to internalize or echo chamber such thoughts).
This is why the first question posed about the statement from kryogen1c was "Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat". The follow on questions were only added to help highlight there is no reasonable answer to that question because it's the call to assassination that is inherently problematic, not the claim someone is a threat to the democratic way of life here. The latter is good, if not best, to talk about directly and openly, it's the former that's inherently incompatible with a stable society.
You can "educate" someone all you want, they will still suffer from all the normal biases and those biases will still affect their choices.
This is why we have double blind trials even though doctors are "experts"
I do believe education on how to effectively engage against an idea which feels threatening is better equipped to handle this apparent fact than bigstrat2003's approach of teaching people to not say certain beliefs because they'd be worth killing about. That doesn't mean it results in a perfect world though. Some may perhaps even agree with both approaches at the same time, but I think the implication from teaching the silencing of certain beliefs from being said for fear they are worth assassinating over if believed true ends up driving the very problem it sets out against. Especially once you add in malicious actors (internal or external).
Just curious, do you believe someone who, without evidence, claims that an election is stolen, and then successfully goads their supporters into violence over that claim is a threat to democracy?
Yes, it's true that lunatics on both sides may use their side's rhetoric as a call to action but often this isn't even the case and they're just hopelessly confused and mentally ill people. It'd be nice if we lived in a society where those people couldn't get guns or could get mental health treatment and it'd be nice if one side of this debate didn't weaponize these common sense ideas into identity politics but here we are.
It is historically proven as the first step to violence. People seem to think that words don't matter.
They matter very much. Just because you can read millions of words a day, doesn't mean they're not powerful.
Support him or no, he didn't deserve to die for his political beliefs.
I definitely believe that people should be more understanding of each other, and less quick to jump to insults and othering, but we know so little about this situation, to be so confident that it was caused by speech seems extreme.
I am also aware that a lot of the political violence of the last few years ended up not being motivated by the reasons one might naturally expect.
At the root I agree in principal though. It's, for example, still possible he picked a bad fight with an unstable individual in a bar last night (over something not politically related) and they followed him to the event he was speaking at to shoot him. I'm not as convinced I've seen that kind of thing happen "a lot", but it's true we don't have post validation yet.
Well, yes. People point this out regularly with mass shootings. Sometimes the shooters helpfully leave a list of all the violent rhetoric that inspired them. Anders Breivik claimed to be acting against an "existential threat". Those words get used a lot.
There is no inherent threat of violence in saying "this person is a threat to democracy". This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.
As someone of Eastern European origins I would celebrate Vladimir Putin's murder, especially since he's responsible for the murder for so many in Ukraine today (both Russians and Ukrainians). I think the reality is a touch more nuanced than the absolutist ethical stance.
Billionaires are literally trying to rally an army of right wing gun toting lunatics and get people killed. It isn't hyperbole, it's really happening.
Someone who calls for violence or does violence against people wishing to have open debate is the essence of fascism.
what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda, and the end result of following said goals is the loss of your way of life? What if lies are held as truth and money allows the lies to be repeated so often many don't even realize their axioms are baseless? What happens to the sheep when the wolves vote to eat the sheep?
But of all things Charlie Kirk was not, first among them: He was not "a threat to democracy".
Now that he's gone, let's do him the honor of remembering him accurately.
If someone or something is a threat to democracy and rule of law, then they are. Period. I think pretending the ruling political party in the US is not intentionally destroying the government is not a valid strategy.
This is not an endorsement of what happened today. I worry this will have a big chilling effect on political speech in the country.
I genuinely can’t tell if you realize that this is a description of the victim, and your comment could easily be construed as a justification for what happened, or if you condemn the action so heartily you missed that.
Which leads to my point: there are discourses around this that completely miss each other. That’s a huge problem because so many people will loudly express strongly held emotions and two people will read completely opposite view points. US public discourse is at a point where language, without copying context, is failing.
Saying “both sides miss each other” isn’t true either: I’m convinced one side is perfectly capable of quoting leaders of the other, even if they find it absurd, but the reciprocal isn’t true. Many people can’t today say what was the point of one of the largest presidential campaign. They’ll mention points that were never raised by any surrogate or leaders. But they can’t tell that because the relationship is complete severed.
I don’t think there’s a balanced argument around violence, either: one side has leaders who vocally and daily argue for illegal acts violence, demand widespread gun possession vs. another where some commentators occasionally mention that violent revolution is an option, but leaders are always respectful. The vast majority of people who commit gun violence support one particular political movement, even the violence against the leaders of that same movement. If that’s not obvious to you, I can assure you that you are out off from a large part of the political discourse about the US, not just around you, but internationally.
To be clear, I don’t think Kirk was. But there are people who are even vocal about their disdain for democracy. It would feel weird to treat them as if they weren’t who they say they are.
IMO the sad reality is that we live in increasingly dark times. Anti democratic forces are stronger than they have been in recent history. Us all agreeing to not talk about it won’t change that.
What does that even mean?
Just the fact that many big states don't need IDs to vote is reason enough to cast suspicion on any election, really.
Why? There have been numerous investigations into this and none have ever unearthed fraud at any meaningful level.
If you actually believe in democracy, nobody can ever be a “danger to democracy” for expressing their opinions…since that is the point of a democracy.
Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument devoid of meaning used by people who can’t rationally argue their positions with logic.
If someone decides of their own volition to become a slave, is that not their free will?
Most of us believe that certain rights should be inalienable.
> Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument
Sometimes, perhaps, but not always.
Sure. When did that vote happen?
There’s a false right-wing talking point that the US “is a republic, not a democracy”. The US is both a representative democracy and a republic, but the talking point equivocates on the meaning of “democracy”, conflating it with direct democracy, and this apparently fools far more people than it should.
The goal of people who push such propaganda is to weaken support for, and understanding of, democracy. There isn’t any doubt that they, and the people who unthinkingly repeat the propaganda, are a threat to democracy.
> JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones."
> BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy."
Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reactions-fatal-shooting-us...
This happened a few hours ago while the decedent was commenting on 5/5700 mass shootings being performed by trans people being enough to take rights, which the decedent normally argues should not be abrogated, away, and that most shootings were gang violence. This is after a few years long history of promoting inaction on guns despite clear Constitutionality and clear need.
Ironically it was at a school, making it a school shooting. Unironically, there was a school shooting in Colorado occurring at the same time.
Guns are the problem. Everyone knows this. Some try to justify it anyway, Mr. Kirk among them.
Like I said, I simply don't understand why someone's response mere hours after a deadly shooting is "I blame my political enemies who are wholly uninvolved and tried to help prevent these types of occurrences."
---
Edit --
Here are two quotes from, as you said, your political enemies:
> JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones."
> BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy."
Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reactions-fatal-shooting-us...
Deport an illegal immigrant? They may get killed back in their more dangerous home country (or die slowly due to less access to medicine), or grow their home economy instead of yours. Let them stay? Maybe they're a dangerous criminal and will kill someone here. Don't deport any? Your culture and nation get diluted into nothing - some value those things highly, others don't, but to the former, that's an existential threat.
Tax fossil fuels? The economy slows, there's less money for hospitals, more crime due to poverty, this can easily kill people, or maybe it's harder to keep up with China. Don't tax them, and now you're taking your chances with global warming.
Spy on everyone's communication? You've just made it much easier for a tyrannical government to arise, and those have killed millions, and trampled values many hold as dear as life itself. Don't spy? Well maybe you miss a few terrorist attacks, but you also have a harder time identifying hostile foreign propaganda, which could have devastating but hard to isolate effects.
Simply put, death, existential threats, threats to democracy, etc., are common in politics, and one cannot talk honestly about it while avoiding their mention. I would say that, unless you cannot keep a cool head in those circumstances, you shouldn't get into politics in any capacity. But of course, those that need this advice won't heed it.
I would say it is true. Such killer is a threat to democracy.
Sorry. We in the west don’t live like that.
Sort of, even South Park self censored when it came to drawing an animated Muhammad.
It essentially says, "They are so lacking of basic compassion that even jokes are not allowed."
That's the joke.
There comes a point where you have to oppose fascism with violence. There really does. But wow are people overeager to jump into it.
I am betting if you read a history of germany, you would probably pick roughly the same point that the US has long since passed as the time to resist openly. Most people do in abstract.
But we should be civil. Which is different than being nice, but is far more important. Many generals in war are not terribly nice to their enemies. They are, however, civil.
We lost more than ordered discourse in our abrogation of the societal pact with civility.
Rhetoric does no good to anybody.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/us/video/the-lead-joe-walsh-c...
I wonder if he/she/they will ever be caught?
Someone got up to use the bathroom and didn’t lock the machine. Dude thought he was being funny. But of course since he logged on to the adjacent machine he put himself on the suspect list and got caught. And in a hell of lot of trouble as I recall. I think he got expelled, too.
That was for a prank, not an assassination.
The thing some crime dramas don’t get right is that while circumstantial and tainted evidence cannot get you a conviction, it is absolutely possible for it to be used to prioritize manpower used to narrow you down to the top of the list.
There’s a thing in law enforcement called Parallel Construction. It can be used to protect confidential informants such as in undercover operations, but it can also be used to replace evidence that was found illegally, such as illegal recording or theft by a neighbor.
They just need to find something that follows process front to back. They don’t need to do that in order to figure out it was you in the first place.
Statistics say the spouse or partner almost always committed the murder. Even lacking any evidence they look really really hard at these people. It’s not illegal or unfair to do so. It’s triage. If I’m looking at Mrs Fredrickson’s murder, I’m not looking at any cold cases or spending effort on many other active cases. It’s unfortunately a numbers game.
People are calling this an assassination because they are making the (probably reasonable) guess that the reason to shoot Charlie Kirk during a political speech is to make a political statement.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45203452 and stop doing this, we'd appreciate it.
(Your account is far from the only one posting abusively in this thread, and it's probably random that I happened to see your posts, but still - this is not ok.)
Some years ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks
I have a feeling he'll get caught.
As RFK said after MLK’s death, we must choose between “violence and non-violence, between lawlessness and love.” His call for unity and rejecting hatred feels as urgent now as it was then.
Violence is never the answer. But understanding these tragic patterns might help us navigate our current moment with hopefully more empathy.
Political violence, especially deadly violence is not ok. But comparing Charlie Kirk to MLK is also not ok.
I say this as an Australian. We have a far more restrictive system of gun control than the US and yet we still see tens of gun deaths a year, because some gun deaths are okay even if we set the number a lot lower than the US does.
In a broader sense, it is of course not okay to shoot someone, but that's taking the quote out of the context of gun control measures.
The nbcnews website is filled with ad stuff and my blockers basically render the page unreadable.
I’m probably wrong, but dang this seems like such a silly thing to personally worry about.
But I also know human brains are bad at statistics. Meh.
You don't need to get shot to be a victim of gun violence. I've honked at a car that was driving aggressively and that driver pointed a gun at me. This is a common enough story in Texas to be meme-ifyed.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
Good statistics beg good questions.
She would have had, to actually endanger me:
- to have enough strength to penetrate anything
- the courage to see a lot of blood and cries to actually go through with a full murder
- resist me fighting her back if it went to that, close range
- not react to any rational argument I would beg her to listen to while she attacked me
It was a bit traumatizing, but we laugh at it now... she failed at the first rational argument I presented "don't do it, don't ruin your life for a guy".
Imagine if we were in a gun country, and she pressed the trigger accidentally... it's not the same, you must understand that, knife murders are really really hard, gun murders really really easy.
You didn't say anything incorrect here. To clarify though, the second part was not what he said when he was shot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
edit: regarding the surveillance issue, wonder what the retention on google earth/maps logs is for the location of the shooting?
This has helped me to understand a lot of human behavior and social media posts and reactions (also propaganda, cults, sales, etc)
You may think you have come to a logical conclusion about political issue x or political party x, but very likely the vast majority of us are first having a triggered emotional reaction and later using our pre-frontal cortex to logically create a narrative on why we feel this way and justify it.
Taken to extremes I think you can see things like today happen and see how people react.
Sometimes I catch myself defending someone or a position and later realize I am just wrong, it’s just that I had an emotional reaction felt a possible connection with the person or a cause or vibe they expressed or are connected with and then my attorney brain kicks into overdrive trying to make it all add up.
It also explains a lot of domestic issues, if you are upset or scared your brain stays in the limbic center and is literally incapable of rational thought until you calm down or feel safe.
Just my two cents
So this is a outlier only in that someone was equipped and trained to a fairly serious degree. Someone on the order of a squad designated marksman (SDM) is certainly capable of this. The US military has a few thousand active duty personal trained to that level across the several branches, and there are 10's of thousands of veterans. There are also many SWAT and other LEOs and an uncountable number of enthusiasts and serious hunters with sufficient training and weapons.
No serious training or equipment would be required for this close of a shot. I've taken deer over 200 yards away with my $500 rifle, no training other than shooting on and off since I was a kid.
High pressure.
Under pressure, a poorly trained person is unlikely to be capable of this. It takes some degree of training to simultaneously deal with this pressure and still perform.
Yes, this is the level of training I imagine as sufficient. A match applies pressure: you're on a clock, there is an audience, you have a safety regime and people scrutinizing you on it, and at the end, there is a score. I don't claim Fort Benning sniper school is necessary. Only that you likely can't just wander out of a gun shop with your scoped deer rifle and snipe targets at range under pressure: there is more to it than the weapon.
Training.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmteh_NChOQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPoint
Between that and cheap quadcopter drones, I expect political assassinations to skyrocket in the future.
He could have been aiming for the skull for all we know. He could have been aiming for the chest. Hell, he could have been aiming for someone behind Kirk.
I've killed deer beyond 200 yards sitting on a stump with a cheap rifle, it's not actually that hard if you've shot a bit before. The nerves though... you're right there, I couldn't imagine.
Anyway, the point is that it's really not a difficult shot at all, and only requires very rudimentary training that is readily available to anyone who can make a few trips to the range.
At say 3000fps velocity, time to target is less than 450ms.
This is almost point and shoot. It’s entirely possible someone fairly untrained just aimed at the forehead and ended up with neck
In my nonprofessional opinion, that is crappy aim. I can hit an apple from 100 yards away, with a black powder rifle, with an unriffled bore, with iron sights, standing up, repeatedly. I would expect a modern rifle with a riffled bore and a scope and a larger target to be much more accurate from a prone position.
The shooter had 1 target, and he delivered a 100% kill shot.
You could say "it wasn't impressive", but you can't say it was crap...
It was crap. I highly doubt the neck was the target. If the head was the target, then the same distance but in another direction, would have missed.
Regardless, it's still sad that someone died, especially in this manner (regardless of politics).
The person is probably easier frankly.
It’s going to sound absurd, but right now, USA’s global image is a very good counter-ad towards “complete” freedom of speech.
We are also an example when a people becomes completely divorced from their cultural and religious heritage. Without a moral anchor, we are a people cast adrift, lost in confusion, calling evil good and good evil, all trying to do our own thing and benefit ourselves, consumed by greed, by self-interest.
Freedom of speech, or lack there-of, plays no role in what is happening in the United States. This country and its founding charters were written for a moral people. That the country is byzantine, crumbling, has more to do with a people who have lost their way than it has to do with this-or-that law that the government no longer heeds.
what moral anchor do you think we need?
If it was just a matter of people internalizing that killing fascists is fine and thus that calling people fascists is dangerous, then we would not see the same sort of violence being perpetrated against other politicians not getting the same label.
Kirk himself suggested that a "real patriot who wanted to be a midterm hero" should bail out the man who nearly killed Pelosi's husband. The rhetoric around political violence in this country has been ratcheted up to an insane degree, with or without any accusations of fascism, and this will continue or get worse as long as that remains the case.
There's just less tolerance for discussing or exhibiting "extreme" or highly unpopular opinions, nowadays, it seems. Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.
I mean, you're almost there realizing the recency bias. The 1970s, when the Skokie Affair occurred, were arguably the high point for political violence in the post-WWII US.
Sure.
But the overwhelming majority of people called "nazis" by their political opponents have objectively not chosen anything remotely of the sort.
The problem isn't the claimed actions they want to take, its the dehumanization being resorted to.
It's that level of hysteria what causes moderates to shift to the right.
Trump is an autocrat - he expects everyone to simply fall in line with his orders. He's an authoritarian, in that he sees state intervention as the answer to problems (the sheer majority of mainstream politicians are authoritarians). Liberty examples from before the second round ("track record") are a little nebulous, but one of the clearest is the way he rejected the second amendment when the police retaliated against Kenneth Walker for exercising his natural right to night time home defense. But now into the second round, we have unaccountable gangs roving around and attacking citizens, so the obvious prediction was correct.
And institutions? His first term, he picked a fight with the CDC for being politically incorrect. This time around, how many government institutions has he destroyed? Furthermore, he's gone on to attacking non-governmental institutions like universities. His whole popular shtick is basically one big rambling of grievances about US institutions.
I'm sorry that words mean things, and that you apparently have a negative emotional reaction to words that correctly describe Trump. I would call your statement gaslighting. Revanchist "make America great again" is plainly not a conservative movement.
Circa 2017 during then “punching Nazis” era of social discourse, I started a new job. The first week in I went for lunch with a Junior teammate and was told “violence against ‘Nazis’” is fine, it’s justified. I asked how. I was told, my brain is a part of the body, so if someone says something so stupid that it ‘hurts the brain,’ the speech is now assault, so counter-violence is justified.
I, with hint of irony, told my new coworker that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard and asked if I should now assault them for hurting my brain… and was met with hostility.
I don’t quite known I’m going with this exactly, but I feel folks are not giving the world around them an honest assessment, no matter their Ivy diploma. Politics isn’t a “gotcha game” and please stop tying to make it such.
News manipulating footage to cast aspersions to historical boogeymen is routine. All it takes is one pundit mentioning an imagined similarity to play the edited B-roll.
1. People who believe they could never become Nazis are often the most unknowingly susceptible to it.
2. People who believe they can confidently identify a Nazi are often wrong — a mindset akin to witch hunts, where everyone is seen as a witch.
I think you have the concepts of fascist and authoritarian confused.
The same way it did for the last 250 years as the world's oldest Democracy. By respecting and upholding our Constitution, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
Painfully ironic given how open he was to debate.
I ask because for a while it was a common "right wing faux intellectual" thing (think Sargon of Akkad, Milo Yulianopolis etc) to go around asking to debate. Then to not actually do much factual debating or any learning of other perspectives, and claiming that the left is simply uncapable of civilized debate because they eventually just refuse to go along with the act.
When I talk to people that watch a bunch of right-wing content I shut down political topics immediately. They never change their position and are convinced their point of view is the only point of view. If you concede there's more than one side to a topic they care about, they think they've "won" and it reinforces their belief they're right about everything.
I consider myself to be a centrist. There are definitely things I like and don't like on both sides of the political spectrum. If someone gives me a solid logical argument for or against something, I'll either change my point of view or, more likely, end up with a better understanding of both perspectives.
I'm only one person, but my experience is that people on the political left or center are willing to accept the fact there are often two sides to an issue and that everything needs to be a balance. Most people on the political right won't do that.
It's really hard to argue against someone that never concedes anything especially if you're acting in good faith and acknowledge when they make a convincing argument for their point of view.
> claiming that the left is simply uncapable of civilized debate because they eventually just refuse to go along with the act
1000%
If you say so. My experience has, broadly speaking, been the exact opposite.
Almost everyone I know would be center-left or center-right except the ones that have shifted far to the right from watching influencers. The center-right people will come towards the middle, so I should have been clear that I'm talking about the new normal of right wing politics that is way further to the right than it used to be.
Again, my experience is very nearly the opposite. I have to seek out rightist views if I want to hear them (I have them in carefully curated feeds so that I can make sure I understand their logic); I can scarcely avoid being exposed to leftist ones (before the Musk takeover, even opening Twitter logged out and in an incognito tab would do this; now I can still have that experience on Bluesky and on most Mastodon instances).
> Almost everyone I know would be center-left or center-right except the ones that have shifted far to the right from watching influencers.
I have been in communities full of people who were commonly accused of having "shifted far to the right from watching influencers", and consistently noticed that no such thing had actually happened if I listened to their actual views.
There are unstable people of all political persuasions and the marked lack of widespread political violence is hard won by years of obeying political norms that include not resorting to violence within political systems.
In the United States there was first a fraying of norms and now there seem to be fewer and fewer norms people are willing to uphold each day.
To focus on calling people “Nazis” and “Fascists” is to miss the wood for the trees.
What happened can't be condoned, but the violent rhetoric isn't just from people being called nazis.
I don’t read Twitter, but I do read my local news. I’m not quite sure that anyone is better off now that her murder is being nationally reported, to be honest.
Increased political violence is bad. The state starts breaking down since the price for everything is death so action stalls.
those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolutions inevitable. pretty sure a us president said something like that.
On campuses today, there’s no shortage of professors, student activists, and guest speakers beating the drum of modern liberalism, but very few brave enough to take an alternative view.
So I respected him for getting students to question and defend their beliefs.
Not to mention Kirk's views were not too different from the majority of American voters who elected our current president.
Why make such a comparison? Don't you think this sort of rhetoric contributes to the toxic political landscape we find ourselves in?
Why is this post flag worthy? I'm just asking questions. I thought we should be able to do that????
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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.
Plenty of websites track this legislation.
If you really wanted, you could have an agent do deep research and answer that for you.
I am in the unfortunate situation to have found myself a victim of hatred — nearly got abducted — found myself threatened and discriminated against on the basis of my sexuality and appearance, had people spread rumours about my birth sex, and I wonder, do the perpetrators of stochastic terrorism ever feel any remorse? Are they capable of seeing us as fellow humans? Have they a heart that can feel pain for people they can’t relate to any more than just being other people?
For those who want to know without exposing themselves: He's sitting in a chair when he takes a round to the neck. Clean exit. It's over within three seconds.
I always wonder if media hiding gore allows people to not get more upset about violence. The lynching of Emmett Till would not have had the same impact without his mother having an open casket funeral. Would things have gone differently if more people had been exposed to images from Sandy Hook?
People hear of kids dying in “bombings” but ignore the reality that it means they were: crushed, burned to death, dismembered, etc etc.
Even though I have an extremely negative opinion of Charlie, I'd feel too bad thinking about the pain his family would be experiencing. The family (especially children) don't deserve that.
Excessive exposure to shock images from forum trolls back in the '90s.
Gore definitely made me a depressed person in grade school, but the only reaction I'm having to this is concern about: - conservatives getting ready for violence - the state getting ready to use this to further erode civil liberties - the left fanning the flames for conservatives
If we saw death up close and personal, perhaps we could become a bit more empathetic. I seriously wonder if, for example, we published the horrific photos of the aftermath of a school shooting, that would result in more honest discourse in this country on gun control.
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-death-penalty-public-e...
Never heard of him before today but he seems to have been a delight.
It is graphic and shows how fragile we are, how it will go down if you are in that situation
You feel sick because you cannot process reality.
Yes, I feel sick because I cannot process reality, and increasing the burden of what I have to process does not make that any easier.
and spending millions of dollars to bus people to a violent insurrection, apparently. I'd forgotten until I was reading wikipedia as a consequence of this news.
I’m not a public figure but I support the 2A, would you feel sorry for me if I was shot giving a speech?
Would you feel different if Charlie was murdered by a machete or hand grenade?
I don't know what that has to do with anything. Plus, the 2A forbids mandatory licensing for firearms users.
> I’m not a public figure but I support the 2A, would you feel sorry for me if I was shot giving a speech?
It's not about whether someone supports the 2A or not. It's what they do with their lives that matters. If a person's life's mission is to deny white privilege and defend the 2A despite its obvious risks, then make a public statement that school shootings are an acceptable price to pay so that we can have it, then no, I'm not going to feel sorry for that person if they are shot. It's poetic justice. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
> Would you feel different if Charlie was murdered by a machete or hand grenade?
A machete, yes. That has a legitimate use; as with a car, its primary purpose is not to hurt people. A hand grenade, no, as its primary purpose is to harm people, and Mr. Kirk's mission was to protect the rights of those who want to possess devices whose sole purpose is to harm people.
Genuinely curious for an example of domestic assassination working out well for anyone.
If they survive, they’re forgiven and quasi-deified. If they die, they’re martyred and replaced.
The only cases where this has worked is when it’s a state wholesale wiping out the other side’s political leadership, e.g. Roman proscriptions.
That said, the assassination of Carrero Blanco, who was set to be Franco's successor, was instrumental in Spain's transition to democracy.
The difference between the murder of the planned successor of an actual, literal dictator in an actual, literal dictatorship and what happened today is, I hope, evident to everyone.
This is a good example. Thank you.
Unless you don't count it as assassination because they held the flimsiest short kangaroo court before it happened, just to fuck with him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetsuya_Yamagami
This isn't to say this has any bearing on this event though.
Indira Gandhi? Rajiv Gandhi?
But in _recent_ memory, the one that comes to mind immediately is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi not too long after 9/11. His death disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq which almost certainly was a net benefit.
Bin laden himself also comes to mind but it's unclear how much more potential he had to inflict terror on the world at the time in his life when he was assassinated.
Giving rise to ISIS.
> Bin laden himself also comes to mind but it's unclear how much more potential he had to inflict terror on the world at the time in his life when he was assassinated.
Political theater at best.
Debatable as to weather it delayed or intensified ISIS but I think you're missing my broader point; his disposal prevented immediate harm and that was a net benefit.
> Political theater at best.
I'd argue there was a very symbolic benefit and even if there is/was a power vacuum.
I floated this question to a friend that likes to nerd out on geopolitics and they suggested that there's a few warlords in africa that tend to end civil wars and make way for successful peace talks after they're dead. I had never heard of the UNITA but as soon as Jonas Savimbi was assassinated, a decade+ civil war ended and Angola had elections shortly thereafter.
Goodwins law would apply if any of the _many_ attempts had succeeded.
However if you are a nihilist, none of this matters anyway.
This happened long ago. Politics is exhausting (constant campaigning), poorly paid (unless you can leverage your position to sell bestselling books and speaking engagements later), and you have to check your logic and common sense at the chamber door. You have to have unlimited optimism to not become overwhelmed with cynicism and demotivated by despair from the sausage making process. Overall, politics is a shitty job mainly practiced by hucksters, psychopaths, and well-meaning but naive people who turn into a huckster or psychopath.
We see increasing authoritarianism and decreasingly functional institutions, including the electoral system.
Identifying the problem is key.
That is also a very predictable response if you live in this country.
Edit: it's official, he's dead (it wasn't confirmed when I originally posted this). Condolences to his wife and small kids.
I find it weird, at best.
Browsers don't show the page updating, easy to imagine that it's flickering on and off several times a minute at this point.
From an outsider, it really feels like there's no middle ground in American politics. You either commit yourself to the full slate of beliefs for one side, or you're the "enemy".
I hope that Americans on both side start to see that either they need to tone down the rhetoric, work together and reach across the aisle, or just take the tough step of a national divorce due to irreconcilable differences.
Part of that is to stop giving a voice to the insane rhetoric, and stop electing *waving vaguely*.
However, both the established parties seem to have become totally incompetent to do that, in very different ways. One party got taken over by people who make public statements on a daily basis that would have been immediately disqualifying at any time since 1950 or so. The other party is so bad at doing politics that they're beaten in elections despite running against those people.
Many of us don't vote either. And our two party systems have created extreme partisanship. I wish it could be different because I do love this country, but our politics are so broken by the two party system, fueled with misinformation through these partisan news networks + social media algorithms (the way Youtube turns one person into an extremist of either side is an example...)
Prior to social media, or the internet in general, it was quite difficult to amass large numbers of people in your echo chamber without becoming a person of power (like a president or equivalent). But today, it isn't uncommon for someone with views towards conspiracies or extreme viewpoints to become a "popular" voice in social media. In fact, one might argue that it is easier to become popular by being divisive. Even though most people aren't on either side. The ability to grow a "large enough" side is enough to become an existential threat to the other side. And they end up justifying their own existence.
I don't know what the solution to this is. I don't even know how to reduce it at this point.
The truth is the US has been seen periods of extreme rhetoric and even political violence, including most obviously an actual civil war, and also key periods like the labor movement and civil rights movement. It will happen again even if things cool.
Political violence and assassinations are obviously terrible and should hopefully not happen as debate allows consensus or at least compromise to be reached, but the reality seems to be if you allow the people a stake in their government, passion and anger will be instilled in some subset of those people cause government policies have real world implications, and the end result is extreme acts, many of which are detestable like this one. I don't see a way forward other than to prosecute crimes and let the debate rage on.
The best we can hope for is that the convulsions will be short and sharp and no foreign power takes advantage of our convalescence. In 1945 the Germans learned a hard lesson about fascism, and learned it well; we can hope that Americans will learn something too, and at less cost.
Strongly disagree with "most".
Margins on many recent elections have been so low they'd be too close to measure a generation ago.
I think that's relevant, a hard check on the idea that an overwhelming majority of Americans are getting what they voted for. No.
(FWIW I agree with your other points. I miss the era of Walter Cronkite consensus. Not clear that it was better. But less terrifying.)
When people say the north fought to preserve the union, I always thought it meant the physical union. But recently, I saw a lecture by Gary Gallagher at the UVA that shone a brighter light on what union meant in 1860. It's worth a listen, search for it on YT.
More recently, selfishness has taken second seat to hurting the “other” (whatever other happens to be) even to the detriment of one’s own self interests. America is not built for this.
It looks like Trump's term is going to end in either the end of America as we know it or a constitutional convention anyways. Anything is on the table given how America is currently being torn apart anyways.
I actually think it’s possible a national divorce makes the problem worse. Lots of these killers have not had clear motives or “sides”
Leaving a Midwest rump state run from.. Chicago?
Assuming welfare as in healthcare and food subsidies, money to low-income individuals.
https://www.jezebel.com/we-paid-some-etsy-witches-to-curse-c...
Wow!
Let's say it wasn't witchcraft thing but something more widely accepted like prayer session at mainstream church/mosque or something of this sort. Wouldn't the devout people see this as a contract killing? What if the soother says he felt possessed? Shouldn't then he be let go in a religious society?
A comedian put it very well, talking about how some faiths interact with Revelation as if they are, “trying to trick God into coming back early.”
Many of the witches who believe in this stuff also believe that what you put out into the world will come back to you, typically with a multiplier.
Presumably, some of the Christians who believe in this stuff also believe "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and that ultimately God alone must and will mete out punishment with the wisdom of divine omniscience.
None of this stopped people who claim to be witches from taking money to curse a guy, and in my experience, people who claim to be Christians love judging others and their zeal for punishment often seems fetishistic
And with our Supreme Court, who knows if they'll say witches casting spells are assassins after all.
Everything and everyone involved does incredible stuff, IMO.
As far as I can recall it was a very convoluted prison-break for someone thought to be dead that included an attempted revenge assasination, distraction bombing of a federal agency, kidnappings and multiple double agents.
Very few will like where this leads.
I hope cooler heads prevail and pray for him and his family.
I urge everyone to lower the temperature. Not just in the comment section, but in real life and in your minds.
If you're on HN reading this, then you have above average influence. If you're working at Google, Meta, Tiktok, X, etc, today's the day you for you to act in service of humanity. Lower the temperature.
Analogies between the United States and specific states in Europe often done work as well as US <-> Europe do.
I think Charlie Kirk thought he was safe because he was a good person. He didn't provoke political division, he tried to reconcile it.
R.I.P.
This is a sad, sad day.
Keep trying. It's all you can do. Also, you can't expect everyone to accept your facts. A few % of the population are going to be nutjobs (specially when there are various propaganda networks around which compound it), and that's fine, thankfully I think they aren't majority.
As for lowering the temperature, good luck. Anyone with above average influence is in a position to try and extract as much personal gain from this already.
It kills me inside because I would like to live in a world where this isn’t the case.
No, a political activist largely unknown outside of the US is not going to be the catalyst of a world war. I live across the pond and never even heard of this individual until an hour ago.
You might be afraid that this could inflame political tensions in the US, and not even that is a given. The US has a long story of political violence, this is unlikely to result in any major changes.
If I was a betting man, I would bet that in two months time most will not even remember this. Too much spectacle in the news all the time for any subject to stick for too long.
Lowering the temperature does require cooperation. There's a prisoner's dilemma effect where the people with the most heated rhetoric tend to get what they want.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/115181934991844419
Let me reiterate. Violence is not the answer for one reason and one reason only. Once it starts and everyone joins, it will be very, very hard to stop.
edit: be
The gunman made his own gun, in a country with ultra-strict gun laws. The Unabomber made his own bombs. The Seattle mall Islamist knife attacker refused to stay down after being shot multiple times.
My takeaway: political terrorists are particularly motivated. Secondly, gun laws slow them down but don't stop them.
> Yamagami told investigators that he had shot Abe in relation to a grudge he held against the Unification Church (UC), a new religious movement to which Abe and his family had political ties, over his mother's bankruptcy in 2002.
> The assassination brought scrutiny from Japanese society and media against the UC's alleged practice of pressuring believers into making exorbitant donations. Japanese dignitaries and legislators were forced to disclose their relationship with the UC, (...) the LDP announced that it would no longer have any relationship with the UC and its associated organisations, and would expel members who did not break ties with the group. (...) [The parliament] passed two bills to restrict the activities of religious organisations such as the UC and provide relief to victims.
> Abe's killing has been described as one of the most effective and successful political assassinations in recent history due to the backlash against the UC that it provoked. The Economist remarked that "... Yamagami's political violence has proved stunningly effective ... Political violence seldom fulfills so many of its perpetrator's aims." Writing for The Atlantic, Robert F. Worth described Yamagami as "among the most successful assassins in history".
I don't believe this is the same thing.
One is an adversarial problem where a living thinking being is evil and trying to attack you.
In traffic, most people are just trying to get somewhere, and then accidents happen.
There's a long funnel of all the things that could happen, probability of each, and total resulting probability. That's no different for being in a car wreck or being shot at.
Now, on a moral level, sure, malice is different from negligence is different from coincidence.
The motivation is not the important part. Sentience is. This person is playing a chess match trying to defeat you.
Consider biology. Cancer is a hard problem to solve, but it's not scheming against you with an intelligence. What about someone in a lab engineering bioweapons?
Do you think traffic lights help if someone goes out with the explicit intent to kill others via their car?
You can argue whether or not that is an effective approach to securing freedom, but that’s the argument I’m most familiar with.
"Militia" action against "military"? Neither side will bother with the scruples of waiting for the enemy to put on a uniform and pick up a weapon. It will be death squads vs car bombs.
It's not some statistical difference between almost no violence and no violence. It's night and day. Orders of magnitude. Teens walking back from parties through the middle of the city at 1 am with their parents permission vs clan wars.
In the past year-or-so we have seen two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, the assassination of the CEO of an insurance company, the assassination of Rep. Hortman, and now this. That's five political assassinations/attempts in a year.
It would seem fair to argue we are now firmly in a state of contagion which is unlike the situation in 2012 when Giffords was shot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Capital_Jewish_Museum_sho...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Boulder_fire_attack
Additionally, I’ve seen a troubling amount of online sentiment positively in favor of the Trump assassination attempts, the murder of Brian Thompson. The sentiment in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder looks like it might be similarly troubling.
January 6 was mass political violence, and I my unprofessional opinion is that the pardons marked a turning point in how engaging in political violence is viewed; all is forgiven if/when your team wins.
Hyper-partisanship, and choosing not playing by the rules when it benefits you will be America's downfall. At some point, people on the other side of the political fence stopped being seen as opponents,but became "enemies", I think cable news/entertainment shoulders much blame on this, but the politicians themselves know outrage turns out the vote. I wonder if they'll attempt to lower the temperature or raise it further.
There has been widespread discontent for a while now - it's the vein Obama and Trump tapped to win their respective first terms. AFAICT, it is an evolving class war[1], with American characteristics.
1. One could argue which side tore up the social contract first, and quibble with the definition of what counts as "violence"
I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.
I haven't noticed a fundamental change.
US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports.
I know plenty of people who will be giving NeurIPS a miss _on the advice of their governments_. This _did not_ happen during his first term.
You mean that time when millions of American citizens were placed on the No Fly List with no recourse essentially at random? You can't be serious. After 9/11 was far worse.
I've been in and out of the US several times this year through several ports of entry and it has been hassle-free so far. They don't even ask me questions, they just wave me through.
He and his enablers played that argument during his 2024 campaign as well, but everyone is missing a crucial aspect of it. During his first term, he was surrounded by a large number of career administration staff, who put guardrails around him. This time it's all 'Yes men' and his well-wishers. Notably, no one from the previous admin staff had endorsed him for 2024. That should have given a clue to people. But, nope.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-officials...
Apologies, but "citation needed"?
(As a non-US citizen) I flew into JFK earlier this year and did my (first) Global Entry interview. It was the shortest and most polite immigration interview I've ever had anywhere, and I've had a few.
I would like to hope that you recognize that registration of political affiliation is just one data point. Spring it does not make. You know how I got registered as a republican? I got incorrectly registered as one during judge election volunteering.
I am not saying it means nothing. What I am saying is: some nuance is helpful in conversations like this.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Adkisson, Dylan Roof, the Tree of Life shooting, J6, the 2022 Buffalo shooter, Jacksonville 2023, Allen, TX 2023, etc.
Nearly all political violence in the US is committed by people espousing right wing ideology, so if it walks and talks like a duck, is telling you it's a duck...
Crookes basically handed the election to Trump.
Rising up with your fist clenched right after you were shot isn't something you train for either. That's a natural reaction from instinct.
It's morbid curiosity to analyze it, but I don't think it would have had the same net effect if it was Harris.
A man was killed that day.
Disclaimer that this is early and I may be wrong, but I read that he had a security detail (which seems rather likely). I doubt an attacker with a knife would have had success.
More directly, when violence becomes a normalized means of politics, it doesn’t benefit the bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie can't. The aristocracy can. That's the point.
I meant the bourgeoisie as in the middle class. A lot of idiots think rolling out guillotines will hurt the rich and help the poor.
It won’t. It almost never has in the last millennium. If violence becomes a tool of politics, the rich will command violence at greater scale and with more impunity than anyone who cannot command an audience at the White House.
I actually wish that were the case.
The problem today is that we've scaled up the damage that a single attacker can do. I won't go too far into it, but think of it this way, what happens when someone wakes up to the fact that they can use autonomous ordinance (e.g. - Drones)?
We made a big mistake with this whole "incivility is cool" thing in public discourse. In retrospect, it's kind of obvious that it set us on a slippery slope.
I remain a fan of bringing back the Athenian institution of ostracism. If more than a certain fraction of voters in an election write down the same person’s name, they’re banned from running for office or have to leave the country for N years. (And if they can’t or won’t do the latter, are placed under house arrest.)
Yes. The bourgeoisie don’t get away. The aristocracy do.
If you work in tech, you’re part of the American bourgeoisie. If you have a college degree, you’re bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the middle class.
I can tell you my stories. But I always wonder what is the alternative when someone like me is attacked? Should I give my left cheek? Should I attempt to be a pacifist?
People who are against violence by all means necessary are privileged because they never have to witness someone’s head roll down. So they don’t know how it feels to be the receiving end of suffering.
I think you misunderstand the point. My argument is that each act of political violence ( especially on a national stage ) further degrades existing society. That ongoing degradation is a real problem and, yes, individual suffering is irrelevant to it, because, society is a greater good.
You may say those say it are privileged, but to that I say that I like having working society. It keeps being us civil. I like it to stay that way.
If you feel otherwise, please elaborate. It is possible, I am misunderstanding you.
I think you are mistaken in thinking that 'left' ( quotation, because while I want to keep the identifier for clarity's sake, I think it does not properly reflect US political spectrum ) is not violent or that somehow their violence is lower in percentage.
The reason I am hesitatant to go for that discussion is because it has a good chance of derailing the conversation.
Can we just agree this is a bad thing for now instead?
I don't know about the US, but I've certainly seen stats from mostly center sources support that claim for my country
Only if you buy into the various biased studies that are conducted by those who sympathize with the left.
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion as to why letting the status quo be is a good thing. The path society is on is clearly towards a cyberpunk distopia, than anything that would unburden and improve the human existance of the many.
https://www.kff.org/mental-health/do-states-with-easier-acce...
"Firearms are the most lethal method of suicide attempts, and about half of suicide attempts take place within 10 minutes of the current suicide thought, so having access to firearms is a suicide risk factor. The availability of firearms has been linked to suicides in a number of peer-reviewed studies. In one such study, researchers examined the association between firearm availability and suicide while also accounting for the potential confounding influence of state-level suicidal behaviors (as measured by suicide attempts). Researchers found that higher rates of gun ownership were associated with increased suicide by firearm deaths, but not with other types of suicide. Taking a look at suicide deaths starting from the date of a handgun purchase and comparing them to people who did not purchase handguns, another study found that people who purchased handguns were more likely to die from suicide by firearm than those who did not--with men 8 times more likely and women 35 times more likely compared to non-owners."
The debate is largely over where to draw the lines. Virtually everyone is fine with limiting access to certain weapons, for example.
The other break in your statistic is people who own guns and commit suicide, and people who own guns and have a family member steal them to commit suicide. The later is far more common. Which suggests that part of the issue is unrestricted access to firearms by children in the home of a gun owning parent.
Sure. But one of those reasons is "I feel very bad and I have access to a gun".
"The rate of non-firearm suicides is relatively stable across all groups, ranging from a low rate of 6.5 in states with the most firearm laws to a high of 6.9 in states with the lowest number of firearm laws. The absolute difference of 0.4 is statistically significant, but small. Non-firearm suicides remain relatively stable across groups, suggesting that other types of suicides are not more likely in areas where guns are harder to get."
This is perhaps one of the worst ways of looking at it. People kill themselves slowly by many means, including alcoholism, smoking, risky activities (reckless driving, etc.). These are grouped broadly under the term "Deaths of Despair" (see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221228/). It may be more informative to look at other countries, such as Russia, Norway and Finland, which have incredibly high rates of alocholism leading to a high rate of deaths of despair.
There are many ways to reliably kill yourself. Guns are just the quickest. A serious discussion on the topic cannot avoid this fact.
I cannot give myself chronic fatty liver disease or lung cancer that quickly. I think you know this.
To put it in perspective, California (a state with notoriously strict gun control) has experienced the highest rate of increase of opioid overdose deaths (see https://www.shadac.org/opioid-epidemic-united-states). More generally, deaths to firearm suicide and deaths of despair occur together in rural communities (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...).
Are those "suicides" in the classical sense? No. But they are deaths of despair, and from a public health and policy standpoint, must be approached in a manner similar to suicide.
I don't believe you have even attempted (or acknowledged) an opposing point exists on this topic. Your points amount to banal agenda pushing as opposed to seeking to understand the root causes of many challenges today. This is emblematic of (and partially why) there is such division in the USA today: a lack of willingness to study and understand societal problems, particularly those that are multifaceted and require broader reasoning about the topic.
Sure. And my very clear point is that guns help make temporary - even momentary! - despair turn into a permanent end.
I don’t find the pro-gun crowd all that interested in improving social services outside of distracting from the gun issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
The US is at 120.5 guns per 100 civilians, and Canada is at 34.5
I think being ~4x the ratio of guns per capita, (and 30x the total!) has to do something, right?
No one really knows how many firearms there are in the US or who owns them. Just the fact that something like 15 million firearms are sold every year in the US gives a sense of the scale. The number of firearms in the US is staggering, no one knows the true number, and they have an indefinite lifespan if stored in halfway decent conditions.
Federally, only specific categories like fully-automatic machine guns and short-barreled rifles have to be registered.
Tons of guns are not those limited categories, so they are not required to be registered.
Its entirely possible to sell a gun in the US without any kind of paperwork depending on the type of firearm sold, the buyer of the firearm, and the seller of the firearm. I'm in Texas, so I'll use that as an example. Lets say I want to sell a regular shotgun I currently own to a friend. IANAL, this is not legal advice, but my understanding from reading the applicable laws would be all I have to do is verify they are over the age of 18 and that I think they are probably legally able to own a gun (I have no prior knowledge of any legal restrictions against them owning the gun). We can meet up, check he's probably over 18 and can probably legally own a gun and is a Texas resident, he can hand me cash or whatever for trade, I can give him the gun, and we go our separate ways. I do not need to do a background check. I do not need to file any registration. Nobody would know this guy now owns this gun. I do not need to keep any record of this sale at all. This shotgun has been an unregistered gun for its entire exstence.
This wouldn't necessarily be true if I trade some certain amount of guns as then I would probably need a federal firearms license and thus have some additional restrictions on facilitiating a sale. This also isn't necessarily true in other states which have additional restrictions on gun sales. But if I haven't done any gun sales in a long while, such restrictions wouldn't apply (according to my current understanding of the law, IANAL, not legal advice).
Australia: 0.854/100k
USA: 5.763/100k
i.e. about 1/7th the amount of intentional homicides.
I think most of us understand the why. That part is not exactly a secret. Naturally, it does not help that the why is a list of multiple factors playing into it and most pick the favorites and I am sure each power center will spin this to their particular benefit further polarizing society.
What I am really saying is:
We should try to cool things down.
Unfortunately, power's usual counter-move to that "answer" is a vastly-more-violent rebuttal. With minimal concern for "collateral damage", or other euphemisms for innocents being maimed and killed at scale.
The arch-capitalist Henry Ford created the precedent for the weekend because he wanted people to have leisure time to be able to use his cars.
Violence definitely happened in the US labor movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Coalfield_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Overpass
Ford hardly invented the weekend, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#History
"The present-day concept of the relatively longer "week-end" first arose in the industrial north of Britain in the early 19th century... In 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, a predecessor of today’s AFL-CIO, called for all workers to have eight-hour days by May 1, 1886, playing a crucial role in the push for a five-day workweek."
Hmm. Do you know why? Having seen the basic pattern of action of anti-gun people, I have come to realization that nothing is ever enough. They will just keep pushing for more stuff regardless of 'wins' they score.
Granted, some of it is various organizations and they really don't want to say 'mission accomplished'. Still, my point remains. I no longer really accept any changes to status quo.
How about, at the very least, making it mandatory to report firearm theft? IIRC currently only 15 states actually have such a requirement.
I'm not American and for a long time I could not understand why American fiction, be it books or movies, assumes guns are available even in a zombie apocalypse. That is until I learned the above fact.
The fact that one can steal a gun and have no one report that makes firearms essentially a natural resource in the US.
And as also evidenced by things like "From my cold, dead hands! ... unless you're at an NRA convention, in which case please use these lockers or leave your gun at home, and walk through this metal detector, please."
If you can catch posts you think are unfairly flagged as they happen you can also send them to hn@ycombinator.com. Even if it's a day late they can unflag it, second chance it, and/or watch the comments.
The mods hold a strong opinion that making the moderation log public in some way (so these kinds of things can be seen directly) would cause more problems and discontent than it would solve. I strongly disagree, but I respect that the mods have always delivered satisfactory answers for me when using the emailing process - which is their main counterpoint to the need for a public log.
We're talking about the same site that constantly has submissions from politically biased sources alluding to various ways that the orange man is bad, where comments pushing standard right-wing talking points are frequently flagged and killed within minutes, and a recent Ask HN seriously entertained the question of whether HN is "fascist" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44598731) because the "orange man is bad" posts get flagged?
A Democratic state representative in Minnesota was brutally murdered and another attacked by the same man only a couple of months ago, back in June. How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines? How much coverage were they given, and how much coverage will Kirk be given?
My cynical side suspects we are about to hear a lot about "violence from the left" in a way we did not about the right back in June.
You can't build without a foundation.
That’s pretty much both parties.
It’s why we are where we are.
The better question to ask is, how many subscribers did the Democratic state representative from Minnesota and the other have?
Just sad.
"you know, I could be nice and call him [Governor Walz], but why waste time?"
https://www.startribune.com/trump-says-he-will-not-call-walz...
It was an attempt to quell the No Kings protests scheduled to happen the same day.
...and her husband and dog. The killer also had a long list of other targets.
I couldn't have named Kirk if I saw him or heard about him before he shot and it entered the news. Not sure what that tells us -- we should know more who our representatives are, or know about various "influencers" in politics and such?
EDIT: I saw you initially mentioned two representatives who were murdered but now it looks like there is only one. So even though you criticize others for not knowing who these murdered representatives were, it seems you don't even know who they were or if they were even murdered.
> Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but...
Well this is how usually talking in bad taste early starts ;-). It's kind of like saying "No offense, but ... $insert_offense_here".
She had power in MN, but had not become a "national" politician (yet).
I suspect that unless you live in New Mexico, you have no idea who the speaker of the NM House is. That's not a diminshment of the office or the person holding it, it's a recognition that while such positions come with significant power within the context of a state, they are quite hidden from residents of other states.
This isn't a "both sides" issue. One side has shown time and time again it will resort to cruelty, violence, and severely harmful rhetoric. That anyone here would try to wave their hands around like it's "everyone's" fault is insane.
There was no presidential message expressing sympathy and outrage then and complete radio silence from Republicans in general. And the amount of misinformation from the right was incredible. Even in this thread of nominally intelligent people, they're still repeating falsehoods.
Any expression of shock and dismay from conservatives now is pure theater. The right wing is absolutely fine with violence. Accusations of the violent left is of course a talking point projection as usual.
> Mr. Boelter developed a strong distrust of government, especially Democrats. According to Mr. Carlson, he believed that the criminal prosecutions of Donald J. Trump were politically motivated, and that a victory by the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, would lead to civil war. He followed the Infowars website founded by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
Mmkay.
That's about the worst place to get your answers here.
“I am pro-life personaly [sic] but it wasn’t those,” he said, using the jail’s internal messaging system. “I will just say there is a lot of information that will come out in future that people will look at and judge for themselves that goes back 24 months before the 14th. If the gov ever let’s [sic] it get out.”
Now, looks like building a defense to me.
> Federal prosecutors confirmed 45 Democrats were listed, including dozens of Minnesota lawmakers and members of Congress such as Rep. Angie Craig, Rep. Ilhan Omar, and Sen. Tina Smith. It also included members of Planned Parenthood, philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the organization, and several healthcare centers across the Midwest.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/16/nx-s1-5433748/minnesota-shoot...
> Authorities in Minnesota said Monday that the man arrested in a Saturday attack that killed one state lawmaker and left another wounded had a "hit list" of 45 elected officials — all Democrats.
Nobody is whatabouting any of the violence. They are however pointing out that media isn’t an impartial observer, and that skews everyone’s perception of what is happening.
Anyway someone else responded with citations for the dem hit list, which backs up everything i said except “he voted for trump” which is impossible to know because we have secret ballots but he told his friend he voted for trump. (Citation: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/vanc...)
Now tell me honestly, if the guy who shot charlie kirk turns out to have no known political affiliations but a hit list of republican politicians and activists - you’d be saying it’s complicated?
And then provided none of those supposed “verifications” for what are probably very honorable and honest reasons.
Welcoming and encouraging the free exchange of thought and ideas in an open forum. Free speech and American values are based directly in morality which comes to us from a higher power. This is all quite clear in the writings of the Founding Fathers and other contemporaries, but of course nowadays "American values" is shibboleth for "Nazi dogwhistles" to some population.
If calling for the military occupation of US cities is at all reasonable, I struggle to imagine what is unreasonable in your world view.
I don't know - how long did these stories stay in the headlines?
A 26 year old man from Irondale, Alabama was later arrested and charged in connection with the bombing. Prosecutors stated that prior to the bombing, the suspect had been spotted placing stickers on government buildings, displaying "antifa, anti-police and anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement sentiments" and had expressed "belief that violence should be directed against the government" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Marshall#Bombing
Man, 80, run over for putting Trump sign in yard, say police - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1rw4xdjql4o
Alabama Antifa Sympathizer Pleads Guilty to Detonating Bomb outside State AG’s Office - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/alabama-antifa-sympathiz...
a man armed with a pistol and a crossbow showed up at Fuentes' home - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fuentes#Alleged_murder_at...
Attempted Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Assassin Identifies As Transgender; Hoped To Kill “Nazis” - https://wsau.com/2025/01/30/doj-filing-attempted-treasury-se...
10 arrested after ambush on Texas ICE detention facility [..] When an Alvarado police officer arrived on the scene, one of the individuals shot him in the neck. Another individual shot 20 to 30 rounds at the facility correction officers, according to Larson. - https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-arrested-after-ambush-texas-ice...
Last but not lest, there was also an assassination attempt on Trump, though I concede that one did get plenty of attention.
The far right developed stars, stallions and philosophers that are effective in the popular culture no matter how vile some of those can be. There are up and coming leftist Americans but they will need to hustle to develop intro strong leaders. The mainstream figures from the American left like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders are just too lightweight.
Edit: funny how this comment fluctuates between 0 and 2 points. This edit will probably tip the balance though :)
This is a meme that needs to die. Its just not true.
The Democratic party in the US is right in line with Labor/Socialist/Whatever Mainstream Leftist Party you want to point at in Europe. It has members who end up on various sides of the left-wing spectrum. There are no "far left" parties in the US because we have a two party system.
There are obviously topics where this is not true. But that goes both ways: almost no country on Earth has the level of abortion access that the Democratic party in the US demands. And there are examples of European right wing parties who fight for zero abortion access, which is not the GOP platform currently.
- Nearly all European countries have and support a very high consumption tax (VAT). In the US, nobody would be really for this (although some conservatives favor such taxes), but US liberals would be extremely against it due to the regressive nature of consumption taxes.
- The majority of EU countries institute voter ID laws, something supported only by conservatives in the US. States with voter ID laws almost always allow some valid voter ID to be gotten for free, but they are still opposed by liberals.
There are plenty of other examples when you start thinking about it.
Still, violence has been the answer in many (most?) political revolutions, including the American revolution and separation from Britain.
TL;DW Gandhi knew that to resist the British, they would need a critical mass of people resisting (armed or not). Armed resistance against a superior force is futile. His whole idea of Satyagraha was intentionally self-sacrificial for the nonviolent protestors who would die, because he knew it would stir the masses to action.
I also agree that violence is tragic and we should always take care not to glorify or idealize it, but we should also contextualize it when used by people resisting systems of oppression. As Nelson Mandela said:
> A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle,and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor.At a point, one can only fight fire with fire
Which often leads to this point, as in Lord of War:
> Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, the Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.
Violence and politics are both on a spectrum and means to the same end of asserting your will. Vom Kriege is obviously not the forefront of philosophy anymore but it’s a good place to start if anyone reading this hasn’t come across that idea and wants to learn more.
Even your non violent examples of King and Ghandi has very violent wings on the side showing society that if a resolution wasn’t achieved by peaceful ends then violence it is. Remember that the civil rights act didn’t get enough support to be passed until after King was assassinated and mass riots rose across the nation
“Should you entertain the proposition, I am prepared to grant liberal terms to the inhabitants and garrison; but should I be forced to resort to assault, or the slower and surer process of starvation, I shall then feel justified in resorting to the harshest measures, and shall make little effort to restrain my army—burning to avenge the national wrong which they attach to Savannah…”
- W. Tecumseh Sherman’s ultimatum to the garrison of this city, December 1864
Sherman’s March to the Sea was an apotheosis of political violence. It deliberately targeted non-military infrastructure.
How long would American slavery have persisted without the march (the war to which it belongs)?
How could non-violence have triumphed in the same crusade?
Violence is sometimes the answer. Domestic assassinations almost never are. Kirk is about to become a martyr.
To be fair, crazy people will justify their craziness with anything. The problem is less what this may be used to justify and more that it creates a more-permissive environment for further political violence.
The Confederacy tried to replace their Constitutional government and the policies instituted by the leaders elected by the people with a violence-enforced new state inside the territory of their existing one and got (justifiably) multi-generationally brutalized for their trouble. The town I grew up in and moved away from was still raising funds to rebuild some of the places that were burned to the ground in the war. That was fundraising in the 1980s.
Every time someone points to the 1776 war as a success story I feel compelled to point out that half the descendants of that war's victors tried a very similar thing in 1861 to absolutely ruinous result.
(On this topic: Fort Sumter is an interesting story. While it was never taken during the war, it basically became a target-practice and weapons field-test location for the Union navy: every time they had a new technique or a new cannon they wanted to try out, they'd try it on the fort. By the end of the war, the fort was "standing" only in the sense that the bulk of its above-ground works had been blasted flat and were shoved together into an earthworks bunker; the Confederates were basically sheltering in a hole that a lobbed shell could fall into at any time.
And while the fort and its northways sister kept Union ships out of the harbor, it didn't stop them from firing past the fort into Charleston itself, since "war crimes" and "civilian populations" weren't really a concept yet.
People very much went into that war thinking there wouldn't be consequences for ordinary folk. They were very much wrong.)
Americans have this unfortunate tendency towards exceptionalist self-image. They remember the Revolutionary War and forget the Civil War. They remember World War 2 and forget Vietnam. They believe when they wield violence it is because they are right and the cause is just, when history shows that, even for them, the victor in such conflicts tends to have very little to do with just cause and a lot more to do with dumb luck (or, if I'm being a bit more generous, "material and strategic reality divorced from the justness of the casus belli").
I agree history records fort sumter as the official start of the war, but I guess I was looking at it big picture that "a war was on it's way" regardless of the singular event that sparked full war.
My perspective on the civil war is "good thing it happened and the Union won, otherwise who knows how long black people would have been enslaved". It would have been nice to end slavery without the war, but Lincoln tried to negotiate to this end extensively and couldn't secure it.
Also, yes I agree the vietnam war is severely undertaught. And in the modern era, Afghanistan.
It's also worth noting that most people don't realize there are more black people enslaved today than in the US Civil War, not to mention other enslaved groups.
This isn't in support of the reasons the ties were broken, but I can absolutely see if say Germany leaves the EU, then they'd probably want an EU military occupied base in Germany to leave said base.
No, it would have led to decades or centuries of resentment between the north and the south and eventually another civil war among those lines. It would have destroyed the union for good. The only purpose of the civil war for the North was to save the union, humiliating the south would have ensured that it would never really happen.
Thaddeus Stevens was proven correct in his opinion that the south should've been treated like a conquered state and the land forcibly given to the freedmen.
The people who want retribution are never the ones to listen after an armistice.
Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been shot. The way to have prevented that would have been gun control.
This incident additionally is darkly ironic because of his thoughts on gun violence: https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...
To make it clear - I am pretty much politically diametrically opposed to Charlie Kirk, but I don't think he should have been shot.
Because we aren’t Charlie Kirk?
This isn’t to high when they go low crap. This is about basic human decency. It’s also about not turning him into a martyr.
So, really, it's not about Kirk. It's about me (or us: the folks I tend to side with ideologically).
I don't think this falls under the paradox of tolerance, by the way.
“ Kirk went on to say, “And by the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out … Bail him out, and then go ask him some questions.” "
The response to the last high-profile public shooting was, if you’ll recall, noise in the DoJ about taking gun rights away from transgender people. So some kinds of gun control are apparently on the table.
These people aren't mellowing on their position on 2A; they're instead starting to think "Hmm maybe some of these 'people' shouldn't be considered fully people from legal point of view ..."
All my life I’ve heard conservative talk radio types (and more recently, conservative influencers) chant “shall not be infringed” as a mantra and oppose any restrictions whatsoever (at least, post-Reagan; see the comment down-thread). That old state of affairs has subtly changed.
Appropriate username, though.
Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
https://youtu.be/YsmgPp_nlok
I'm tempted to call it rage-bait, but I choose to assume the poster meant no harm.
Please don’t shadowban me.
Kirk both personally and as part of his group advocated for using violence to achieve goals.
This doesn't make him particularly unique, but lets stop with this idea that speech exists in some kind of abstract realm with no bearing on "reality".
There was a guy in vietnam about 70 years ago who made a lot of speeches about what he wanted to achieve and then a few million people died.
It turns out words matter.
Did he? He was pro-gun, but that's not the same as being pro- political violence.
Is that not pro- political violence, albeit at some vague threshold that's hoped to never be breached?
This is an interesting phrase that pops up every so often. What exactly is "political violence" and how does it differ from, uh, regular "violence"?
If someone shoots at me because he wants to steal my wallet, is that different from someone shooting at me because I'm black? Or because I voted for something? What if I shoot someone shooting at someone else? Is political violence supposed to be more morally reprehensible? Or maybe it's less?
I know your entire comment is rhetorical questions, but I'm going to answer them. The difference is intent. Political violence is violence against your political enemies to silence them and discourage their allies.
> If someone shoots at me because he wants to steal my wallet, is that different from someone shooting at me because I'm black? Or because I voted for something? What if I shoot someone shooting at someone else? Is political violence supposed to be more morally reprehensible?
IMO: Yes, yes, yes, no. But none of this has to do with him advocating for guns. He's thinking about defence. He lives in a country where everyone else is armed.
I don't own a gun. More gun owners does make the overall climate of violence worse. But I probably would own a gun if I lived in the US.
> “Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks.” With a smirk, he added: “Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”
In what universe?!
Maybe he just assumed that would only be the deaths of other people.
Not so. People can and should endure rudeness, even disgusting behavior, without throwing so much as a punch.
Our entire legal system is built on the premise that violence is not the natural/inevitable outcome of incivility. Courts, contracts, and laws exist precisely to channel disputes, insults, etc. into nonviolent processes.
If violence were the automatic consequence of rudeness, there'd be no point in having civil courts/workplace dispute procedures/defamation law... or even law enforcement protocols in general. The system assumes that people can and must respond to incivility without physical aggression and it punishes those who don't.
Laws exist for this purpose, certainly true. But this fails to go far enough because there is a greater context of norms that govern behaviour in many ways. Not only in situations before the law is required but that govern how lawyers and judges behave.
This is a far more complex problem than people think. To be clear, the decline in law and order is bad, the decline in ethical behaviour from lawgivers is worse but there is a far broader failure in values that will require a generation of turmoil to erase.
I am not one for internet censorship but you look on here, on Twitter, on Reddit, and you read pages and pages of stuff that you would rarely see anywhere online twenty years ago...and this is accompanied not by the outrage that you see everywhere but by a celebration of the intense moral purification that many think we are undergoing. Human nature does not change (i live in the UK so it is obviously particularly jarring to experience people joyfully celebrating murder and also see people go to jail for calling the police muppets...weird world).
> Our entire legal system is built on the premise that violence is not the natural/inevitable outcome of incivility. Courts, contracts, and laws exist precisely to channel disputes, insults, etc. into nonviolent processes.
i think our legal system is built on the necessity of response to the natural outcome of incivility. we have an extremely punitive system in the USA - the entire judiciary is set up to respond to incidents of incivility, not prevent them (no matter how much tough-on-crime politicians like to convince us that stiff punishments act as deterrents to things like murder or rape).
I am always puzzled that people think other people believe the purpose of law and order is "deterrent"...have you ever met anyone who says this? It is simple: some people are criminals, if they are in jail then they are unable to continue committing crimes, if you let them out they will commit crimes...this has been seen in the US, in many European countries, over and over. Further, the purpose of stiff punishment is also so that victims and the public see justice being done. If you live in a society where you see people abuse others without consequence, you will leave that society. That is it. Simple. Basic logic that was understood four thousand years ago but which continues to be impenetrable to people with all the advantages of modern life.
………yes, many of them. Do you talk to real people about prison policy a lot?
> if you let them out they will commit crimes
I guess not, since we have plenty of evidence that 75yo men with one leg and cancer are at 0% risk of recidivism, and yet they’re still locked up.
The probability of committing a crime is significantly higher if you have committed a crime before. This is constant in every society that doesn't put criminals in jail. You seem to be suggesting some interesting new theory that not having a leg is really what everyone should care about...if you were reading someone else say this would you take this seriously? No, a tiny proportion commit the majority of crime, serious crime in countries like the US is almost all committed by 1% of the population. The solution is simple: put them in jail, crime disappears.
Violent crime is a choice.
Tells you everything you need to know about WH.
What changed afterward? I would argue nothing at all. It wasn't a turning point it was a Friday like any other.
I think people invent those realities so they can say their actions are moral and good, and in their reality, for example the Sandy Hook parents are the bad guys because they are part of a conspiracy to take Americans' guns.
If anyone has 2h30m of free time, a good example of a man creating his own reality (and having it crumble bit by bit) is the subject of the documentary The Act of Killing, someone who murdered thousands of people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kJZb2Q1NmE
The director convinced him and his friends to make a movie about their actions (which they proudly boast about anyway), and one scene in the movie has the song "Born Free", "angels" dancing, and the killer being thanked by his "victims", for saving their souls from Communism and sending them to heaven by killing them...
He talked the talk, and now he has walked the walk.
I'm amazed people are still saying this.
>"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." --Charlie Kirk 2023
Is irony a sickness? It may be unpleasant, but as he says, maybe it's a prudent deal.
Point is it just seems like a giant gotcha and it’s not fair
Of course two wrongs don't make one right, and people can be more classy than this, but it's a totally understandable sentiment and response.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms...
I'm going to hug my family a little tighter tonight. 46th school shooting of the year, and the 47th also happening in Colorado.
This is very different than bleeding from, say, a major artery in a leg. In that case the issue isn't loss of piping to the brain, it's losing blood until the total blood volume in the body isn't sufficient to maintain a workable blood pressure, and yes that can take multiple minutes before a person loses consciousness.
1: https://biologyinsights.com/can-you-live-with-one-carotid-ar...
That snippet is referring to the circle of Willis*, which is a "backup" circuit that can route around a blockage to the blood flow to the brain on one side.
The thing is the circle of Willis is tiny and near vestigial (there is a substantial fraction of the population where it doesn't even make a full circuit), whereas the carotid is one of the largest blood vessels in the body. The circle of Willis isn't nearly large enough to reroute all that flow. It has to be made bigger over time through a process called collateralization, and that's a process that happens over months to years, not minutes or seconds.
In short, the circle of Willis will save you from years of high cholesterol that lead to a huge cholesterol plaque completely blocking off one of your carotids. It won't save you from your carotid being severed by a bullet.
*And some other tinier vessels, but mainly the circle of Willis
But regardless, the specific mechanism of his death is clear. He died by gunshot.
(Very, very graphic death) https://x.com/_geopolitic_/status/1965851790714482943 (not safe for life / NSFL)
[Graphic description] What kind of gun could that have been? Incredible amount of kinetic energy—you can actually see a hydraulic pressure wave oscillating through his entire chest. This was obviously fatal, if anyone wasn't sure. Probably died instantly, given the neurological "fencing" response (suggests spinal cord was hit—never mind the artery, he was already dead).
Ironically the prevalence of AR-15s has made people underestimate the amount of power and damage that most deer hunting rifles possess. 5.56 is like the bare minimum you can get away with to reliably disable or mortally wound a human or similarly sized animal, which is why the military used it because it saves weight so soldiers can carry more of it even if they have to hike 20 miles to their objective. Most hunting rifles are serious overkill for killing their target because hunters want instant take downs, not an animal that is able to stand up and get an adrenaline boost and sprint away if even for just 15 seconds into the brush because the shot was a half inch to the left. .30_06, a common deer round and used in the M1 Garand of WWII, is just under twice the muzzle energy of 5.56.
A lot of the damage of a bullet is this concussive damage, not the piercing damage. Hollywood has been lying to you (apparently real gun experts hate the movie “shoulder shot” because there’s a lot of things to damage there, especially once you take the concussive force into consideration).
For those who are on the fence, don’t watch it. I just did and I regret it. Suffice it to say that the blood loss alone will be critical condition at the very best.
There are many different kinds of ammunition design. Some pierce and punch holes, some fragment and tumble, some balloon and expand, some cause large tears and cavities.
Ballistic science is actually a fairly complicated rabbit hole
Could you expand on this? What does neurological "fencing" response mean, and what in the video indicates this is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_response ("Fencing response")
Also: smaller assault rounds like 5.56 can in fact do more damage than larger ones in some case because of its tendency to bounce around in the body.
But also, no, the smaller rounds don't have a "tendency to bounce around in the body". It sounds like you're referring to the phenomenon known as tumbling, where the wound track ends up being curved because the bullet loses stability as it hits. This happens because bullets are heavier at the base and thus unstable; while in air, they are stabilized by rotation imparted on them by the rifling, but once they hit anything dense (like, well, human body) it would take a lot more spinning to keep them stable, so all bullets do that. It does not involve any bouncing, however.
Light and fast bullets like 5.56 are particularly unstable and will do it faster, though. But even then, for 5.56, the primary damage mechanism is from bullet fragmentation: between the bullet being fairly long and thin, and high velocity of impact, the bullet literally gets torn apart, but the resulting pieces still retain most of kinetic energy. Except now, each piece, being irregular, travels on its own random trajectory, creating numerous small wound channels in strong proximity, which then collapse into one large wound cavity. But, again, this is mostly a function of bullet velocity and construction (e.g. presence or absence of cannelure), not caliber as such.
I mean, people are watching (I haven't) and wishing they hadn't.
But I also recognize it can possibly trigger anxiety (overwhelming, in some cases) for some folks, even if you don't realize that it might (until it's too late).
Not suggesting we turn to censorship. But at the same time, I guess I'm mostly looking out for folks that may not be aware of the effects it could possibly have (e.g. naive and/or not taking warnings seriously enough).
He was shot in the neck because the shooter is amateur and didn't account for the bullet drop on this distance.
Same sentiment. For a lot of people, freedom is more valuable than even life itself.
Were the troops his clones?
This time, it was he that fell victim to a preventable gun death. No more, no less.
(The rifle used isn't known yet, but only one shot was fired)
I merely remarked that someone else considered preventable gun deaths an acceptable cost to what he considered as sacrosanct. Well, tragic as his death is, I'm not the one who considered it an acceptable cost.
Eliminate? Of course it doesn't. Especially in a country with 400 million guns already out there.
Reduce? Of course it does.
Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. Remember, it is only law abiding citizens who are affected by the gun laws. Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment
This is kind of an argument from tautology that is disconnected to reality. In the real world, supply of criminality and violence is elastic, if you raise the cost, you lower the amount supplied. Crimes and violence committed are affected by committers having the opportunity and tenacity to do so. If you erect more barriers to achieving it, make it less convenient or straight forward to do it, you'll deter some percentage of violence/criminality who just give up or don't make it past the hurdle or whatever.
Otherwise, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, we could get a whole bunch of dumb conclusions, like:
We should just abolish auditing and other anti-corruption accountability mechanisms. By definition, cheats don't need to follow the law, so auditing doesn't catch them, it just imposes extra paperwork on law-abiding citizens!
Definitely, considering what is happening in Nepal ATM. However, some kind of ban on gun supply (not just controlling them) definitely has an impact on your country's murder rate. You can't just expect 20 million guns produced in the USA for consumers not to get in the hands of people who want to do bad things with them. Really, I would be happy if they just lowered that number a lot (to say 1 million) without any other gun control laws, the murder rate across the whole continent would fall.
El Salvador:
Rate: Over 1,000 per 100,000 residents as of early 2024, with a specific rate of 1,659 per 100,000 in March 2024.
USA:
The U.S. incarceration rate was approximately 541 per 100,000 residents in 2022, with nearly two million people in state or federal prisons and local jails. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate among independent democracies and is home to the world's largest prison population.
(we don't get a rate for 2024, but it probably hasn't grown much since then)
The current president even suggested doing so was ok, in his first campaign, naming the amendment in the process. (Anyone who was paying attention at the time and noticed this didn’t immediately end his campaign like it definitely would have in any prior election in living memory, should have been able to guess we were about to have a spike in political violence)
There’s no “defense of liberty” justification for the individual right to bear arms that isn’t also saying “political violence is sometimes necessary”.
(I happen to think that justification’s silly, personally—I’m not endorsing it)
If a simplistic definition of political violence is targeted killings of political leaders, then this is trivially false. Look at Europe, Australia and other countries with comparable statistics to US and look at the number of events you'd classify as political violence. It is likely zero. The only person I can think of from recent memory is Shinzo Abe.
In the US alone, thanks to no gun control, we have attempts at Presidential candidates, and successful killings of state-level law makers, CEOs, and now, political influencers.
talking about gun control as a form of solution is talking about spilled milk under the bridge. There are 100 guns per capita in the US and even if gun sales are banned, the black market will be enough to supply guns for another century
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " - The US Constitution
Neither do private citizens.
What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane."
It means what it says, not what some gun owners like to pretend it says and the simple truth is that making them harder to get does actually reduce crime every single time it's been tried.
That said, I would argue that the definition should be updated to include women as well.
Madison said "the advantage of being armed," together with "the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unclear? If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part.
> Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane."
What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation?
Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw?
>If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part.
I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written.
well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time
militia = everyone, all citizens. In counterpoint to the army, professional paid soldiers.
No it doesn't. Even then that usage was uncommon. This is something later scholars made up to justify their position.
Again, common sense says that it means what it says and you don't get to ignore the bits you don't like.
But then again, when it comes to quoting a culture war grifter, you can find a lot of stupid ass quotes.
Gun violence doesn’t just happen to other people, it happens randomly and to anyone, even those who choose not to own guns.
Pointing out the irony that he died because of gun violence despite stating that gun violence is an acceptable cost is mean spirited and insensitive in the moment, but not incorrect.
He advocated for circumstances for which this could happen, he probably just assumed it would never happen to him.
This is no different than many of us who think that the 1st amendment is worth retaining even if people use it to hire hitman or coordinate kidnappings and what not.
Plenty of people use free speech to do bad things. Look at Trump using his rhetoric to get into power. Or outside the US you can see all sorts of crazy leaders gaining power.
If a person is against, say, laws against tobacco, that person doesn't deserve lung cancer. If a person argues for leniency on criminals, they don't deserve to be murdered.
I am baffled that I have to explain this. I don't think you understand the logic you are defending or its consequences.
Kirk felt that preventable gun deaths were an acceptable cost to the continuation of the Second Amendment.
He fell victim to a preventable gun death. No more, no less.
Kirk didn't believe he was going to be affected by the open gun policies he supported and now he died due to not fully unrelated causes. Pointing that out doesn't imply thinking he deserved it.
In this case, an individual shot someone. Its not like a political party was calling for his murder.
No, this is completely false, for the general population [1]:
> Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?
> 2024 Oct 1-12: Yes: 20% No: 79% No opinion: 1%
Your next sentence
> The majority of citizens support some degree of gun control reform and yet congress refuses to act.
is somewhat true, at 56%. But, this question involves things like more restrictions for those with mental illness, criminal backgrounds, etc. Any conclusion about this question must understand how broad it is, and have the 79% support of gun ownership, above, in mind. See the rest of the results for a more wholistic perspective.
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
> But this is true, at 56%, with caveats
Yeah, that's why I said some degree of control instead of "a majority supports completely banning handguns".
The same can be said for how we distribute seats in the senate and house. The difference in population between the largest and smallest state when the constitution was ratified was around 12x. It's now 70x and I consider that to be unacceptable in terms of weight of power wielded by those smaller states.
I obviously disagree with you on civics, but what would you suggest? I already think there is way too much concentrated power ( I absolutely do not want it ruled by biggest available mob per given state ), but I think we disagree over why.
Can you tell me why that is?
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.
- uniform background checks including private purchase
- waiting periods
- red flag laws
- raising the age to 21
No army in the world including the US could stop a civilian uprising of even a million people who have just rifles and the will to fight. They don't need nukes, tanks, or airplanes. If a large enough percentage of people, say 2% of the population, decided to fight a civil war, the US army/gov would fall in a few months if the rebels knew what they were doing.
It would be a guerilla war. And all of the critical infrastructure in the US could be destroyed in a month. No gas. No electricity. Smaller uprisings would be easily squashed.
Now, would this ever happen? Unlikely. Americans can barely get their fat asses out of bed much less do military operations for weeks at a time. Things would have to get incredibly bad and a leader would have to organize it. But it is possible.
I imagine it more a weakened government (but still with a functioning military) supported by civilian militias backing the government, versus various large and small insurgencies possibly with foreign backing.
No?
They'll use it on the next one then?
No?
The US practially isn't going to use nukes on the US. Its practically not going to use nukes on pretty much anyone.
Some guys with AK-47s kept the world's most powerful military pretty busy for 20 years, so I wouldn't underestimate the value of a few rifles against authoritarianism.
Either of these situations are going to be stochastic and with difficult attribution.
And don’t forget - they want a degree of unhinged shooting back, it feeds the authoritarian tendencies and ‘justifies’ the increasingly unhinged violent responses.
How about: "I don't want the Trump administration to be the only ones with tanks in this country."
Are you going to buy some tanks? How about F35s?
Something to consider is that even though one can, the vast majority do not. Typically, the only time I see people utilizing their right to open carry are the exact types of people you think would do that. They are a very small number in the real world. However, they get so much attention that it distorts the perception that everyone does it. I'm certain there are more people carrying concealed weapons than I pay attention to, but it's not like it is the Old West where you have to leave your weapons outside before entering the saloon.
If this is how you think it is, then you have fallen for the hype machine. Yes, lots of people own weapons. Some of those people own lots of weapons. Only a small number of them carry like you seem to think.
Most of the mass shooting events are not these open carry types. That seems to also confuse things
Here's the top 10 states percentage wise:
Alabama, 27.8% Indiana, 23.4% Colorado, 16.55% Pennsylvania, 15.44% Georgia, 14.48% Iowa, 13.82% Tennessee, 13.15% Florida, 13.07% (residential permits only) Connecticut, 12.67% Washington, 11.63%
a lot of people in Texas do not bother with a conceal permit because it is already an open carry state yet the vast majority of people do not walk around with a pistol on their hip or a rifle slung on their chest.
not really sure what comment you read, but you clearly didn't read the one I replied to
It's essentially the same thing, except unique to the US. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but your exasperation is essentially the same as my exasperation, as a non-drinker, that I or my children can be randomly killed by someone driving under the influence - and everyone is somehow kinda OK with that.
It's much higher because of the US unique car culture and car-centric infrastructure:
Sure, drinking is a problem. But people drink in other countries too (as much or more). But they don't have to drive a car everywhere because they have more sensible infrastructure.Let's compare with the homocide rate in the US: 5.9 - 6.8 / 100K (depending on source)
Yes, that's half the car fatality rate, but not all car fatalities are due to alcohol abuse.
But the big takeaway is that you have 3 times as much chance of dying from a gun in the US as dying from a car in Japan.
sure tools make it easier, but gun control didn't stop the pm of japan from getting assassinated.
if people weren't so desperate, polarized, and angry, i would bet my entire life's savings gun deaths would be decimated
There is no but. There are 700x more gun homicides in the US vs the UK, with just 5x the population. You are the only developed country in the world where active shooter response training is a thing. Tools do make it easier, so it should be hard to get them, especially when they are specifically made for no other use than killing people.
Like, he built it out of PVC and duct tape and random parts. He didn’t buy a legal weapon, and he didn’t obtain a consumer firearm illegally.
- "When seconds matter, police take minutes"
- "Guns are the last line of defense against tyranny"
- "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
- "Your home, your property, and your family must be your right to protect"
BTW, those gun control laws don't always work in Europe either. Sweden has the third highest rate of gun homicides per 100,000 residents (after Albania and Montenegro). ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/1465188/europe-homicide-... )
It's also true that seat belts don't prevent road deaths.
The marketing seemingly appeals to men on the same grounds as video games -- there's some great protagonist who saves everyone with their powerful and timely shooting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood_Park_Mall_shooting
My man was only 22 year old, no CCW license, even broke the rules of the mall and carried anyway. And he smoked a mall shooter before he could barely even get started, with a pistol from like 60 feet away.
What do you think should be done about that? Should I just accept that my son might not live to adulthood because some maladjusted kid gets a rifle from their parents and decides to start shooting their classmates? This is the only country in the world where that regularly happens.
Thought I’d provide a follow on. They could make noise, protest, support court cases, criticize politicians, …. All short of actually using the arms. Crickets.
Fact is the cat is out of the bag. FGC-9 can be 3d printed and the barrel and bolt carrier made out of unregulated parts available anywhere with shipping access to China, or with a bit more effort anyplace with a lathe.
Gun powder is more an issue, but even then black powder is easy enough to make and with electronics can be ignited electrically without any sort of special cap or primer.
It can be culturally changed, but even then, if the criminal culture doesn't changed -- now you have a bunch of criminals with guns smiling that the rest of people are disarmed.
-Charlie Kirk, 2023
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...
https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/charlie-kirk-shot-utah-...
Audience member: “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”
Kirk: “Too many.”
The same audience member went on say the number is five, and proceeded to ask if Kirk knows how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years.
Kirk: “Counting or not counting gang violence?”
Seconds later, the sound of a pop is heard and the crowd screams as Kirk gets shot and recoils in his seat.
Remember: The vast majority of mass attacks in the US have no connection to transgender people. From January 2013 to the present, of the more than 5,700 mass shootings in America (defined as four or more victims shot and killed), five shooters were confirmed as transgender, said Mark Bryant, founding executive director of the Gun Violence Archive.
Then there are the ammosexuals and they're the ones that honestly scare the shit out of me and need their guns confiscated. Like I'm all for the purchase and enjoyment of stupid shit, God knows I own my share of things other people would call ridiculous; but guns are unique in that inflicting harm to others is literally why they exist. It's the only reason you'd have one, and the way these guys (and it is far and away mostly guys) talk with GLEE about the notion of being able to legally kill someone for breaking into their houses... if I wasn't already a hermit, this shit would make me one.
I don't. People are rarely objectively good or bad. Good people can have a bad day. Good people can have a drink or two and turn into bad people. Good people can have their guns stolen from them by bad people. Good people can leave their guns unlocked where their children can find them and do who knows what with them. etc.
You're referring to a steak knife, correct?
I'm American and a frequent international traveler, and I could not disagree more. Almost every other country I've been to has been superior in every way that truly matters. The only reason I stay here is because I don't want to abandon my loved ones.
Of course, maybe Thailand is better than the US in some or even a lot of the ways that matter, but not all of them.
GDP per capita (PPP):
Thailand: 26323, USA: 89105
GDP per capita (nominal):
Thailand: 7767, USA: 89105
Human Development Index:
Thailand: 0.798, USA: 0.938
Really? By what objective metric? Certainly in the top 50%, but the best?
I feel like you were just patronizing the crowd and this is pablum, but the US is one of the angriest, most dissatisfied countries on the planet. It always does poorly on happiness metrics, doesn't do great on corruption indexes, and has a median lifespan and child mortality rate more in the developing country range.
In no universe is there an objective reality where it's the best place to live.
But too much is made about deadly weapons. Every one of us has access to knives. Most of us drive 5000lb vehicles, with which a flick of the wrist could kill many. We all have infinite choices in our life that could take lives.
But we don't, because ultimately there are social issues at play that are simply more important than access to weapons. Loads of countries have access to weapons and it doesn't translate in murder rate at all.
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...
There are people willing to go on murder sprees, and they number in the tens of thousands (or more) if anyone attempts this. Many of them are waiting, nearly holding their breath, hoping that the government tries such a thing. Quite possibly, a few of the mass shootings you've heard of were just those who "jumped the gun" (forgive the expression).
There was a day when I woke up, a few days into the trip, and felt very, very light. Just "weight off my shoulders" lighter. Oddly euphoric.
Took me a few hours to realized that it was the subconscious realization that it was extremely unlikely that anyone around me, for miles and miles, was armed with a gun.
To answer your question: we survive it the same way any human being under perpetual stress survives it. We get on with our day and we don't even notice how bent-out-of-shape we are until and unless we're in a circumstance where we aren't anymore.
I'm not promoting guns by saying this, but that can describe a whole lot of things that aren't even usually designated as weapons.
The root post's comparison was to someone beside you at the supermarket, rather than "sniper at a distance". The capacity to kill is almost universally distributed, it's just that the vast majority of us are not murderers.
But sure, it's actually one of the justifications for the 2nd amendment. Firearms really are sort of an equalizer, and do more equally distribute the risk to even the most powerful.
With guns, it's literally just a button push kind of UI. That this is controversial is just insane to me. Every 2A nut knows that guns are effective killing machines, that's why they like guns. Yet we end up in these threads anyway watching people try to deny it.
But clearly guns are the obviously most important driving variable here, and to argue otherwise is just silly.
42% of US households have one or more guns. 37% of Finland households have one or more guns. That US collectors are aficionados doesn't seem relevant. Access to guns is similar.
> And in fact Finland has a much higher gun death rate
This is an amazing claim given everything we've talked about. Finland's homicide rate is the same as Germany's, and significantly lower than the UK. Do you understand how catastrophic this is for your very argument?
There are more guns so murderous people use them, but murderous people have other methods otherwise, as seen by the UK having over 40% more murders despite having 1/7th the number of households with guns...
Widespread gun ownership invariably makes the problem much, much, worse.
No, it doesn't, not in the context we're talking about. A quick Google says per capita knife deaths in the UK are 4.9/Mpop, gun deaths in the US are one hundred thirty seven per million.
Europe should absolutely solve the "knife problem", sure. But even eliminating it entirely would equate to like a 3% reduction in US deaths. Arguing, as you seem to be, that the US should do nothing because Europe has a comparatively tiny problem seems poorly grounded.
On a population-weighted basis, this is not everyday life in America.
Second, you can walk or drive on a street. Every passerby in a car could kill you if they wanted to by colliding with you. It rarely happens. Stand next to a tall ledge or overpass with crowds walking by and watch the teeming masses - you're unlikely to see any of the thousands of people walking by leap off to their end. Similarly, in life, even though basically anyone could kill you, it's very rare to encounter someone who is in the process of ending their own life, and killing you would basically end, or severely degrade, their own life. Almost nobody wants to do it.
Charlie Kirk is/was kind of an extreme example. He said many things that severely angered hostile people. He went into big crowds and said provocative things many times before being shot. I think in most situations you have to push pretty hard to get to the point where people are angry enough to shoot at you. If you can avoid dangerous neighborhoods and dangerous professions (drugs and gangs) and dangerous people (especially boyfriends/husbands) then you are pretty unlikely to be shot and you benefit from being able to carry guns or keep guns in your home to protect yourself and your family.
For one example, consider the "Grooming gangs" in the UK, where thousands of men raped thousands of girls for decades with the tacit knowledge/permission of authorities - and despite the pleas of the girls and parents for help. Such a thing could be handled quite differently in a society that was well armed. If the police wouldn't help you, you might settle the matter yourself.
Do you think anyone actually believes that? Or is it just cynical marketing everyone goes along with?
Guns allow you to kill 1) multiple people, 2) from a distance, and 3) with nobody aware of the imminent threat.
Of course other weapons can also be used to harm people. Of course no solution is perfect. But it's absolutely incorrect to say "the problem isn't so much the tools." The tools undeniably and irrefutably play a role in every study that has ever been conducted on this topic.
See here for the impact of Australia's gun buyback program, which saw zero mass shootings in a decade after their removal, after 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior the removal, as well as an accelerated decline in firearm deaths and suicides: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
I don’t know what the answer is for reclaiming the guns, but I think logistically it’ll be hard to implement in the USA even if there wasn’t bad faith attempts to try to thwart regulation (and arguing that there’s still violence with knives and guns aren’t the problem is definitely bad faith/uneducated arguments)
What do you mean? If you go to any public place in the world, you can get very close to hundreds of people in a very short time. Knife assassinations happen all the time.
You could have quoted the beginning of the sentence, where the point was about this specific case, and how in this particular case, a gun clearly allowed an assassination that would have been challenging to pull off with a knife.
That is not a way as saying killing someone with a knife is impossible. It's a way of saying that guns allow you to kill people in ways and distances that knives do not.
If you want to have a society, you have to care about and for the people.
Hint: it's not even close to the number of people killed with a firearm
Guns (handguns, rifles, etc): 13,529
Knives or cutting instruments: 1,562
Hands/fists/feet/etc: 659
Clubs/hammers/etc: 317
How many European politicians are knifed?
The only one I can think of is Amess.
Stop this false equivalence argument, I absolutely despise it
I can't really think of any situation were someone done something evil with a knife that would have worked out better if that evil person had a gun instead.
> I dont get how you US guys can live in an environment were your next door neighbor, the person beside you in the supermarket etc can carry a lethal weapon that can end your life.
Knife killing can happen for the every-day citizen that doesn't have a security detail. The OP is scared about the neighbor having a weapon to kill them with... and every household already has one in the kitchen.
If you are scared about being killed in a given society, it's more likely a cultural problem rather than a tool problem. Yes, guns make it easier to do. The question is, why are more people doing it now adays? What changed?
Go back a few decades, and you can find plenty of kids in highschool in the US that would keep rifles in the back of their truck in the school parking lot. They would use those guns to go hunting after school. They weren't being used to shoot eachother.
Trump was shot surrounded by (in theory) some of the best-trained armed guards on the planet. Uvalde saw several hundred "good guys with a shitload of guns" mill around for over an hour while schoolchildren got massacred by a single shooter.
I can't say I get it.
There was a shooting at a protest in SLC in June[0] in which a volunteer working with the group organizing the protest shot and killed an innocent man while trying to hit someone carrying an assault rifle. (Primarily due to a misunderstanding that could have been avoided.) His intentions were good, thinking he was saving people from someone else who had bad intentions.
I was personally about 50 feet away from the incident. It's hard for me to imagine what a good guy with a gun actually does in practice.
0: https://apnews.com/article/salt-lake-city-no-kings-shooting-...
Something like this?
> A brutal stabbing at a Walmart in Traverse City, Michigan, left 11 people injured on Sunday, but a much larger tragedy was averted thanks to the courage of two bystanders. Leading the charge was former Marine Derrick Perry, now hailed as a hero across social media.
Verified video shows the suspect cornered in the store’s parking lot, motionless as Perry kept him pinned at gunpoint until police moved in.
https://www.news18.com/world/hero-ex-marine-stops-walmart-st...
I find the characterization of the shooter having good intentions to be a bit too generous; the person he intended to shoot wasn't doing anything more threatening than just carrying a gun (as the shooter was also doing): https://bsky.app/profile/seananigans.bsky.social/post/3lrp66... . It wasn't being "brandished" or pointed at anyone.
I can't imagine any justifiable reason to fire a gun in such a thick crowd, when no one else has fired their weapon.
This is kinda missing the point, from my perspective. The reason the shooter thought Gamboa (the guy with the assault rifle) was a threat is because he was walking with an assault rifle in his hands rather than slung over his shoulder. It's the same difference as someone holding their handgun (down pointed at the ground) versus keeping it holstered and it's in how quickly the wielder could aim and fire. It didn't need to be brandished at the moment because it could have been in less than a second.
All things considered, I don't think Gamboa had bad intentions but I do think his actions that day were stupid. The shooter made a bad call for a bad outcome but it still doesn't make sense to pin the blame entirely on them.
Note, that to shoot this man, the police officer also held his gun in his hand. I hope you're at least consistent, and would also say "it doesn't make the sense" to put blame "entirely" on someone if that someone goes around shooting police officers as soon as their hands touch their guns.
The shooter was a civilian volunteer.
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.
All: I suppose I should add that yes, there are many other accounts breaking the site guidelines and some are likely crossing the line at which we should ban them. One thing to realize, though, is that we usually take the account history into account, not just what they're posting in one thread (like today's).
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-...
> “Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks.” With a smirk, he added: “Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”
We need more people like Charlie Kirk, and less violent thugs. Martin Luther Kings niece has just posted the Kirk has won. When a person is martyred, they will be remembered for the merits of their arguments.
No, but I want steps taken to prevent them from crashing.
> (also, you sneakily added 2 qualifiers: US, Airlines)
That's hardly sneaky. We're talking about the US. It would be odd to discuss gun violence and airline safety from, say, Somalia.
Let's stop pretending this is a black and white matter
He did not deserve to die for his fundamentalism, but trying to paint him as a moderate who engaged with the process genuinely and in good faith is wildly mischaracterizing his entire life and political career.
What exactly is a religion fundamentalist? He was a Christian, but what makes him a "fundamentalist"?
What exactly did he do that wasn't in good faith? All he did was talk to people respectfully and engage in open dialogue. He had no notes with him ever, and he just talked with people. And for that he got murdered.
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
Fundamentalist? Check.
Kirk says some true patriot should bail out the guy who nearly murdered Paul Pelosi with a hammer:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-...
Respectful and in good faith? No check.
He's pointing out the hypocrisy of San Francisco letting out people on bail for everything, but if they attack a Pelosi, they can't get bail.
You are the one who is acting in bad faith. People like you are the reason why he's dead. You think that because you disagree with him, it's perfectly okay to lie about him and vilify him and hope he gets killed. It's sick and needs to stop.
"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." - https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...
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.
All: I suppose I should add that yes, there are many other accounts breaking the site guidelines and some are likely crossing the line at which we should ban them. One thing to realize, though, is that we usually take the account history into account, not just what they're posting in one thread (like today's).
I don't think that's a particularly helpful statement, given the person responsible is one person, given that the "left" or the "right" aren't really solid concepts and are rather used to describe individuals that vote once every four years for a party that pretends its eiter "right" or "left".
Furthermore as someone outside of America, I sometimes feel like I care about America more than Americans, given the current government and its dismissive attitudes to liberty.
You might be seeing bots trying to sew division.
But that doesn't mean there is no such line. Almost everybody agrees there should be some cost to expressing highly dangerous views -- where we disagree is what that cost needs to be for a given view (reputational, financial, capital).
Because faithful Christians like Charlie believe prayer is powerful and effective, even if not in the way we want it to be.
But every time a rich white asshole gets shot there's bound to be thousands of comments here and people clutching their pearls and saying it's the end of civil society. But the pile of dead schoolchildren, black people shot by cops, brown people shot by the military, Jews and gay people shot by spree killers? Not a care in the world, that's just background noise.
Trump (or whomever controls his Truth Social account - I seriously doubt he knows how Photoshop works) posts a meme about "Chipocalypse now" bragging about the violence he intends to commit against his own people and no one seems to care. Presidents have been taken down for far less egregious behavior. But it's Chicago, it's full of black people and immigrants so who gives a fuck?
I think you're right. I think Americans are afraid because for the first time in their lives they're being treated the way America has treated everyone who isn't straight, white, Christian and American, that the systems of oppression they built and which feed their empire are actually being turned on them. The only thing I can say is they aren't nearly afraid enough.
It's a damn shame we've gotten to this point but the reason why we're here is obvious and extremely predictable.
For a simple first question, do you know of Iryna Zarutska? Killed with a pocket knife. Do we need to ban pocket knives too? Or do we need to have foundational discussion about how we quell violence and deter violent behavior in this country?
It’s not a given to presume that gun bans are the answer. And expressing that opinion is not something that should get you shot.
I'm making a statement about a person experiencing the consequences of their stated position.
If he'd staked out a position on the necessity of compelling everyone to engage in autoerotic asphyxiation to achieve maximum satisfaction and then subsequently died from it in a suffocation incident himself, then it wouldn't really be much of a tragedy compared to a bunch of children being randomly strangled to death in their classrooms.
Insofar as I can tell it looks like Charlie Kirk died doing what he loved and in a way that aligned existentially with his zealously professed ideology.
Did he not?
All I'm saying, is that if I was a US adversary, I would absolutely be spinning up a million LLMs to post the most provocative possible stuff. The technology absolutely exists - just yesterday sama@ was talking about the dead internet theory. I'm worried that someone is going to see that horrifying video of the shooting, and then see all these horrifying comments online, and do something equally horrifying.
https://x.com/tpointuk/status/1965864882731102215?s=46
Would be incredible if he pulled through. Looked fatal. Who knows if his spinal system was damaged as well.
He has 2 young kids.
His choice of getting in to the middle of people and answering anyone's questions in a situation where there's no re-takes, no edits, even if he might've felt overbearing, was quite a fire test of the commenter's arguments versus his counter-arguments.
His assassination really is a direct attack on debate itself.
There really isn't a world where the sick people cheering this have any real respect for democratic values of a free world full of all kinds of thinkers. Maybe for something more akin to that one dialog "choice" in Avowed. You know if you know.
Sounds like you know more than you're saying. So it's someone controlling him or blackmailing him or something? Who's puppet do you think he is?
I never watched him and only vaguely remembered his name when it just hit the news.
A person does not have to be a _neither here no there_ to be a conduit by the wealthy and powerful. Single voter issues are another means.
_Rob Schenck_ [0] anti-abortion activism was a great tool for politicians to gain power. _The Dark Money Game_ [1] documentary goes it great length of highlight this feature of "democracy". His mind set at the time was that the wealthy are paying to end abortion and that is a good thing. Indirectly, he helped the speaker of the house, Larry Householder [2], gain enough power to launder money through bribery and force tax payers to bail to a corrupt power company's fail nuclear infrastructure [3].
Rob Schenck has since supported legalized abortion after sitting on the bed side of a women who slowly suffered to death from complications which an abortion would of kept her alive.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Schenck [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Money_Game [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Householder [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal
Like, it doesn't have to be "a small number of very powerful rich benefactors who know exactly what they're doing" -- it could be some less rich, or less powerful people who know how to leverage "the internet;" or even something like "the internet sort of made this on its own?"
Best way I've ever seen it put. There is no "essential" Charlie Kirk, just as there's no "essential" of any of these talking heads. They are a reflection of beliefs from the person's payroll they're on. He didn't even think twice about the Epstein files with the MAGA base imploded, and was happy to say - to a camera - that he "Trusts his friends" to sort it out.
>"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" - Charlie Kirk, 2023
https://www.29news.com/2025/09/10/charlie-kirk-shot-universi...
Regardless of your political bent, this sort of shit is sickening and genuinely disturbing, particularly when it occurs at (as this did) at a university whose ostensible raison d'etre is to ventilate different ideas, offensive or not. I realise this event wasn't a 'debate' per se but nevertheless it's the ethos and optics that matter.
There's also the incredibly myopic immaturity inherent in using violence for the sole or primary purpose of silencing the speaker and signalling to others that violence is somehow an acceptable form of dialogue. The myopic absurdity of this is of course that it is a cycle that can never end if all participants share that view, ensuring that it is inevitably self-defeating. Violence can make sense under certain circumstances - coups, revolutions, wars - but in the context of mere rhetoric it's abhorrent to witness.
Just a grotesque reflection in a long list of them that we as a species, or very many of us - perhaps more than we want to admit - are extremely violent and brutal.
Sickening and sobering, and again you could plug in any speaker/polemicist from whichever part of the political spectrum in here and it would be no less true.
This may have been an offensive reply to the original comment:
It's important for Me to play Devil's Advocate, here, because the original statement overlooks the amazingly constructive qualities humanity offers.
Overlooking == under-capitalizing. Which is an error. And judgement is important to hang onto in a crisis.
This is a crisis.
Despite all our fancy gadgets and fancy thinking and fancy philosophies, we aren't really all that different from those who lived a thousand or ten thousand years ago.
But to my knowledge Kirk never did and 'live by the sword, die by the sword' wouldn't apply here. In fact I can't think of an instance in recent history where this would have applied - the logical implications inherent in such rhetoric are obvious to most people immediately. Even the Russians as a general rule don't murder their exiled former rulers - the new Czar figures he could be next, and wouldn't want to set a precedent.
Apathy or acceptance of something is passive; incitement and encouragement of something is active. Surely that's obvious.
As far as I know he never advocated murder through assassination or targeted extrajudicial killing. His views on guns and indeed the fact he was speaking about gun violence when he was shot may qualify as ironic, but his philosophical views on the availability of guns to the public were not tantamount to actively encouraging violence.
Quit putting words in my mouth.
I am not encouraging violence or assassination of political differences. I merely said, his death is quite literally _live by the sword, die by the sword_. That's it. He advocated for freedom of firearms, and died by one. Nothing further to it to read into. This is not malice or extolling violence.
Here's a couple of sources of the quote I attribute to him, since you don't believe me or are willfully, obtusely, ignoring what he said.
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-qu...
I also never denied that the quote was accurate. I drew a distinction between his quote, on the one hand, and actively advocating violence on the other. The only part of this discussion that involved you was related to your apparent inability to understand that distinction.
Getting the vibe this isn't going to be fruitful. Good day.
Your comment HERE could even be interpreted by some as preaching for violence - because you're implying that there's a line you can cross where the opinions you share justify your death.
The only thing I can think of that the government can do is to clamp down hard on violence, including speech which advocates for violence (e.g. glorifying Luigi Mangione, calling everyone a Nazi/fascist, etc.). Freedom of speech ends where it actually turns into violence.
Reducing rights to speech that advocates for violence makes some sense, but what I'd like to see is reducing the lies and disinformation. Install a duty of candor to everyone who speaks in greatly public ways
I feel sick to my stomach. Charlie was a pundit but he didn't deserve this. Not at our university. I've always felt in danger at UVU as the whole complex makes Michel Foucault look like a Hebraic prophet. I wasn't on campus at the time- I'm currently attending a guest class at BYU across town.
I'm going to drop out of university. There's no point anymore. The society I wanted to live in as a child has started to eat itself. What makes me sick is that before the announcement my attitude was very, "let's make cynical jokes; he'll most likely be ok..." this all happened 15 minutes away from my house. I'm afraid of violence toward my left-leaning family. I'm currently battling chronic illness (lungs, throat, stomach. Don't smoke!) and I can't take this stress anymore. I love you uncle Douglas Engelbart; I wanted to take on the work Alan Kay did in his life. I wanted to make tools to expand human intellect. I wanted to help make good on the Licklider dream. Now my dream is manipulate a doctor into giving me a diagnosis so I can enter into palliative care and take Methadone until I die.
It's a scary day.
You can still build something, teach something, help those who love you.
The despair is real but it goes away.
Currently we have a president that is very antagonistic and constantly goading the opposition and on the other hand we have political PARTIES (emphasis on the plural) that are also stoking violent sentiment across their constituents to gain political favor. It's clear to me that the blame game that is going to ensue will result in no change in the upward trajectory of these kinds of events because one side will accuse the other and make no attempts to reach across the aisle to deescalate the situation.
Times like these I just turn off the news and try to be a good neighbor because there really isn't much else I can do.