Charlie Kirk dead

[Booneymil]

The last thread was taken down because of personal insults towards the man.

We should be able to have a thread about this news topic.

Report any insulting posts. Mumsnet can you please just delete the offending posts, instead of deleting the whole thread?

Thank you.

Charlie Kirk has died today. He was shot at a public talk that he was giving.

He accepted school shootings as collateral damage for the the right of Americans to own personal arsenals of guns. He accepted the murder of children as an unfortunate side effect of the pro-gun policies he supported. He accepted that innocent people would be shot as a result of the gun ownership policies he supported.

So forgive me for thinking karma when he was shot, and forgive me for thinking better a disturbed shooter targeted him than a school.

To raise another inconvenient truth, he was anti-choice to the extent that he said if his own 10 year old daughter was raped and pregnant, he would insist that she carry to term. To me, this indicates he was a controlling misogynist, and he used his public platform to push these views, especially on young people.

I don't believe that assination is acceptable for political views, I find the level of gun violence in the US to be abhorrent, and I fear a targeted backlash if the shooter can be linked to any specific group targeted by Kirk.

But I am shocked that MN pulled yesterdays thread - no one was celebrating his death, but I was one of the many posters who pointed out the inconvient facts of his abhorrent views, and who didn't add that it was terribly sad.

Apologies if in trying to balance the 'be kind' messages, I contribute to this thread being taken down again.

But it is the woman’s choice. You shouldn’t restrict people’s choice to do what they like with their body - or we’ll soon stray into the banning of birth control and other aspects of women’s healthcare.

Gun supporters, including Kirk, always argue that guns are necessary for defence. It’s ironic then that there was just no way to defend against this shooting. How do you defend yourself from someone shooting you from 430 feet away?

Well according to Kirk, his 10 year old daughter's life wouldn't matter should she had gotten pregnant. I mean, what kind of father puts his child 2nd to his beliefs?

The irony is comments like this seem to be flowing thick and fast fromthe #bekind community.

For the hard of understanding, once again he did not preach for gun deaths.

I know this is the mantra that’s been painted in the barn wall today for the sheep to read (it’s so depressingly repetitive amongst the left) but a little critic as k thinking about this would go a long way.

This is poor debating though - these things are not the same. Supporting Palestine not being eradicated (ethnic cleansing, really) is not the same as believing in everything the country stands for. I asked a very specific question and I would like to hear your answer seeing as you chose to engage with it. Are you able to acknowledge that his view on that topic was extreme?

What I am saying is that these types of questions are designed to increase hostility and are therefore not conducive to good faith debate.

So the questions designed to probe someone’s character and ask whether the harsh ideals they want to impose on everyone else would also apply to their own family shouldn’t be asked ?

No but I think that the rise in popularity of right wing politics both in the US and Europe and the increase in right wing opinions even for example amongst say the Labour Party (on immigration) is leading many on the left to become increasingly intolerant of free speech and increasingly willing to use violence as they lose the public opinion whether that be damaging military jets at Brize Norton or the shooting of Charlie Kirk.

Do you apply that across the board. What about a migrant bringing his child to Britain on a boat to escape religious persecution?

This is deranged. Does any of that justify the genocide of an entire people?

So a woman can make any choice they feel like?

How to miss the point

Nobody has said that. This was precision shooting, almost like a sniper.

He very clearly did.

But in a democratic society he’s allowed to articulate his views and you were allowed to robustly debate him and tell him why he was wrong.

Advocating that any dissenting views from your position on this to be not allowable because they don’t agree with your world view is truly what a worries me about society today.

I am pro abortion myself but I’d have no problem debating someone and listening to the views of someone who wasn’t. I expect i’d have more comments ground than not but wouldn’t change my view.

Where has anyone said they’re #bekind? #bekind are usually misogynists.

People who are in the slightest bit pleased that this man was assassinated for his political views are celebrating the death of effective democracy.

I may not agree with a word you say but i defend your right to say it.

Since when is it a 'left wing' position to deny the right to free speech (unless it is something you agree with)?

I've heard a lot of people praising Charlie Kirk for opening up debate and championing free speech. Open debate is definitely good.

However, I just watched Charlie Kirk's last YouTube video. He's not doing what I would call debating. Instead, he's talking over people, insulting them, making some point and then claiming to have won the argument, abruptly changing subject and so on. He was like the James O'Brien of the right.

How did it miss the point?

Oh I've just seen the video. Of the actual shooting. Oh my word it's so awful. 😢

I've seen him face personal insults and misinformed debates on Gaza.

I don’t think anyone is pleased. I’m dreading the inevitable tit for tat violence. And I suspect either school kids or ethnic minorities will bear the brunt.

I’m not hard of understanding. Here’s a bit of critical thinking for you - Kirk may not have preached gun deaths but he was an apologist for the gun deaths caused by the second amendment rights he supported. As far as he was concerned they were simply collateral damage. He may not have preached gun deaths but he certainly saw the victims as necessary sacrifices for the cause. How on earth he reconciled that with Christian values is beyond me.

@Septemberain25 He accepted school shootings as collateral damage for the the right of Americans to own personal arsenals of guns. He accepted the murder of children as an unfortunate side effect of the pro-gun policies he supported. He accepted that innocent people would be shot as a result of the gun ownership policies he supported.

Yep, hiis death is the necessary colateral damage of the cause he supported and he should be ok with getting shot I guess.