Charlie Kirk and guns

[Mugfills]

A man has died and that's a terrible thing.

I'd never heard of him, but my sons, neither of whom take a lot of interest in politics generally, did know a lot about him. He was clearly a very skilled politician and debater, and some of the clips I've seen since show a man who could ask some very interesting questions calmly and make (imo) abhorrent positions seem reasonable.

One of the quotes I've seen is

"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."

So, presumably he included his own life as one of those acceptable costs, or did he mostly mean poor black lives and other people's children?

I fervently believe in democracy and free speech, but increasingly they are starting to feel like quaintly old-fashioned concepts - at least, in the way I think about them and understand them.

Charlie Kirk basically started the world’s longest run for president at the age of 18 when he founded Turning Point with Bill Montgomery’s money. Montgomery was 71 at the time. Its well-funded campus based organisation has since influenced hundreds of thousands of young Americans, shored up divisions on campus, encouraged students to report their professors for so-called wokeism and created an army of propagandists. I fully expected him to start his move into politics (as in ‘vote for me politics’, he’s clearly already in ‘politics’) after Trump’s presidency ends, however and whenever that may be.

It just doesn’t feel that democratic, using a millionaire’s money to indoctrinate a youth army, does it?

But could we at least start somewhere??

To be clear, by 'indoctrinate' do you mean 'have debates and present ideas'? 🤷‍♂️

I mean is creating Turning Point as an organisation any more 'indoctrination' than the presence of Labour Societies or Socialist Societies in Universities?

Do you view them as indoctrination?

Haha, you don't need to set up a movement with millions of dollars to do that.

I think what he meant was guns are worth the risk, his point of view. Like how most people see vaccines are worth the risk. Some people do have bad reactions.

i don’t think guns have benefit whereas i think vaccines do. So its about how you judge benefit vs risk

OK, so what? How is setting up an organisation 'indoctrination'?

Where though?

Practically speaking how do you get 400 millions guns surrendered. The only people that would comply with an amnesty would be the people you would most likely trust to be responsible with gun ownership in the first place.

Im not trying to be difficult I just think the USA is passed the point of no return with guns control.

It's interesting though that this is not the argument used. It's always about "rights" not the practicalities of making gun control work.

Yeah he lost me at "Taylor, (Swift) submit to your husband" wtf?! Men like him really are in the dark ages. And they wonder why women are choosing not to have kids/remain single.

Removing guns from America would be extremely difficult, but changes can be made to turn the tide. This would include criminalising the ownership of certain weapons full stop, like Australia’s criminalisation of semi automatic weapons and the gun amnesty following the Hobart massacre.

Some may decide to keep illegal guns hidden in their homes, but this immediately makes it difficult to acquire those weapons. It stops their open trade as a legitimate practice. It stops children being able to use them at shooting ranges. It sends a clear message about what type of country American chooses to be.

The answer to dangerous guns is not more guns- there is no evidence to suggest that solution has any logic or benefit to society and it certainly does not make the American public safer.

Actually I do - I think all student societies should be student generated/led.

But what I’m getting at is there’s a vast difference between the LabourSoc of my college days (four beardies selling the Socialist Worker at lunchtime alongside a boycott South Africa petition) and a huge, extremely well-funded campus organisation led by a charismatic figurehead (who would definitely have ran for president) powered by social media. Our ideas of what democracy is and isn’t and who is actually pulling what strings may not match what is actually happening on the ground.

My experience of student politics (back in the day) was that students who were interested in politics and a political career used them for themselves. Now, it’s about building voter bases - I’m maybe not articulating that particularly well, but I think the focus has changed. It’s not about Bill joining the Young Democrats anymore, it’s about using universities as a place to solidify bi-partisan views, at a time when the focus should be on opening minds, not closing them.

Driving is usually a benefit to society.

What benefit is having a gun ?

I was answering the previous quote: start by banning new gun sales. Start somewhere. Start a change that says ‘this isn’t the nation we want to be.’

Owning a gun is a god-given right?

Good grief.

That’s like comparing a pear to a great white shark and saying they’re both organic. 🙄

Our infrastructure is reliant on vehicles - without them, we wouldn’t have food deliveries, medication transport, the emergency services. People need vehicles to be able to reach their places of work, of education, to get supplies - if we banned them entirely it would be catastrophic, and for lots of people ownership of a car is a requirement for their daily lives.

Guns are not a necessity for anything other than killing.

But indoctrination implies that only one side of an argument is being presented/being allowed to be presented. Which isn't at all what Charlie Kirk did, his USP was allowing people to openly challenge his views and then debating them.

Its ironic that shooting someone whose views you disagree with is much more in the spirit of indoctrination than anything TP have ever done.

Thoughts on the Etsy Witches?

this

what a ridiculous comparison

He spent a lifetime poking a wasps nest.

Nobody deserves to die for voicing their opinions, but if you perpetually attack minorities and pedal the undermining of hard won freedoms (like reproductive rights) you must know you are putting yourself in a potentially dangerous position.

This isn't something we've descended to. For all of history the pub bore who constantly spouted controversy purely to provoke would one day push his luck too far and receive a bloody nose. In gun filled America you risk more than a bloody nose).

The love of guns is difficult to grasp culturally, but from what I understand, it’s mainly that the US republicans have a deep mistrust of future governments and institutions and want to keep them in check.

Also, if all the bad people in your city own guns, you’d probably want to own one too, so it’s a vicious cycle. It’s hard to imagine how we’d feel about it if guns were everywhere around us.

I enjoyed listening to him and admired his courage and conviction. RIP Charlie.

don't be foolish. We (consumers, manufacturers, government) are obligated to at least try and make driving a safer experience. We don't just unfasten our seatbelts and call it God's will.

It is not the same thing

@WhatAboutThisUser

The love of guns as an overriding right is difficult to grasp culturally in the context of children repeatedly getting their hands on semi automatic weapons and rapidly murdering classmates at school. That is what I can’t fathom- resisting attempts to control and limit the use and ownership of those types of weapons in the face of children dying.

CK advocated for women to be chattels, uneducated unquestioning agreeable baby bearers and nothing else. He also advocated for guns and that empathy and sympathy as woke or runinous concepts.

His murder means he will get what he advocated in relation to guns and lack of sympathy and empathy that some will feel.

I think that what happened is abhorrent but ck got what he advocated for. His demise is now being used to conjure up a false sense of threat by trump to deflect from his epstein involvement and to proclaim a civil war and stop having the midterms elections so he can continue with his disgusting narcissistic bullying agenda.

On a final note i for one have no interest in returning to the purse clutching women of yesteryear who had to ask their husbands for everything.

What nonsense and incredibly short sighted opinion.

Disagreeing with people on social and economic issues throigh the medium of quiet and considered debate does not equal 'Poking a wasps nest' and in no way should make what happened to him inevitable.

If Corbyn or Sultana for example were attacked, would you shrug your shoulders and say 'well they knew what they were doing, poking a wasps nest'?!