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?

On the basis that they still don't appear to know who did this, is there any justification for thinking it was the "left". From the CCTV footage I've seen, the "shooter" looks much more like the stereotypical right wing extremist. I realise what he looks like is no real indication, but also don't think there's any evidence that he was from the left?

And some people are very stupid because that's not an equivalent argument.

I dont think those positions are exactly what he advocated for, I think there is an awful lot of context clipping going on with things he has previously said.

And even if he did, so what? In a free society you are sometimes going to hear arguments that are wrong and that you fundamentally disagree with. The answer is to challenge them with better arguments, not to silence them through violence.

'When you tear out a man's tongue, you arent proving him a liar, you are showing the world you are frightened of what he had to say'.

I'd never heard of him before yesterday and have now heard on one side he was a despicable person with abhorrent views, and on the other that he was respectful and loved to debate. How did these debates work though? - I am presuming (and please correct me if I am wrong) that he was polite and happy for these topics to be discussed but I don't see him aligning with any opposing views. So was generally a 2 way thing, or just a way so that he could get to say what he personally believed in out loud, without looking bad?

We share a language but there’s a gulf of cultural differences between us and Americans eg being able to have guns to protect themselves from an oppressive government. It’s not something I understand but I can appreciate that people have different values and might think it’s an important part of democracy that isn’t risk free but is worth the benefits it brings. I don’t see it that way, but I also don’t think him holding different beliefs means we should wave away someone being killed while debating those beliefs as just an ironic happenstance.

I’ve been shocked at how many people have been expressing joy and glee at his death, citing his beliefs as the reason that they’re glad he’s been killed. How does that contribute to a society where people are allowed to have different opinions and views?

This dumb argument has had zero thought put into it. ! If the sole purpose of cars were to drive them into someone, you might have a point.

The carefully edited social media clips show a polite man debating people. That’s not all the organisation did though, you are taking one carefully presented aspect of the Kirk movement and assuming that’s all there is. What’s ironic is that Kirk would have required you to check your views with your husband before presenting them here, but if it needs to be said I am of course totally against murdering anyone.

I think he sees there is a realistic threat of institutions versus people, and if only one side has all the guns, it’s game over.

So I can see logically he’s coming at it from more lives saved overall, over a long period of time, if everyone has guns as prevention/deterrence.

I personally am so glad we don’t have to live with guns here and don’t advocate for this at all even if it might save more lives over a 100 year period for everyone to have guns (and not sure if it would or not).

I don’t like to see people imply that he was ok with kids or himself being shot, do you really think half of Americans are psychopaths? Try to understand the point of view even if you disagree like I do.

100% this - they weren’t debates, debates imply that both sides are willing to change their views based on the presentation of evidence. They were stage-managed media spots where a bloke in a nice suit smiled and was incredibly polite, but had no desire to learn from anyone else. I had a boss like that once and it was the most frustrating experience of my work life. Utter stonewalling at every turn, but always with a veneer of ‘nice’ that you know he didn’t really mean. BP is going up just thinking about him…

Those who believe Turning Point is a benign organisation should read Stacey Patton’s account of her brush with them.

I can understand the flawed logic, but it isn’t logical to advocate that allowing the American public access to military grade weapons for personal use makes Americans safer overall, in case they need to rise up and defend themselves against the state. That is a deeply worrying and paranoid point of view which disregards the evidence about the impact of these weapons. Somewhere in that flawed logic is a choice to ignore the evidence and accept the deaths of children.

This man has said many controversial things that I personally believe are pretty horrific. Here are more quotes with citations:

”If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified”.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

”If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because affirmative action?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge. – Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.
– Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024

On gun violenceI 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.
– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023

”America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.”
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 22 August 2025

“The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.”
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

“The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024

You can read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

I personally believe that we are better/smarter/kinder/stronger as a country with values that are closer to inclusivity/kindness across all parts of society.

That will NEVER happen in our lifetime. To the USA guns are like a cult you can't get out of and don't want to. The brainwashing that it keeps you safer to have a gun and it's a right to have one is so engrained.

Thanks for assuming what exposure I've had to CK before this incident. 🙄

You seem to be implying that the debates and discussions are actually just some kind of a cover for other more sinister tactics he employed. Presumably you can evidence that with something?

This is so true. He simply talked over people. No active listening involved and exchange of conversation. His style was almost a form of gaslighting.

The majority of Americans both sides of the aisle support sensible gun control measures. Stats vary from 58% to 87% depending on where you're getting them, slightly higher for Democrats, slightly lower for Republicans, but usually only a couple of percentage points between. It's the NRA and the politicians they buy who push the idea that it's an "us vs them" issue. It's not. Republicans, Democrats, swing voters - the majority want this issue addressed yesterday, and are scared for themselves and especially their kids. The fact action is not happening, and is deliberately being quashed, despite the known will of the people is a travesty.

So no, I don't think the majority of Americans are psychopaths. The majority just want to live their lives in peace. The psychopaths are the corrupt politicians and those who pay them to suppress any kind of gun control anywhere.

@HungryHungryHippooo’s post above shows his views, which he defended rather than debated or discussed. I think the things he said in broad daylight are sinister enough without poking under the engine of a vehicle of hate, but Stacey Patton’s comments today also show it wasn’t all ‘debate’.

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.

So was generally a 2 way thing, or just a way so that he could get to say what he personally believed in out loud, without looking bad?

The ones I've seen (and I've only seen a couple) it was the latter. He avoided answering questions he didn't like, and was very deft in using rhetorical techniques to shut debate down or make younger people want to please him (very much a preacher technique). He also did not seem to care whether his statements were true.

It was the sort of behaviour which might win you the plaque in the school debating society. But his content was often dross.

Oh, and it shouldn't need to be said, but I can see this might turn into one of those thread where it does ...

I do not at all support Kirk being shot. And was horrified to see yet more of this extreme political violence in the US.

It's only a few months since the shootings in Minnesota of Democrat elected politicians and their families: 2 dead, 2 survived, killer was caught before he got through his list of nearly 70 people he deemed politically unacceptable to him.

CK recently was 'debating' in Cambridge where he was met with fiercesome educated 20 somethings. One a 20 year old woman who pretty much wiped the floor with him.

I watched an analysis of her debate. It is eye opening not only to watch his body language, poor eye contact and inability to actually debate beyond his own talking points but the fact that she was young, educated and a woman made this all the more a sweet victory. She brought facts and figures with wit and knowledge. In essence she was everything that he doesn't want in a woman.

The trump administration are removing womans rights to choose but they are also working to remove their contraceptive rights and Kirk, Miller et Al are/were pushing this agenda.

Trumps administration are abusing their power to bully intimidate dominate and silence others. ( Look no further than his pressure on news outlets, Stephen Colbert, and the journalists who are fired because they don't say what he wants) . 1939 anyone? So your quote is actually very apt in relation to trump and his cronies.

CK is dead because he wanted gun rights, and felt that it was acceptable for lives to be lost as a side effect of that, he got what he wanted but I bet he didn't think it would be him.

I wonder what his 10 year old daughter would think about that or Taylor Swift but I suppose it doesn’t matter as as far as he seemed to be concerned it doesn’t matter what they think.

CK is dead because he wanted gun rights.

We yet don't know why he's dead.

Gun rights may have contributed to the ease with which he was killed, but stating that him wanting gun rights is the reason he's dead, is putting it way too strongly I feel. Yes it's ironic, but he'd still be dead if he hadn't advocated for gun rights. Like so many other people shot in the US who don't support extreme gun rights.

I agree but it doesn't mean they deserve to get shot like that

This.