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?

This isn't debate of social and economic issues through the medium of quiet and considered debate. It is systematic undermining of minorities and the freedoms people have fought hard for.

”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

I feel sorry for his children to have lost a father but that's where my sympathy stops.

His views on topics were clear, the majority of which I strongly disagreed with.
I don't see why his death should be treated any differently to anyone else's gun death in the US simply because he was pally with the tango hair piece toddler.

Yes and he used Christianity to attempt to give all his fascist/sexist/racist opinions weight.

He attempted to take the moral high ground when really he was only out for one thing: to repopulate America with what he perceived to be ‘true Americans’. Like the rest of the the MAGA brigade he was just deep down an entitled yet scared little man. Afraid that ‘his’ America would become eradicated by immigrants and gays and trans folk. Scared by women and their rights.

Make no mistake, whilst you may have agreed with him on certain issues such as ‘women can’t have a prostate’ (agreed), he was a man with toxic views.

Pretty much yes.

He said he wanted open debate and challenge but when it came down to it, he never deviated from his toxic views on women, immigration, guns, abortion, war etc. People who truly wish to engage in debate try to see grey areas in things but he didn’t.

Go on YouTube and watch his debate with Cambridge students. They wipe the floor with him and he not once sees the ‘grey’ in any of the topics. It’s also interesting to see young Brits engage with him as he is so fixated on Christianity and it doesn’t translate well in our secular society.

Op I also thought it was ironic that he defended Americas right to bear arms. And wondered if he could voice is opinion now he'd have changed his mind?

His comments about 10yo girls giving birth is horrific too. Well seen he was a man who's never given birth or been chopped open to get a baby out his body.

I wonder what it will take for the USA to reconsider its gun laws.

Go back and read some of the comments I here... seriously. 🙄

Can be summed up as he didn't debate in 'the right way', and had opinions we disagree with,therefore im going to intuit his motives and label him a fascist.

This is how people get pushed to the right and radicalised because there is literally no acceptable way to disagree without being smeared and dismissed.

He went to Colleges and debated peacefully, and they killed him for it.

Really?

Who has smeared you, @ColonelDax ?

And with what?

So to summarise:

Anti abortion

Opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds

Anti DEI-pro merit

Concerned about immigration

Concerned about black on white crime levels

Believed men and women were different

I dont share most of his views at all but this is it? The smoking gun that proves he was a fascist?! 🙄

I thought we went to war with Nazis in the 1940s, turns out that most, if not all of the soldiers fighting for the Allies were also fascists if believing the above is all it takes.

Ridiculous.

Not me, him.

Turns out there is literally an acceptable way to disagree without being smeared and dismissed?

His debating skills were fine. No-one is saying he shouldn’t have opened debate. And no-one needed to ‘intuit’ his motives - they were clear to see.

What people on here are saying is that his views were sexist, racist, homophobic and pro-violence. He also uses Christianity to take the moral high ground.

He used his ‘debates’ as a platform to spread his hateful views. Just because he did it calmly and appeared to listen, he didn’t. He stuck rigidly to his views and never attempted to see the grey areas in any topic. It was his way or the highway. His ‘truth’ or you’re woke 🙄 Considering Americans are so hellbent on ‘rights’ he only cared about the rights of white, rich, Christian men. Not all people.

I dont know where to start with this...

'No one had to intuit his motives - they were clear to see'.

Did you read this back before you pressed post?!

So only those people with acceptable opinions should be able to debate in public? Who decides what's acceptable and what isn't, you?

And because he didn't change his mind, he was obviously a bad actor. Again, really?

Like I said before, I don't agree with most, if not all of what he had to say, but it's pretty obvious that the world needs more people like him and fewer people like the ones celebrating his death.

Open debate in public is a very important part of a free society however there is a huge difference between a discussion held in good faith (where those debating engage in counter-points based on evidence) and one that promotes divisiveness, incites discrimination and frames others as a threat (in his case woman, homosexuals, people of colour, people of other faiths etc).

Debate is not spreading falsehoods as truth.

He did not debate. He appeared to on the surface, but he was a skilful confident talker who had only one aim in mind, an agenda to spread.

I am not celebrating his death in the slightest. I would not celebrate the death of another human. I am discussing his opinions. Opinions which he shouted very very loudly about.

Same as you OP, I'd never heard of him but my teens/young adult DC had and they aren't that politically engaged so I'm guessing he must have been all over social media.

I also saw that quote and a little (not very kind!) voice in my head said well you reap what you sow, wonder if you included yourself when you said that!
I do feel very sorry for his family but I also feel sorry for the shooters family, what a terrible thing to have to do, hand your own son in.
It's just tragic all round.

As opposed to all the people who debated against him, who definitely didn't have any agenda at all. 🤣

Seriously flip the statements you are making on here and think about them from the opposite perspective before you post.

A debate is literally a clash of ideas, where both sides usually think the other is wrong and then try to prove their own point (hopefully in a reasonable way that convices those listening and hopefully even the person they are debating to change their mind).

Just becuase he believed things that you strongly don't doesnt mean he was acting in bad faith (or was necessarily wrong)

Its a shame that many of the quotes will be taken out of context and not give his reasoning behind them.

I don't agree with all that he said, but much of it was very American.
But I can also see the similarity between hows his words are being treated and how JKR's words are also being twisting.

@ColonelDax I think you are downplaying some of the very offensive things he spouted. For example, he criticised Martin Luther King Jr for his role in the American civil rights movement and spoke out against the civil rights act which was passed in the 60s, at a time when active discrimination and apartheid was law. By this, he means that it should be permissible to discriminate on the grounds of race. And then if you consider those comments in the context of slavery on American soil and the current racial problems in the US, they are seriously offensive.

You’re 100% right about what a debate is and you’re right that those he debated had differing opinions. That’s kind of stating the obvious.

Go for it then and try to change my mind or convince me that many of Kirk’s beliefs weren’t misogynistic, racist, homophobic and pro-violence….

Why would I try to do that? Where have I said I agree with him?

Whether he was right or wrong about any or all of what he said is irrelevant to the way people feel when they see the reaction from some to his death.

People are fully capable of sincerely believing things that you or I find wrong and even offensive without neccesarily being bad people acting in bad faith.

And certainly not deserving of being assassinated and then mocked in death from the exact people who want us all to 'be kind'.

I've made this point a couple of times over the last couple of days and no one has replied at all.

I wonder if the thinking is the same re guns when they're so normal to some

@ColonelDax

Yes, he can have seriously held racist, sexist homophobic views. His sincerity doesn’t legitimise those beliefs. I just wanted to correct any downplaying of his views ar attempt to characterise him as a mainstream figure.

There is also no justification whatsoever for violence or the celebration of violence, let alone his murder. It was wicked and evil, and it is tragic to see political violence in America.

The intent of a car is to get from A to B. Someone being killed in a car is usually an accident. They'll be the odd time a car is turned into a weapon.

The intent of owning a gun is what - to kill, show off?
The majority of people killed by gun shot are murder with intent. They'll be the odd death where a gun has been fired accidently.

I didn't call him a fascist.

Believing men and women are different is an entirely different thing from telling women to 'submit' to their husbands.

You've put a very glossy spin on his opinions.

@duothea

Well, it’s a silly point because cars are a means of transportation. Drivers must be licensed and pass a theory and practical test. I am not aware of any children getting into cars, driving around school property and killing other children.

Guns are designed for killing. Semi automatic weapons are designed for mass killing. In many US states, there is very little regulation whatsoever about owning firearms. Killings in US schools are not a one off problem.