Right-wing American Pied Piper Charlie Kirk assassinated

[MsAmerica]

I see a thread was started in Chat, but it's obviously more appropriate here. I've been in an American forum where someone wondered if it's of international interest.

Right now it's so early that there's no predicting what will develop, whether it will snowball into something catastrophic. Oddly, after a few hours, it's still not known for sure if they caught the shooter, which is strange, as they supposed knew where the shot came from. I'm already running across some odd conspiracy theories.

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah Valley University event
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservative-activist-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-event-spokesperson-says

Charlie Kirk assassinated at Utah event
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/09/10/charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university/86080079007/

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and Trump ally, dies after shooting at Utah campus event
www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/charlie-kirk-obituary

@Norfolkandbad Eh?

He literally worked on Republican senate campaigns, set up Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action and co-founded Turning Point Faith and the Falkirk Centre for Faith and Liberty - all of which actively campaign for conservative, right wing values, vocally supported Trump and espoused right wing positions - hence right wing campaigner.

He also had a massive social media following and was listened to by republican politicians - therefore he was influential.

So what is it about saying that Charlie Kirk was an influential right wing campaigner that you think is a slur rather than a factual statement?

Its no different to saying Owen Jones or Greta Thunberg are influential left wing campaigners.

In terms of how he reacted to RBG - yes, he said it was sad and that she was a legend - he then trashed her dying wish by trying saying that Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi must have written it! Also, that was in his first term when he was slightly less emboldened than he is now.

@NorfolkandBad - also Ruth Bader Ginsberg's death was not a political murder like Melissa Hortman and Charlie Kirk so is not comparable.

She also did not try and remove him from office as she did not have that power as a supreme court judge - she just refused to step in to stop the impeachment, was critical of him and called for his resignation.

I think you probably meant Nancy Pelosi who did try to get him removed. When her husband was attacked, Trump said some horrible things including suggesting that it didn't happen!

It is despicable that he was assassinated. But 'hurty words' is ridiculously dismissive and reductive of his systematic racism and misogyny. He was vehemently, openly racist and rabble-rousing against black people. He claimed that school shootings were a fair price to pay for the right to bear arms. He claimed if his 10-year-old daughter were raped and got pregnant he would insist she carried the baby to term due to his pro-life beliefs (where's the pro-life belief in school shootings being a fair price to pay for his gun-toting rights?)

I would never wish him dead. His poor children and wife. The shooter was unhinged. But he should not be deified and his beliefs deserve to continue to be criticised and pushed back against.

He claimed if his 10-year-old daughter were raped and got pregnant he would insist she carried the baby to term due to his pro-life beliefs (where's the pro-life belief in school shootings being a fair price to pay for his gun-toting rights?)

He believed that life is god given and begins at conception. If that's what you believe then of course you can't condone abortion under any circumstances. It's a stupid opinion but unfortunately it's very difficult to argue with someone when the rationale is "magical ancient book says so".

Believing that abortion is murder and believing in the right to bear arms is not inherently contradictory. He's not advocating that people use guns to murder people, he's advocating for them to be used in self defence.

I don't agree with any of this but it's so frustrating that people on both sides are constantly arguing with straw men.

I think it’s inherently hypocritical ways you believe life begins at conception and thus each pregnancy is sacred, to also say that gun deaths are just a necessary part of having the right to bear arms. Which is it? Is all life sacred and in need of protection at all times, or some life is disposable of you get to have a gun?

Anything to say now that the shooter has been apprehended and was in fact a white guy from a Christian, conservative family……?

so, @TheNoonBell I figured we should update the data yet again now that the shooter of Kirk turned out to also be a white guy from a conservative background…..

I trust you’ll be apologising for calling me a liar?

Is all life sacred and in need of protection at all times, or some life is disposable of you get to have a gun?

@IGaveSoManySigns that's another strawman. They don't believe life should be protected at all costs. They believe abortion is murder as it is intentionally taking away another life. They are anti-abortion for the same reason they are anti-murder. (Again, I disagree but this is the argument).

Anything to say now that the shooter has been apprehended and was in fact a white guy from a Christian, conservative family……?

Oh come on. The guy wrote Bella ciao on the bullet. He's not right wing. This kind of bull drives me bananas. You're just as bad as the others.

I know who I meant - and you haven't answered, you've merely deflected. That doesn't work with me, if the question was too difficult we can move on.

Please point to where I said that? I said he was from a conservative Christian family, and oh look - he is.

If you want to see Charlie Kirk's views on abortion get properly taken down (and not as a strawman) then this lad from Cambridge does a good job:

https://youtube.com/shorts/mcjGdhp8dgM

TLDR - Charlie Kirk's argument is that egg and sperm are entirely disposable until a fraction of a second after they fuse together, at which point that fused cell has as much moral worth as the 10 year old, raped girl. Patently ridiculous and incredibly dangerous.

Ok that's a no then

But he’s not anti-murder. He explicitly said he thinks that school shooting victims are a necessary consequence of having the right to bear arms. It’s not a strawman just because you disagree.

But he’s not anti-murder. He explicitly said he thinks that school shooting victims are a necessary consequence of having the right to bear arms. It’s not a strawman just because you disagree.

Do you think road deaths are a necessary consequence of having the right to drive? Or should we ban cars because they're dangerous?

Motor vehicles are a necessity in modern society. Our infrastructure is dependent on them in terms of supply chain for everything from food to medications. Without vehicles, we’d have no emergency services.

Vehicles are a necessity for many, many people in order to access their jobs, education, the supplies needed to be fed and clothed. They are a requirement for life for almost everybody, whether that’s using them themselves or relying on goods and services that have been transported by road.

Guns are only a necessity for killing.

@NorfolkandBad You asked the question:

"How did he react to one his worst "enemies", someone who tried to have him removed from office countless times ? (it's Ruth Ginsburg if you've forgotten) ?"

I replied with:

"In terms of how he reacted to RBG - yes, he said it was sad and that she was a legend - he then trashed her dying wish by trying saying that Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi must have written it! Also, that was in his first term when he was slightly less emboldened than he is now."

Followed by my post which said RBG's death is not comparable as it is not a political murder.

I can't see another question that you have asked me?

However - you have not answered my question about why you see referring to Charlie Kirk as an influential right wing campaigner is a slur given that it is objectively factual.

Vehicles are a necessity for many, many people in order to access their jobs, education, the supplies needed to be fed and clothed. They are a requirement for life for almost everybody, whether that’s using them themselves or relying on goods and services that have been transported by road.
Guns are only a necessity for killing.

@WellThisIsFranklyDreadful What if someone just has a car so they can pop to the shops and go on nice trips? It's not actually necessary for their life they just find it convenient? Maybe they just like driving? Does it justify the potential risk that someone could be killed or should that be banned?

I think that is what you would call a strawman.

I do not think that there is any equivalency between a car and a gun. Do I think that cars are generally too large and too relied on in American society? Yes.

But they are not, in their most basic form, weapons. They are for transportation. Guns are designed solely to injure, destroy or kill.

I do also find it funny that you couldn’t answer my original point, which is that he was a hypocrite in how he viewed life as sacred until such time as it’s children who are the victim of school shootings, so you instead pull this bat shit argument.

Not the shooter, all the cheering that he was killed.

@WellThisIsFranklyDreadful and yes obviously:

Guns are only a necessity for killing.

Their argument is not "we should be allowed to kill people with guns". Their argument is "I should be allowed to own a gun so that if I, or my family is attacked, I can defend myself".

This argument makes more sense in America where the chances of you being attacked with a gun are much higher than in the UK. I still disagree but that's the argument.

Ultimately it's easy to argue against this one as gun deaths are far far fewer in societies which ban guns (or at least have extremely stringent restrictions around them).

Violence solves nothing and calling it out as a left issue which the president has done not only inflames tensions but puts out a dangerous message. It says that it's only left wing people that commit this sort of act.

I think America is heading into the abyss and it's time for the west to turn it's back on America and the American people. Please come back once you've sorted yourselves out because from here it looks very very ugly.

I don't know much about the victim but it's a sad affair and from what I've heard his views and manners were extremely provocative. He's famous for his liberty and gun speech which support ironically ended his life. The Fifth amendment has caused so much suffering in America....school shootings etc.....i just think what is the point of liberty if it results in meaningless killing. He boasted about his Christian beliefs and yet spoke about guns and liberty and they are worth the cost ...well this is the cost...and no amount of liberty can pay for that.

Here's my message to Americans, ban guns because if you don't the way you are heading is all out war. Guns don't make you safer just the same as carrying a knife doesn't.

Liberty isn't about guns, it's about being healthy, living your life how you want to live it, being free to talk and debate, owning a gun is a historic right that is no longer relevant in the modern world because the wild west is distant history.

The second amendment was passed in 1791, in response to a fear of a militia led by the government. The full text reads "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 right existed to protect the people from the government. When guns were not what they are today.

The “good guy with a gun” fallacy has been shown to be false, all it does is add panicked shooters into the mix.

The right existed to protect the people from the government. When guns were not what they are today.

@IGaveSoManySigns yes that's the original reason but that's not the reason most people on the right are pro-gun ownership today. Their argument is the "good guy with a gun" argument as you say. I'm not agreeing with them, I'm just saying can we please stop with the strawmen.

Equating being pro-gun ownership with being pro-murder is nonsensical. There are plenty of good arguments against guns, let's stop using stupid ones.

Do you not think that some people in the US could be thinking that they might need to protect themselves from the government at the moment?

The argument for the right to bear arms to protect yourself from an authoritarian government is probably more relevant now than any time in the last 200 years.