I just read a previous comment by Mr. Kirk to the effect that a few gun deaths were the price we paid for the Second Amendment. I'm sure his own murder was not what he was referring to. Now the President is ordering all flags to be flown at half staff, but when the Minnesota Legislators and their spouses were shot and two murdered, he couldn't be bothered to even express a modicum of sympathy. Now, I'm assuming the Republicans, and especially the President, will blame us "radical, left wing, Democrats" for this, or trans, or gays, or immigrants, or.......
Thoughts and prayers as there isn't much out there about today's Colorado high school schooling in which at least two children are dead. I am sorry for Kirk's family. I am sorry for ALL the families traumatized by gun violence in this nation.
But if Congress did NOTHING after Sandy Hook and Uvalde, why would they do anything different now?
How about a MAGA-type spin on this? We don't know what the shooter believed. If you remember Ernst Eduard vom Rath then you must remember Ernst Rohm. Fascists need martyrs.
Point 1. Lethal violence should be unequivocally condemned no matter the victim.
Point 2. In a country awash with guns, lies, bigotry, and hate, there is now one fewer perpetrator of them. No one is immune from reaping what they sow.
Not only might "this President" use this as a pretext for his authoritarian moves, it has occurred to me that he, or his enabler, could be behind it. Sure haven't heard anything about the Epstein files this afternoon.
Thank you for your essay. I fear that Mr. Kirk becomes a martyr that is used to burn down more of our democracy. I am confident that he would not want to be remembered in such a way.
As much as I detested Mr. Kirk's point of view, what made this Country great is the free exchange of ideas and freedom of expression... Bullets are not an acceptable form of communication in any sense of the word. Vote, don't shoot..
Fitz ~ I wholeheartedly agree with you and Gabby Giffords. Assassinating those you disagree with is not the answer—ever!! However, I do NOT agree with Trump ordering the American flags being flown at half staff because of this person’s death. Very tragic that his family lost him in this totally unacceptable manner. But Charlie Kirk was not an American statesman or hero.
Wow, your reply is a glowing example of a reasonable, rational, unbiased and not at all hateful piece of social and political commentary. [in case it's not clear: /s]
To outline your pure genius:
Charlie Kirk is a Christian.
You disagree with Kirk's position about the 2nd Amendment. You see yourself as morally and intellectually superior and infallible in your views. What you say and feel is right, true, and just, and if you say so, a dissenting opinion is EVIL and indicative of a hateful person. No need to honestly/accurately convey or contend with the opposing position. Just shut it down. Misrepresent/caricature/oversimply it. Ignore it. No debate! No platforming of evil people, right? You have deemed Charlie Kirk, a Christian, evil and hateful. 'Nuff said.
Therefore, all Christians are hateful. Terri has proclaimed--"Christian hate"--a universal, unbounded, undeniable truth.
The end.
I have no interest in having a debate with you about the specific issue of the 2nd Amendment, and that is not the point of the remainder of this reply. Rather, I'm just pointing out that if you have any interest in having intellectually and morally honest discussions about important issues that affect us all, you might want to start by more reasonably contending with Kirk's actual statements/positions before appallingly labeling him, and all Christians, as hateful.
It is not reasonable or honest to suggest that he revels in, dismisses, or does not care about gun homicides--especially those of children. You may disagree with his analysis of the risks/benefits of gun ownership and the conclusion/position he draws, but that is not a justification for labeling him hateful. Rather, he invited people like you to change his mind, to talk it out.
He argues that while firearms pose a risk, in his opinion that risk is outweighed by other considerations. If you've ever been reasonable and listened to some of his arguments, beyond memes that disparage him, you'd hear that he recognizes that this is a harsh and very unpleasant reality.
But he does make an effort explain his position by drawing comparisons to other risk/harm causing things that we, as a society, have decided are "worth" the risk. I.e. motor vehicles cause 35-45k deaths/year, yet society has deemed the benefits of motor vehicles outweigh the unfortunate risks.
Another example, I'm not sure if he made this argument himself, but it seems it would fit with his previous argument: it is estimated in the following peer-reviewed, published medical study that "excess weight was responsible for more than 1300 excess deaths per day (nearly 500,000 per year)..." [See, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-53702200159-6/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com], while other medical studies provide estimates for "obesity-attributable deaths" of 300,000-500,000 annually.
YET, we as a society have decided that we're not going to ban junk food or try to regulate what people eat or how they maintain their bodies. We apparently value freedom and individual rights here more than other societies. These are not universal values, and reasonable minds could certainly differ. At least one very advanced nation (Japan) is not so hands-off when it comes to weight. Interesting research/reading for you, if you enjoy partaking of those activities.
Other examples can be drawn up (such as the number of drug overdose deaths per year, that far outnumber annual homicide deaths by guns, yet despite drugs being against the law, this still happens...), but this is enough for the purpose of this reply. It can be argued that cars are "necessary" so the deaths caused by them are more "acceptable"(?) than those caused by guns. I would venture to guess that you would argue guns are not at all a necessity for ordinary citizens, so gun homicides, though far fewer than vehicular deaths, are less acceptable. But that is just that--an argument, a difference of opinion. To counter your argument, someone could say, well junk food is not at all necessary for ANYONE at ANYTIME, certainly much less so than guns are for self-defense, so we should clearly ban all foods that fit into a very narrow "healthy," non- calorie-dense profile, and that would prevent 300,000-500,000 deaths per year. Maybe that argument should be made...
But at the end of the day, to reduce Kirk's strongly held belief (that is shared by a large segment of our society), that the right for law-abiding citizens to own firearms provides benefits that outweigh the unfortunate risks is an evil position or a sign that he is hateful is dishearteningly dismissive, childishly simplified and reductive. [CDC estimates are approx. 40-50k total gun deaths per year, broken down as approx. 27k suicide, 19k homicide, remaining self-defense/legal interventions/other.]
It is further disappointing that you then extend YOUR judgement and disagreement with Kirk's position to make the following universal declaration: "Christian hate."
How many people are aware that there was another school shooting in the Denver area today. All of the oxygen has been taken by Charlie Kirk's death. No one will remember this day for anything other than his death, not the trauma and possible deaths of the schoolchildren.
That piece is excellently written (as are all of your pieces) and I totally concur with it. As much as I may dislike a politician, THERE CAN BE NO TOLERANCE FOR VIOLENCE IN A DEMOCRACY!
It is tragic and it's too early to consider this shooting in a political light. To the best of my knowledge, we still don't know what motivated the person who shot Trump in the ear. Breathe in, breathe out.
I just read a previous comment by Mr. Kirk to the effect that a few gun deaths were the price we paid for the Second Amendment. I'm sure his own murder was not what he was referring to. Now the President is ordering all flags to be flown at half staff, but when the Minnesota Legislators and their spouses were shot and two murdered, he couldn't be bothered to even express a modicum of sympathy. Now, I'm assuming the Republicans, and especially the President, will blame us "radical, left wing, Democrats" for this, or trans, or gays, or immigrants, or.......
Thoughts and prayers as there isn't much out there about today's Colorado high school schooling in which at least two children are dead. I am sorry for Kirk's family. I am sorry for ALL the families traumatized by gun violence in this nation.
But if Congress did NOTHING after Sandy Hook and Uvalde, why would they do anything different now?
My thoughts tooooo! Children are expendable in Kirk’s world
How about a MAGA-type spin on this? We don't know what the shooter believed. If you remember Ernst Eduard vom Rath then you must remember Ernst Rohm. Fascists need martyrs.
Point 1. Lethal violence should be unequivocally condemned no matter the victim.
Point 2. In a country awash with guns, lies, bigotry, and hate, there is now one fewer perpetrator of them. No one is immune from reaping what they sow.
Not only might "this President" use this as a pretext for his authoritarian moves, it has occurred to me that he, or his enabler, could be behind it. Sure haven't heard anything about the Epstein files this afternoon.
Thank you for your essay. I fear that Mr. Kirk becomes a martyr that is used to burn down more of our democracy. I am confident that he would not want to be remembered in such a way.
As much as I detested Mr. Kirk's point of view, what made this Country great is the free exchange of ideas and freedom of expression... Bullets are not an acceptable form of communication in any sense of the word. Vote, don't shoot..
Imagine the extra dose of outrage we would have to endure if this happened in a Blue State.
Pass some gun control in this country, maybe that would be more worth his time than accusing the Democrats of some plot, which I'm sure he'll do.
It is to be hoped that the endless ugly commentary from the far right will be toned down because of this, yet another, senseless gun death.
Fitz ~ I wholeheartedly agree with you and Gabby Giffords. Assassinating those you disagree with is not the answer—ever!! However, I do NOT agree with Trump ordering the American flags being flown at half staff because of this person’s death. Very tragic that his family lost him in this totally unacceptable manner. But Charlie Kirk was not an American statesman or hero.
It’s the guns. It’s always the guns. Kirk was talking mass shootings just before the bullet pierced his carotid artery.
Yup. And a question he answered before the bullet…how many trans guns? Too many according to him. Christian hate.
Wow, your reply is a glowing example of a reasonable, rational, unbiased and not at all hateful piece of social and political commentary. [in case it's not clear: /s]
To outline your pure genius:
Charlie Kirk is a Christian.
You disagree with Kirk's position about the 2nd Amendment. You see yourself as morally and intellectually superior and infallible in your views. What you say and feel is right, true, and just, and if you say so, a dissenting opinion is EVIL and indicative of a hateful person. No need to honestly/accurately convey or contend with the opposing position. Just shut it down. Misrepresent/caricature/oversimply it. Ignore it. No debate! No platforming of evil people, right? You have deemed Charlie Kirk, a Christian, evil and hateful. 'Nuff said.
Therefore, all Christians are hateful. Terri has proclaimed--"Christian hate"--a universal, unbounded, undeniable truth.
The end.
I have no interest in having a debate with you about the specific issue of the 2nd Amendment, and that is not the point of the remainder of this reply. Rather, I'm just pointing out that if you have any interest in having intellectually and morally honest discussions about important issues that affect us all, you might want to start by more reasonably contending with Kirk's actual statements/positions before appallingly labeling him, and all Christians, as hateful.
It is not reasonable or honest to suggest that he revels in, dismisses, or does not care about gun homicides--especially those of children. You may disagree with his analysis of the risks/benefits of gun ownership and the conclusion/position he draws, but that is not a justification for labeling him hateful. Rather, he invited people like you to change his mind, to talk it out.
He argues that while firearms pose a risk, in his opinion that risk is outweighed by other considerations. If you've ever been reasonable and listened to some of his arguments, beyond memes that disparage him, you'd hear that he recognizes that this is a harsh and very unpleasant reality.
But he does make an effort explain his position by drawing comparisons to other risk/harm causing things that we, as a society, have decided are "worth" the risk. I.e. motor vehicles cause 35-45k deaths/year, yet society has deemed the benefits of motor vehicles outweigh the unfortunate risks.
Another example, I'm not sure if he made this argument himself, but it seems it would fit with his previous argument: it is estimated in the following peer-reviewed, published medical study that "excess weight was responsible for more than 1300 excess deaths per day (nearly 500,000 per year)..." [See, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-53702200159-6/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com], while other medical studies provide estimates for "obesity-attributable deaths" of 300,000-500,000 annually.
YET, we as a society have decided that we're not going to ban junk food or try to regulate what people eat or how they maintain their bodies. We apparently value freedom and individual rights here more than other societies. These are not universal values, and reasonable minds could certainly differ. At least one very advanced nation (Japan) is not so hands-off when it comes to weight. Interesting research/reading for you, if you enjoy partaking of those activities.
Other examples can be drawn up (such as the number of drug overdose deaths per year, that far outnumber annual homicide deaths by guns, yet despite drugs being against the law, this still happens...), but this is enough for the purpose of this reply. It can be argued that cars are "necessary" so the deaths caused by them are more "acceptable"(?) than those caused by guns. I would venture to guess that you would argue guns are not at all a necessity for ordinary citizens, so gun homicides, though far fewer than vehicular deaths, are less acceptable. But that is just that--an argument, a difference of opinion. To counter your argument, someone could say, well junk food is not at all necessary for ANYONE at ANYTIME, certainly much less so than guns are for self-defense, so we should clearly ban all foods that fit into a very narrow "healthy," non- calorie-dense profile, and that would prevent 300,000-500,000 deaths per year. Maybe that argument should be made...
But at the end of the day, to reduce Kirk's strongly held belief (that is shared by a large segment of our society), that the right for law-abiding citizens to own firearms provides benefits that outweigh the unfortunate risks is an evil position or a sign that he is hateful is dishearteningly dismissive, childishly simplified and reductive. [CDC estimates are approx. 40-50k total gun deaths per year, broken down as approx. 27k suicide, 19k homicide, remaining self-defense/legal interventions/other.]
It is further disappointing that you then extend YOUR judgement and disagreement with Kirk's position to make the following universal declaration: "Christian hate."
Nice tribute here: https://shorturl.at/eufH5
How many people are aware that there was another school shooting in the Denver area today. All of the oxygen has been taken by Charlie Kirk's death. No one will remember this day for anything other than his death, not the trauma and possible deaths of the schoolchildren.
That piece is excellently written (as are all of your pieces) and I totally concur with it. As much as I may dislike a politician, THERE CAN BE NO TOLERANCE FOR VIOLENCE IN A DEMOCRACY!
Well said.
It is tragic and it's too early to consider this shooting in a political light. To the best of my knowledge, we still don't know what motivated the person who shot Trump in the ear. Breathe in, breathe out.