Donald I, emperor of the world.

[Rusty Nails]

I watched the debate, Charlie Kirk acquitted himself very well, across a whole range of topics.

There were no gotcha moments. Where he lacked finer details on certain aspects, he talked in general terms that people should aspire to try harder to achieve their aims in life and not resort to the politics of envy. He gave good examples of the Asian population of the US, being the most, high achievers and wealthy, despite being a tiny proportion of the country. He talked of the Jews being extremely successful the world over, despite being largely oppressed, exterminated by the millions in the last century.

Yep, he used rhetoric to spout generalities and ignored questions that required specific answers…or the finer details as you so carefully put it. He was a shallow chancer, but understood that that is all that matters to many.

That last man made him look what he was.

Out of his depth.

 

[CXRAndy]

From my pov Kirk was a snake-oil salesman who repeated the same rhetoric and used his long experience of live debating techniques to bamboozle inexperienced and over-excitable students in his home turf of a public arena with his well-rehearsed shallow gotchas.

You've got your opinion

You're wrong, but you've got the right to say it.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

There are people on this site however that are so desperate for his murderer to be a disenchanted MAGA nut that they'll quote any old slurry from X if it reinforces their bias

This is a fair point and bias moves beyond this site. It is most certainly on both sides though, I have seen countless Republican's and right leaning people blame Kirk's death on the 'Liberal left' and Democrats. Many on both sides are desperate for the killer's motive to confirm their biases when none of us know the truth. Not a lot of humanity left or right at present.

 

[Mr Celine]

A man shot dead in front of his wife and children for daring to have a different opinion.

What opinion was that? AFAIK the shooter hasn't stated what his motive was, assuming he actually had one.

A man shot dead in front of his wife and children from long range by a person with a high powered rifle because people like the victim have done nothing to restrict access to such weapons.

In fact he is on record as stating that it's worth having gun deaths to protect rights he believes he has been given by his flavour of great sky pixie.

Not quite a Darwin award but still ironic.

 

[CXRAndy]

In fact he is on record as stating that it's worth having gun deaths to protect rights he believes he has been given by his flavour of great sky pixie.

Were his actions of talking at the University worthy of having his life taken ?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Were his actions of talking at the University worthy of having his life taken ?

No.

Were the deaths of so many innocent kids in High School and University shooting incidents a reasonable cost of the right to bear arms?

 

[Shortfall]

What opinion was that? AFAIK the shooter hasn't stated what his motive was, assuming he actually had one.

A man shot dead in front of his wife and children from long range by a person with a high powered rifle because people like the victim have done nothing to restrict access to such weapons.

In fact he is on record as stating that it's worth having gun deaths to protect rights he believes he has been given by his flavour of great sky pixie.

Not quite a Darwin award but still ironic.

You are quite right and maybe in the fullness of time we'll discover a motive. Your glib comment about Darwin awards sort of illustrates my point though. A wife and children saw their loved ones life snuffed out. He bled out in front of them. Take a look at the raw unedited footage. It's not a laughing matter IMHO.

 

[matticus]

Were the deaths of so many innocent kids in High School and University shooting incidents a reasonable cost of the right to bear arms?

This is the nub of it, for me.

You can argue that Kirk's death was a price he was prepared to pay for The Right To Bear Arms, and that by itself might be considered admirable: but what gives him the right to sanction the deaths of school children??

 

[CXRAndy]

No.

Were the deaths of so many innocent kids in High School and University shooting incidents a reasonable cost of the right to bear arms?

No,

it's societal change not the weapons. People think it's OK to shoot others for differing opinions.

Kids used to take guns to school and leave them in their car, before going hunting after school.

Attitudes need to change, and leaders of political groups need to lead that change

 

[Rusty Nails]

This is the nub of it, for me.

You can argue that Kirk's death was a price he was prepared to pay for The Right To Bear Arms, and that by itself might be considered admirable: but what gives him the right to sanction the deaths of school children??

Free speech gave him the right, the free speech that is being denied in the US to those who are not sad at his death and have the audacity to criticise him and his views.

 

[Rusty Nails]

No,

it's societal change not the weapons. People think it's OK to shoot others for differing opinions.

Kids used to take guns to school and leave them in their car, before going hunting after school.

Attitudes need to change, and leaders of political groups need to lead that change

Bollocks.

People make the decision to kill others, and use guns for that purpose, and this is made even worse by the availability of military grade assault weapons.

Attitudes need to change, especially politicians who are indebted to the gun lobby/manufacturers for support, and these politicians need to recognise there is a huge difference between keeping a gun for hunting, which is a big thing in some states but not all, and having weapons which can kill many and are designed for war.

 

[Mr Celine]

You are quite right and maybe in the fullness of time we'll discover a motive. Your glib comment about Darwin awards sort of illustrates my point though. A wife and children saw their loved ones life snuffed out. He bled out in front of them. Take a look at the raw unedited footage. It's not a laughing matter IMHO.

Who's laughing? I'm certainly not.

 

[CXRAndy]

Free speech gave him the right, the free speech that is being denied in the US to those who are not sad at his death and have the audacity to criticise him and his views.

No there's something fundamentally wrong with these people, who actively cheer over someone's death.

An innocent death at that, he was doing nothing to warrant being shot.

 

[Beebo]

No,

it's societal change not the weapons. People think it's OK to shoot others for differing opinions.

Kids used to take guns to school and leave them in their car, before going hunting after school.

Attitudes need to change, and leaders of political groups need to lead that change

It’s far easier to ban guns than hope to change people’s attitudes.
There will always be a tiny minority of wrong’uns on both sides. Giving them access to guns makes it too easy for them to kill.
There is a reason why the country with the most guns has the highest death rates.

 

[CXRAndy]

When you assess who is doing the killing and where, it paints a different story for the USA at least