Shots fired on my campus today. Charlie Kirk TPUSA leader dead

[Damien the Leper]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Who are "they"? We know next to nothing about the shooter.

Mossad, IDF and the Likud. 

[the narrator]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’ve heard this argument made in regards to cars.

I know you're not doing this, but I get so tired of gun worshippers comparing guns to cars in their pathetic arguments. The purpose and design of a car is to transport people and things. The purpose and design of a gun is to kill--any other supposed utility (such as self defense, which very very very very very very very very few people need) is dependent on that purpose and design. Cars are routinely redesigned, and laws are passed, to make them safer and less deadly with the hope that fewer people will die. Guns are routinely redesigned to make them more efficient in killing, and laws are passed by their idol worshippers that make it easier for people to use them to kill others.

Edited September 11, 2025 by the narrator

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How about this?

We have a culture that glorifies killing.

*Abortion on demand

*Revenge movies

*GTA type video games

*Rap music

Hearts are cold, self-centered, without God, and addicted to violence in our media.

The solution is repentance.

*No parent goes to bed at night in tears because their child was killed by an abortion.

*No parent goes to bed at night in tears because their child was killed by a movie.

*No parent goes to bed at night in tears because their child was killed by a video game.

*No parent goes to bed at night in tears because their child was killed by rap music.

In 2024 in the US, parents of over 5,000 children went to bed in tears because their child was killed a gun--the leading cause of death of children in the US.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I am for armed guards at schools and getting to the root of the mental health crisis. Banning guns from the law abiding is not the answer. Denver has seen an increase in stabbing attacks. As a women, being able to be armed whether with mace, a self defense tool or a gun is a right I will not give up. 
 

It’s not that I don’t want something done to prevent school shootings but what the gun absolutists want, is against the constitution and the rights we all have to protect ourselves. I live in a high crime state with strict gun laws. Denver has murders every night and roving gangs in suburban neighborhoods at night. 
 

In England, there is no legal way for a woman to protect herself from violence. I think that is terrible. 
 

It’s fine to discuss these issues civilly. I understand your opinion. 

But, no one with any moral compass should justify this murder because Charlie Kirk didn’t believe the same  things as the liberal left. 
 

 

This got me curious so I went searching for the most dangerous states. It kind of surprised me about the variety so I looked up politics of the tops states.  I found a list of the top 10 dangerous states and another list of how each state has gone politically for a number of years.

5 went republican, 4 went democrat and 1 was much blue, then purple then a light red.

Which started to make me wonder if it really has something to do with politics or if there is something out there we are all missing while we focus on politics. It would be interesting to see any studies on it.

[JAHS]

Charlie loves and hires Mormons

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

 

Does he look really young to you?

I get they need to do this, but I worry about the people who look like him.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Quoting Charlie Kirk:  The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

I find this reasoning in this day and age unrealistic.  It was different when an armed citizenry was somewhat comparable to the military.  While there may be tons more privately owned small arms than military small arms, the potential for drone strikes, tanks, bombs from unreachable by guns locations, etc these days and just the sheer mass of the military’s fire power, at best you’ll get a symbolic standoff with likely a lot of innocent bystanders not choosing to be there caught up getting massacred along with the freedom fighters.  I find it much more sensible to invest your money and time in creating a culture that won’t elect a government that considered armed response against their citizens as an option.

PS:  I wonder if he actually read the Narnia books.  The opening book was dealing with an armed rebellion against a tyrant.  Other books deal with unjust government, etc.  Though maybe that is what he meant by CS Lewis being smart…though if so, why did he use Narnia as an example in the first place?

Edited September 11, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

No parent goes to bed at night in tears because their child was killed by an abortion.

Very much disagree with this one.  This simplifies the conditions surrounding abortions and ignores the heartbreak many women (and probably men as well) endure in making this decision even without including those who eventually regret their choice.  This also ignores when a mother does not desire the abortion but is pressured by others to have one (a younger woman perhaps or a mother who is threatened by her partner who doesn’t want a child) or a father who is given no choice in the matter, but who would have desired to raise the child on his own if he had been allowed to.

Quote

No parent goes to bed at night in tears because their child was killed by a movie.

*No parent goes to bed at night in tears because their child was killed by a video game.

*No parent goes to bed at night in tears because their child was killed by rap music.

While these are not a clear and direct link to kids taking their own lives, there is evidence of influence from media in contributing to vulnerability.  Thankfully the reverse can also occur when there is greater focus on positive coping skills, etc…though how it’s done is important (well intentioned efforts can sometimes romanticize or otherwise increase attention to suicide as an option).

https://988lifeline.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Lifeline-Papageno-Effect.pdf

Having said the above, I would never use such logic to argue that makes guns any less lethal than they are.  I find the comparison to cars, etc, tools that are designed to do something besides kill not an argument I would make for guns either.  Plus if we removed cars because of car deaths, we would probably find an increase of mortality rates due to lowering accessibility to medical care.  If we removed guns, we might find an increase of some deaths due to the greater difficulty of self defense, but we need to also include decrease in homicides (possibly less people dying in robberies or even gang violence when knives are used versus guns  simply because it takes more effort to kill without guns), suicides, and accidental deaths.  If stats show no decrease in overall injury and deaths, I would stop thinking a community without guns is the most desirable, but from what I have seen even with increases in other forms of violence, there is still less violence over all.  

And having said that, given the amount of guns, our culture, and a myriad of other facts even national laws banning guns alone are not going to be that effective at removing guns from our communities, imo (I suspect we as a people wouldn’t be patient enough to stick with the bans long enough as I think it could take decades even if unlimited funding was provided…and it wouldn’t be).  I am more for starting out by limiting number of guns allowed to be owned and stricter rules on making, selling, transporting, and owning them. 

Edited September 11, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Banning guns from the law abiding is not the answer. Denver has seen an increase in stabbing attacks. As a women, being able to be armed whether with mace, a self defense tool or a gun is a right I will not give up. 

I agree we need self defense tools.  I am not arguing for completely English style laws.  I am curious though if the increase in stabbing attacks means there is no significant decrease in overall violence (one tool for violence has just replaced another rather decrease in accidental/unintential gun injury and deaths being more significant than increase in stabbing injury and deaths).  While stabbings can certainly be harmful and definitely fatal, seems like they would still cause less injury overall than guns.

I am thinking along the lines of just removing guns from accessibility will not prevent suicides from occurring as there are infinite ways this can happen, but most other forms require thought and take longer allowing regret and other emotions to play a bigger factor in stopping completion of the act of taking one’s own life.  Besides lowering chances of accidental deaths by removing guns, it is easier it seems to me to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger when the situation gets too intense than it is to feel oneself push a knife into someone else’s flesh (thinking about crimes where the purpose is robbery or something that is not inherently intended to physically harm the other).

 

[the narrator]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Very much disagree with this one.  This simplifies the conditions surrounding abortions and ignores the heartbreak many women (and probably men as well) endure in making this decision even without including those who eventually regret their choice.  This also ignores when a mother does not desire the abortion but is pressured by others to have one (a younger woman perhaps or a mother who is threatened by her partner who doesn’t want a child) or a father who is given no choice in the matter, but who would have desired to raise the child on his own if he had been allowed to.

Quote

Thank you for that. This highlights just how much of a personal decision abortion should be, which the pro-life movement tends to abstract away into largely nonsensical debates over heartbeats and such while ignoring the complicated and deep relationship the mother (or father) may have with the zygote/embryo/fetus as either a person or potential person. (For the same reason, a woman [or man] can have vastly different experiences with miscarriages depending on many factors.)

[MorningStar]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

My grandson was there with friends.  Haven’t talked to him yet, just exchanged “I love you” texts.  What do you say to someone who witnesses a murder?

My husband is sick at heart (retired UVU professor, now bus driver for sports teams for fun).  Pissed off the event wasn’t inside with more security.  Apparently it was a student club thing and not a university admin/faculty planned event, so they held it in the quad.

Too unreal for me to even process.

A high school in my sister’s (she just retired full time teaching last year, still subs a lot) school district in the Denver area had four students injured in a shooting, two critically with gunshot wounds, one of them is the shooter.  Another sustained injury while fleeing and a third it’s unknown from the article I read.

https://www.cpr.org/2025/09/10/evergreen-high-school-shooting/

Bizarre that three of my near and dear are so impacted on the same day.  What the hell is going on?

Added:  it happened in Colorado during lunchtime and the kids didn’t know what to do.  Looks like drills during lunchtime will now be added to our youths’ every day lives.

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/shooting-evergreen-high-school-denver-metro-area/

I'm so sorry. My cousin's son saw Charlie right after he was shot as he was coming out of a building after paying his fees. He was in the courtyard. Very shaken up. He has autism and had to call his mom because he couldn't even figure out how to leave campus. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

I'm so sorry. My cousin's son saw Charlie right after he was shot as he was coming out of a building after paying his fees. He was in the courtyard. Very shaken up. He has autism and had to call his mom because he couldn't even figure out how to leave campus. 

I am shocked by how many people I know, including myself, who have kids who were there.

[bsjkki]

I can’t believe how many can’t just give condolences without a ‘but.’ This was an awful event for our nation. Political assassinations can’t be normalized. 
 

I will quit pushing back on the ‘topics’ people are using to justify his murder. We need to be able to disagree on hot bottom topics without thinking murdering someone is the answer. I am a pro life, conservative Christian who believes in the first and second amendment. If this view deserves death, no words will ever change your mind. 
 

Kirk was all about engaging with those who did not believe as he did. They killed him for it. 

[Navidad]

I claim to be an Evangelical Christian and a student of religion and conflict. In both roles I worry about the potential that beliefs, religion, faith, and the like have to foster environments of conflict, and yes, even violence.

I see a continuum in religion that may (notice the "may") foster a climate of conflict. That continuum is that of: doctrine-dogma-duty-destruction. The slope of this continuum is fueled by some religionists' tendency for othering, onlying, self-assurance or self-righteousness, certainty, and ranking. Add to this the assurance of a special divine favor on their particular brand or model of religiosity, and you have the potential for a caldo (stew in Spanish) of justified conflict wherein any opposition is seen as innocent persecution worthy of scorn and righteous indignation. Many doctrinal statements, creeds, fences, etc. have been built in the name of such faiths' histories and dare I say, myths. 

It happened to the Anabaptists at Muenster, in the variations of the Peasant's Wars of the 14th-16th centuries, in the conflicts of the various caliphates, in Zen Buddhism, and in the many forced conversions throughout religious history. I just mentioned the physically violent situations; the symbolic violence examples from religious history are far too many to enumerate. I have far too many books on such history on my shelves with titles like "Sacred Fury," "When Religion Becomes Evil," "Violence and the Sacred," "Violence in God's Name," and of course "Cruel Creeds and Virtuous Violence," to name but a few. 

My guess is that most of us on this forum have some forms of religious beliefs, creeds, and/or faith that motivate us in our lives. So did most of those named or mentioned in all of these sad, yet real portrayals in all of these books and the scores of others on my shelves. Our faiths also teach us Blessed are the Peacemakers. Sometimes we people of faith get all tangled upin defending our beliefs like Frodo in the Spider's Web. Those of us of faith have a responsibility (in my mind) not to simply dismiss the possibility of our beliefs going bad, but to guard against it. That doesn't mean a 24hr mounting of the ramparts to watch out for the approach of the enemies (others), but perhaps a careful and cautious approach to what lies within each one of us as individuals and members of faith groups. Sorry again for going on too long. Best to all. 

 

[Damien the Leper]

21 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Political assassinations can’t be normalized. 

Why not? Mass/school shootings have. 

 

21 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Kirk was all about engaging with those who did not believe as he did. They killed him for it.

Ah. So you know who killed Kirk and what their motivations were. Got it. Your rant sounds just like all the other so-called conservatives attempting to sound scandalised.

Also, you say you're pro-life. Or are you just pro-birth? There is a universe wide difference between the two.

Edited September 12, 2025 by Damien the Leper

[Calm]

12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Kirk was all about engaging with those who did not believe as he did. They killed him for it. 

One person shot him. We have no knowledge of the guy’s motivation.  So I am confused by your comment.  Not all assassination attempts of political celebrities are even political (John Hinckley Jr).  Are you using “they” here for this one person or for an unknown group?  Or for those who did not believe as he did (which is how it reads to me based off of how I was taught grammar where “they” refers to the precedent “those who did not believe as he did”)?

I understand frustration and even anger given the reactions I have been seeing online (justifying and even celebrating the murder).

Added:  I am not criticizing your comment.  I am trying to understand it.  I am not going to criticize something I am confused about.  I hope no one takes my posts as anything but asking for clarification.

Edited September 12, 2025 by Calm

[JAHS]

Returned Missionary Detained Then Released after Kirk Assassination—Family Speaks Out

Zachariah Qureshi is a 25-year-old returned missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who attended the “American Comeback Tour” at Utah Valley University as a supporter of Charlie Kirk according to his father.

By the end of the day, he would be detained, questioned, and even labeled as the suspect in the fatal shooting of political commentator Charlie Kirk before being cleared of all suspicion and released.

“It’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely uncalled for and insane,” Qureshi’s father told ABC4.com. “They should be focused on finding the killer.”

The mistaken detainment has also caused the Qureshi family to come under fire as social media conspiracies and misinformation spread, even after it became clear Zachariah played no role in the shooting.

Department of Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason said in a press conference, “After releasing them, and after clearing them of being suspects, they faced scrutiny, they faced threats.” 

The Qureshi family has continued to receive online harassments and their family address in Texas was posted online. 

Commissioner Mason urged the public to stand down. “We ask that you do not impose into those people and that investigative process,” he said. “They don’t deserve that harassment for being subject to that.”

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Returned Missionary Detained Then Released after Kirk Assassination—Family Speaks Out

Zachariah Qureshi is a 25-year-old returned missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who attended the “American Comeback Tour” at Utah Valley University as a supporter of Charlie Kirk according to his father.

By the end of the day, he would be detained, questioned, and even labeled as the suspect in the fatal shooting of political commentator Charlie Kirk before being cleared of all suspicion and released.

“It’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely uncalled for and insane,” Qureshi’s father told ABC4.com. “They should be focused on finding the killer.”

The mistaken detainment has also caused the Qureshi family to come under fire as social media conspiracies and misinformation spread, even after it became clear Zachariah played no role in the shooting.

Department of Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason said in a press conference, “After releasing them, and after clearing them of being suspects, they faced scrutiny, they faced threats.” 

The Qureshi family has continued to receive online harassments and their family address in Texas was posted online. 

Commissioner Mason urged the public to stand down. “We ask that you do not impose into those people and that investigative process,” he said. “They don’t deserve that harassment for being subject to that.”

 

“They”<tm> sure seem to be unhinged. Social media is so toxic and bad for society. It’s almost like people make money off of making people upset and outraged 😢🤔

 

Edited September 12, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Zosimus]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This is what he said first.

OK, I don't see Hortman or Hoffman even mentioned in that super generic statement. Come to think of it, has Trump ever once mentioned the names of Hortman and Hoffman publicly since the shootings? I stand corrected if you can provide a source

Did Trump ever call for flags to be flown at half mast for Hortman? Has he followed up on the sentencing of Vance Boelter to make a public example of what happens to assassins who kill their political opponents in their own homes in the middle of the night?

Did Trump post a video statement within hours of the murders? He did for Kirk. Even though Hortman was assassinated three months ago, Trump failed to mention her in that statement yesterday. Instead he (or his AI hand model) took to the Oval Office to accuse democrats of being the source of all political violence in America, contrary to heaps of evidence. And we're supposed to understand that he's not taking advantage of Kirk's death to intentionally fan the flames of political extremism? 

There an obvious double standard at play that ignores political assassinations when it is politically convenient

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you using “they” here for this one person or for an unknown group?

"They" is the pronoun given to a group of unidentified Americans that need to be dealt with swiftly and promptly using the full force of Executive power. We all might be a part of this They group in some way or another

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

"They" is the pronoun given to a group of unidentified Americans that need to be dealt with swiftly and promptly using the full force of Executive power. We all might be a part of this They group in some way or another

Please don’t speak for others on this board in this conversation when they can speak for themselves.  It is hard enough to understand each other without those kinds of assumptions getting thrown in.

Edited September 12, 2025 by Calm

[Zosimus]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please don’t speak for others in this conversation.  It is hard enough to understand each other without those kinds of assumptions getting thrown in.

Fair enough, I'm also curious what it means because I hear it almost every conversation and have always asked who these they are, and nobody seems to know

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Fair enough, I'm also curious what it means because I hear it almost every conversation and have always asked who these they are, and nobody seems to know

I just had a conversation with my daughter where I found out we agreed a lot more than I had thought in the past five years (maybe more) because we were using words differently and I was making incorrect assumptions about who she was talking about and what she meant.

So I am very aware of the confusion language can cause and the need for being careful with it.

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Fair enough, I'm also curious what it means because I hear it almost every conversation and have always asked who these they are, and nobody seems to know

It is a fair question. 

[Navidad]

Usually "they" refers to someone who is not me or my group. It is a dividing mechanism used to create boundaries, fences, and ramparts. It doesn't even have to refer to anyone or any group specifically. I think I have noticed something about this forum since returning. It seems to be a kinder and gentler place than when I left several years ago. That is a good thing. I also perceive a difference in who the "they" is, as well. When I left "the they" were more likely to be non-mormons - those outside the church who were never in. Evangelicals and such were the "they." It seems that the new "they" for this forum are the ex-mos - those who were LDS but, for whatever reason, no longer are. 

As far as the Kirk murder, there is much more to learn and to know. The tendency today is to jump to conclusions and mount the ramparts before having any grasp on the preponderance of the facts. Let's just all wait a bit longer. The ramparts will still be there. Or better yet, let's just learn from yet another violent episode that neither "side," the "only" or the "other" (whoever they are), has exclusivity when it comes to violence. Let's set aside the slings and the stones. I Cor. 11:28 cautions that we "examine ourselves." Now there's a good idea! Best to all. 

Edited September 12, 2025 by Navidad