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

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

I'm not calling everyone who has a gun a gun worshipper, but I very much, along the lines of Spencer W. Kimball's "The False Gods We Worship," see the relationship that the most ardent gun-advocates have to their weapons of death as idolatry. If a person's response to yet another school shooting is a callous and unwavering appeal to their interpretation of the second amendment that would allow for no regulation that might save future lives, then, yeah, they are idolatrous gun worshippers.

If that hurts their feelings, oh well. My first amendment right hurts them far less than their love of the second amendment has done to these children.

Totally agree with you, wouldn't it be awesome if the Republican leaders in congress did do something about gun control after Charlie's violent death? But pretty ironic if this is what it took. They'd be in a rock and a hard place. Because after all the deaths, children, precious children and their families, and this is what it might take. But I'd take it over not having something happen. 

Here's something I'd seen a while back that is startling, but doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it's what works:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-clear-gun-control-saves-lives1/

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Totally agree with you, wouldn't it be awesome if the Republican leaders in congress did do something about gun control after Charlie's violent death? But pretty ironic if this is what it took. They'd be in a rock and a hard place. Because after all the deaths, children, precious children and their families, and this is what it might take. But I'd take it over not having something happen. 

Here's something I'd seen a while back that is startling, but doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it's what works:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-clear-gun-control-saves-lives1/

I think the problem with expecting gun control to come out of this death is that the gun used in the death, the perpetrator who fired it, and the situation around it don't fit the paradigm for gun control.  The gun used is a hunting rifle with bolt action.  It has never been considered an assault weapon and so has never been banned by assault weapon bans.  The second link mentions some laws that would reduce gun violence and links to 4 of them.  3 of the laws would have no affect here (ban violent crime offenders, ban domestic offenders, ban alcohol abusers).  The fourth might have (require permit to purchase) but doubtful since it appears the perpetrator has done hunting for years so would have owned the gun for years, long before he became violent.

Gun control can help, but this specific attack is not a good vector to push for gun control.  And that is why I doubt it would be used by those on the victim's side since I don't see them ever wanting to ban bolt action hunting guns.

[longview]

Many countries celebrating the life of the man of history - - -

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DVdQPViHv/

Edited September 16, 2025 by longview

[Tacenda]

nevermind

Edited September 16, 2025 by Tacenda

[gopher]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps Seeking is teasing some at times, but given how I have seen him use “she” in conversations about God over the years and he is now pretty consistently using “she” iirc, it comes across more to me as carrying the subtext of ‘maybe try looking at God in a different way’ as well as signaling his own belief is no longer the traditional view of God.

For the record, I didn't accuse Seeking of anything.  I used myself in my hypothetical.  I realize not everyone is offended by referring to God as a female.  In other forums, I've seen atheists refer to God as female just to get a reaction from believers, but it may not be a big deal for those who believe God has no body and therefore no biological sex.  But I have heard people take offense since God is also referred to using masculine pronouns in the scriptures.  Alanis Morissette caused a bit of a firestorm with Christians last year when she replaced the male pronouns referencing Jesus with feminine ones in "O Holy Night".

[gopher]

14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is there a teasing aspect now that I don't believe? I had to think about it and I'd say yes, but that is secondary. For example, Gopher feels mocked and trolled by pointing out the Godhood of Heavenly Mother

Nah, I never said I felt how I felt so that's a false assumption.  I feel genuine empathy for anyone who has lost their belief and faith in God so I don't take offense at their comments, even if they are mocking or condescending.

But it's nice to be able to clarify your past remarks, isn't it?  Too bad Charlie Kirk has now lost that privilege.

I see the list of people getting fired for celebrating his death is growing larger.

[Tacenda]

Here is a Snopes on a comment Kirk made that is enough to make me worry of what could come if these statements became actions. Still sorry he was killed, still think he could have made a switch to not having these types of ideas.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/09/15/charlie-kirk-public-executions/?utm_source=mail.snopes.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=what-kirk-said-about-children-watching-public-executions-chris-hayes&_bhlid=9316b1c2a713189c1243253863ec28051e06f63f

Edited September 16, 2025 by Tacenda

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Nah, I never said I felt how I felt so that's a false assumption.  I feel genuine empathy for anyone who has lost their belief and faith in God so I don't take offense at their comments, even if they are mocking or condescending.

Sure. It’s amazing how you can only view the divine feminine as “mocking and condescending.” What’s the saying? To the privileged equality feels like oppression or some such. 

2 hours ago, gopher said:

But it's nice to be able to clarify your past remarks, isn't it?  Too bad Charlie Kirk has now lost that privilege.

It is genuinely too bad. 

2 hours ago, gopher said:

I see the list of people getting fired for celebrating his death is growing larger.

I too embrace consequences for bad behavior. I think it’s derogatorily called cancel culture. I wonder when people that called for the former presidents execution* (Kirk), or mocked the Minnesota deaths (Lee) or  mocked Paul Pelosi’s brutal attack will be seeing their cancelation?

 

*for unspecified treason

Edited September 16, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bsjkki]

This has turned into a vile discussion. They can’t kill him again. 

[Kenngo1969]

You—I’m using the “royal you” here, speaking generally and not to anyone in particular—may not like the opinions of another; you may disagree with them, which you are entirely free to do.  But when we disagree with another person’s opinion, we take it up with that person and/or with those who are of like mind with that person—with reasoning, with logic, with sound argumentation, with persuasion. We speak out with our pens, our voices, our votes.  Not with firearms and b*llets.  We don’t settle grievances or perceived injustices with violence—at least, largely, we didn’t used to.  Whatever one’s opinion on a particular topic, and wherever one fell along the political spectrum, a unifying value that was held nearly universally—again, across the political spectrum, it seemed to me—was that, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, if necessary, your right to say it.”

No longer.  Now, the kind of action that, formerly, would have drawn universal condemnation from all across the political spectrum, now, is being debated even among people that I considered, more or less, to be reasonable, even if I disagreed with them about a great number of things—or even about almost everything else.  Now, some of those people are saying, in essence if not in actual substance, Well, perhaps Mr. Kirk deserved to die because of his vile opinions.  That used to be the sort of red line that hardly anyone ever was willing to cross.

Again, no longer.  And that’s the problem.

[bluebell]

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?

Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends”.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

40 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You—I’m using the “royal you” here, speaking generally and not to anyone in particular—may not like the opinions of another; you may disagree with them, which you are entirely free to do.  But when we disagree with another person’s opinion, we take it up with that person and/or with those who are of like mind with that person—with reasoning, with logic, with sound argumentation, with persuasion. We speak out with our pens, our voices, our votes.  Not with firearms and b*llets.  We don’t settle grievances or perceived injustices with violence—at least, largely, we didn’t used to.  Whatever one’s opinion on a particular topic, and wherever one fell along the political spectrum, a unifying value that was held nearly universally—again, across the political spectrum, it seemed to me—was that, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, if necessary, your right to say it.”

No longer.  Now, the kind of action that, formerly, would have drawn universal condemnation from all across the political spectrum, now, is being debated even among people that I considered, more or less, to be reasonable, even if I disagreed with them about a great number of things—or even about almost everything else.  Now, some of those people are saying, in essence if not in actual substance, Well, perhaps Mr. Kirk deserved to die because of his vile opinions.  That used to be the sort of red line that hardly anyone ever was willing to cross.

Again, no longer.  And that’s the problem.

I haven’t seen a single person in this thread advocate for violence, or say anything close to Kirk “deserved” to die. If that’s what you are claiming, CFR. 

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I haven’t seen a single person in this thread advocate for violence, or say anything close to Kirk “deserved” to die. If that’s what you are claiming, CFR. 

That's not what I'm claiming.  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.  Here it is again, for your convenience:

Quote

You—I’m using the “royal you” here, speaking generally and not to anyone in particular— ...

I have heard (but I don't know anyone specifically and cannot name names) that even some on BYU's campus were celebrating Mr. Kirk's death.

Edited September 16, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's not what I'm claiming.  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.  Here it is again, for your convenience:

I have heard (but I don't know anyone specifically and cannot name names) that even some on BYU's campus were celebrating Mr. Kirk's death.

So this is not board specific, only a lament on the state of society.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This has turned into a vile discussion. They can’t kill him again. 

 

Vile:

Quote

Jack: So she takes off the Ms Rachel costume and the uniform, etc. And she comes back and she's like, now I'm just talking as Rachel. And she goes, the reason I'm this way is because I'm Christian. And in the Bible, it says, love your neighbor. And really, I approach people in love. And if you're not doing that, I guess you're not really following the Bible - She didn't say that part, 'you're not following the Bible' - but that was kind of the underlying piece there. So Charlie, what's going on with that?

Kirk: Well, let's let her say it. I'll respond and then I got to dash. 

<clip from Ms Rachel>

Ms Rachel: l've shared prayers on here before and said, God bless, and that's because my faith is really important to me. And it's also one reason why I love every neighbor. In Matthew 22, a religious teacher asked Jesus, what's the most important commandment. And Jesus says to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments. There's no greater commandments than these. I believe it's mentioned eight times, love your neighbor. So yes, everyone belongs. Everyone's welcome. Everyone is treated with empathy and respect. It doesn't say love every neighbor except. There are so many reasons I stand strong in love. I stand with everyone. That's who I am. And the love back and the God bless if you disagree is genuine.

</clip from Ms Rachel>

Kirk: Andrew?

Andrew: I was just, to Jack's point, l'm dying to know, like, what do you think when Ms Rachel quotes scripture in that way?

Kirk: I mean, Satan's quoted scripture plenty.

<Andrew laughter>

Jack: It doesn't just say 'love your neighbor', though. It does say 'love your neighbor, except' in a sense.

Kirk: As yourself. But hold on. She's not totally wrong when she says, first of all, the first part is Deuteronomy 6:3-5. The second part is Leviticus 19. So you love God. So you must love his law. How do you love somebody? <other: Here. Here we go, folks.> You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin. And it says, by the way Ms Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death <other: giggle>. Just saying. So, Ms Rachel, you quote Leviticus, love your neighbor as yourself, the chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.

 

Edited September 16, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I have heard (but I don't know anyone specifically and cannot name names) that even some on BYU's campus were celebrating Mr. Kirk's death.

I don’t have a problem with condemning a behaviour in a generic way, but to present a rumor you have not yet verified yourself as part of that condemnation isn’t helpful imo.

Given how I have seen some comments criticizing Kirk’s methods and positions or expressions of understanding why there is hate for Kirk (not saying this means I understand why there is such hate nor that there should be or it’s okay there is) out there as interpreted as celebrating his death even when the individual included strong condemnation of resorting to violence in general and of Kirk’s murder specifically, I don’t think assuming accuracy in such reports without seeing actual examples is wise (just as I don’t believe assuming vague accusations of Kirk of bigotry, etc are accurate is wise).

Edited September 16, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This has turned into a vile discussion. They can’t kill him again. 

I know you didn't know him personally, but I'm sorry for the pain you, and others, are feeling over his loss. ❤️

[bsjkki]

 

Edited September 16, 2025 by bsjkki

[Kenngo1969]

23 hours ago, the narrator said:

... If that hurts their feelings, oh well. My first amendment right hurts them far less than their love of the second amendment has done to these children.

No disrespect, but no one's opinion about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ever has harmed anyone, much less any children, just as your First Amendment right to your opinion, on whatever subject, never has harmed anyone.

Edited September 16, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So this is not board specific, only a lament on the state of society.

I'm not calling anyone here out, no.  Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's not what I'm claiming.  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.  Here it is again, for your convenience:

I have heard (but I don't know anyone specifically and cannot name names) that even some on BYU's campus were celebrating Mr. Kirk's death.

I don't celebrate his death, nor do I celebrate the words he spoke that I think can do damage. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't celebrate his death, nor do I celebrate the words he spoke that I think can do damage. 

That is my position too.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't celebrate his death, nor do I celebrate the words he spoke that I think can do damage. 

Well stated, but I would just say that his words *did do damage. But no one deserves that. His death will only bring division and pain. 

[gopher]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure. It’s amazing how you can only view the divine feminine as “mocking and condescending.” What’s the saying? To the privileged equality feels like oppression or some such. 

It is genuinely too bad. 

I too embrace consequences for bad behavior. I think it’s derogatorily called cancel culture. I wonder when people that called for the former presidents execution* (Kirk), or mocked the Minnesota deaths (Lee) or  mocked Paul Pelosi’s brutal attack will be seeing their cancelation?

 

*for unspecified treason

Not sure I understand your point, but it sounds sincere and heartfelt.  I was just looking for an opportunity to use the work "empathy" in a sentence since that word has been discussed in this thread. 

[bsjkki]

When someone dies I usually offer condolences without the but…

It’s the decent thing to do. 
 

Anyway, it’s pretty awful about this man who, initially lost his pants on video which was showed to world and this mugshot with him in his garments who purposely obstructed the police and had child porn on his devices. It didn’t take long for criticism of Utah and a muted church response to bubble up.