Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

nbcnews.com

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#73
post #29

* * *

Here's a mirror as that one has gotten moderated,

(Very, very graphic death) https://x.com/_geopolitic_/status/1965851790714482943 (not safe for life / NSFL)

[Graphic description] What kind of gun could that have been? Incredible amount of kinetic energy—you can actually see a hydraulic pressure wave oscillating through his entire chest. This was obviously fatal, if anyone wasn't sure. Probably died instantly, given the neurological "fencing" response (suggests spinal cord was hit—never mind the artery, he was already dead).

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#74
post #67

Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but... this extremely unfortunate event is going to be a very telling test for the media and society at large. A Democratic state representative in Minnesota was brutally murdered and another attacked by the same man only a couple of months ago, back in June. How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines? How much coverage were they…

We fail this test over and over and the fact that you don't realize it is telling in and of itself. Not as a remark on you, but on the media in general.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#76

[flagged]

First, just from a "danger" standpoint - more people in the EU die from heat than from guns in the US. And roughly 8 times more people die from cold than heat in Europe. So, I would say, that we live in an environment where our neighbors are armed the same way you live in an environment where you're often dangerously hot or cold - i.e. we get used to it.

Second, you can walk or drive on a street. Every passerby in a car could kill you if they wanted to by colliding with you. It rarely happens. Stand next to a tall ledge or overpass with crowds walking by and watch the teeming masses - you're unlikely to see any of the thousands of people walking by leap off to their end. Similarly, in life, even though basically anyone could kill you, it's very rare to encounter someone who is in the process of ending their own life, and killing you would basically end, or severely degrade, their own life. Almost nobody wants to do it.

Charlie Kirk is/was kind of an extreme example. He said many things that severely angered hostile people. He went into big crowds and said provocative things many times before being shot. I think in most situations you have to push pretty hard to get to the point where people are angry enough to shoot at you. If you can avoid dangerous neighborhoods and dangerous professions (drugs and gangs) and dangerous people (especially boyfriends/husbands) then you are pretty unlikely to be shot and you benefit from being able to carry guns or keep guns in your home to protect yourself and your family.

For one example, consider the "Grooming gangs" in the UK, where thousands of men raped thousands of girls for decades with the tacit knowledge/permission of authorities - and despite the pleas of the girls and parents for help. Such a thing could be handled quite differently in a society that was well armed. If the police wouldn't help you, you might settle the matter yourself.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#77

[flagged]

Really dislike this. It risks sounding like a justification, because even if it only means someone will inevitably react violently, its vagueness makes it read as though violence is excusable or natural.

Not so. People can and should endure rudeness, even disgusting behavior, without throwing so much as a punch.

Our entire legal system is built on the premise that violence is not the natural/inevitable outcome of incivility. Courts, contracts, and laws exist precisely to channel disputes, insults, etc. into nonviolent processes.

If violence were the automatic consequence of rudeness, there'd be no point in having civil courts/workplace dispute procedures/defamation law... or even law enforcement protocols in general. The system assumes that people can and must respond to incivility without physical aggression and it punishes those who don't.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#78

I have become something of a statist over the years and I apparently annoy a whole lot of people, when I argue for not upsetting the status quo much further. Needless to say, this obviously is not a good thing if you share that perspective with me. This is actual political violence. And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would. The issue is further societal deterioration in…

> Once it starts and everyone joins, it will very, very hard to stop

More directly, when violence becomes a normalized means of politics, it doesn’t benefit the bourgeoisie.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#80
post #8

Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7? If so, why even target the poor guy? What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit? Either way, I hope he makes it, even though it looks like it was a fatal blow

Almost all politicians have tweeted about him now. There’s no way he’s not influential.
Post reply on HN