Can’t find quotes of him calling for direct violence given the the search engines are all showing the latest news, but I’m fairly certain he’s made allusions to it like that “the revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it” guy did

You may not think it’s appropriate to ever call for someone’s death but you can at least see why someone wouldn’t care that an advocate of hurting other people en masse lived by sword and then dies by it

Still, violence has been the answer in many (most?) political revolutions, including the American revolution and separation from Britain.

> TPUSA has been described as the fastest growing organization of campus chapters in America, and according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, is the dominant force in campus conservatism.

They've been quite influential, and those campus efforts likely contributed to the Gen Z turnout that helped win in 2024.

Even if we assume those numbers are inflated, that's quite a bit of influence if someone is influential only on Twitter.

I’d heard of him-I’ve lived my whole life in Australia, and although I have a Twitter/X account, I almost never use it, and that’s not a new thing, I dabbled with it but never committed.

Do most Australians know who he was? I don’t have any hard data, but my “No” to that is very confident. But I remember briefly discussing him (in person) with one of my old friends from high school, who is deep into right-wing politics (he’s a member of Australia’s One Nation party, which a lot of people would label “far right”, yet mainstream enough to have a small number of seats in Parliament)

He also lied about widespread election fraud among other things so there are many reasons a person would want to target him

I think a difficulty in searching for such answers is assuming that it was a well reasoned decision. I'm not sure how often attempting to take a life is a purely rational decision, devoid of intense emotional motivations (hatred, self-preservation, fear, revenge, etc.). And that's all assuming the assailant was of somewhat sound mind.

I think one of the dangers of more and more extreme divisions in society is that those divisions cloud our mental processes, threaten our emotional health, and take away opportunities for meaningful civil discourse. All of which can lead to more heinous acts that we struggle to make sense of. One of the scariest parts for me is that this can all be too self reinforcing ("Their side did this bad thing to our side, let's get them back!!!" repeat/escalate...). How do we break the cycle?

Yes, you're wrong there (no offense). He's quite popular beyond X (formerly Twitter), particularly amongst the young (~20s) conservative movements. For example, he has almost 4 million subscribers on YouTube and similar on TikTok.

I'd say X isn't even his most popular platform. He's much more popular on video platforms, due to his open campus debates.

I attended one of Charlie's debates this past year and they pretty much let anyone walk up to the mic. It wasn't scripted or censored, that I saw.

For a recent example less than a month ago the US suddenly suspended issuing visitor visas for badly injured Gaza children and their families who were being brought to the US by charities to provide medical aid.

They did this because Laura Loomer posted on a video showing some of the children and their families arriving and shouting with joy that they made it. She said those shouts were "Jihad chants" and the "the HAMAS terror whistle".

She also said that 95% of Gazans voted for Hamas.

Trump reads Loomer, and quickly after that the state department announced that the visas were being suspended for review.

It doesn't matter that she's saying stuff that is completely stupid, such as that claim that 95% of Gazans voted for Hamas. Trump isn't smart enough to realize that this is impossible [1], and anyone who tries to tell him risks becoming the target of a social media campaign from Loomer and similar other influencers that Trump follows.

[1] Hamas has not held an election since they took control in 2006. The voting age was 18. This means that anyone in Gaza who voted for Hamas is at least 37 years old now. Even if every one of them voted for Hamas that would only be about 20% of the current Gaza population.

That is a lot of people

There are plenty of dangerous mentally ill people out there who don't use any type of logic or reason as a basis for their decision-making.

“Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, died Wednesday after being shot at an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump said.”

He influenced the US President, that seems pretty influential to me. Anecdotally, my kid in high school surprised me by knowing quite a lot about them.

What if that is purpose?

Edit: it's official, he's dead (it wasn't confirmed when I originally posted this). Condolences to his wife and small kids.

On a population-weighted basis, this is not everyday life in America.

Trump was shot surrounded by (in theory) some of the best-trained armed guards on the planet. Uvalde saw several hundred "good guys with a shitload of guns" mill around for over an hour while schoolchildren got massacred by a single shooter.

I can't say I get it.

sure tools make it easier, but gun control didn't stop the pm of japan from getting assassinated.

if people weren't so desperate, polarized, and angry, i would bet my entire life's savings gun deaths would be decimated

I'm not promoting guns by saying this, but that can describe a whole lot of things that aren't even usually designated as weapons.

I'm American and a frequent international traveler, and I could not disagree more. Almost every other country I've been to has been superior in every way that truly matters. The only reason I stay here is because I don't want to abandon my loved ones.

https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...

I feel like you were just patronizing the crowd and this is pablum, but the US is one of the angriest, most dissatisfied countries on the planet. It always does poorly on happiness metrics, doesn't do great on corruption indexes, and has a median lifespan and child mortality rate more in the developing country range.

In no universe is there an objective reality where it's the best place to live.

But too much is made about deadly weapons. Every one of us has access to knives. Most of us drive 5000lb vehicles, with which a flick of the wrist could kill many. We all have infinite choices in our life that could take lives.

But we don't, because ultimately there are social issues at play that are simply more important than access to weapons. Loads of countries have access to weapons and it doesn't translate in murder rate at all.

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.

Something to consider is that even though one can, the vast majority do not. Typically, the only time I see people utilizing their right to open carry are the exact types of people you think would do that. They are a very small number in the real world. However, they get so much attention that it distorts the perception that everyone does it. I'm certain there are more people carrying concealed weapons than I pay attention to, but it's not like it is the Old West where you have to leave your weapons outside before entering the saloon.

If this is how you think it is, then you have fallen for the hype machine. Yes, lots of people own weapons. Some of those people own lots of weapons. Only a small number of them carry like you seem to think.

Most of the mass shooting events are not these open carry types. That seems to also confuse things

It's essentially the same thing, except unique to the US. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but your exasperation is essentially the same as my exasperation, as a non-drinker, that I or my children can be randomly killed by someone driving under the influence - and everyone is somehow kinda OK with that.

Really? By what objective metric? Certainly in the top 50%, but the best?

You're referring to a steak knife, correct?

I don't. People are rarely objectively good or bad. Good people can have a bad day. Good people can have a drink or two and turn into bad people. Good people can have their guns stolen from them by bad people. Good people can leave their guns unlocked where their children can find them and do who knows what with them. etc.

As a US guy, it still baffles me the EU don't see the irony of the talking points they make in their gun-free utopia at the exact same time that they can't manage the geopolitical situation in their own back yard. Nor the fact that they have to hire law enforcement to openly carry fully automatic firearms in city streets due to the threat of terrorism (Something which is quite unusual of in the US).

There was a day when I woke up, a few days into the trip, and felt very, very light. Just "weight off my shoulders" lighter. Oddly euphoric.

Took me a few hours to realized that it was the subconscious realization that it was extremely unlikely that anyone around me, for miles and miles, was armed with a gun.

To answer your question: we survive it the same way any human being under perpetual stress survives it. We get on with our day and we don't even notice how bent-out-of-shape we are until and unless we're in a circumstance where we aren't anymore.

Does Canada scare the crap out of you? What about a country 22% more dangerous than Canada? Because if you look at only the non-Hispanic white homicide rate, it is 2.79 [1], while Canada's (total) homicide rate is 2.273.

So is it really gun culture that scares you?

Source for homicide rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

Source for racial distribution: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... (excludes cases where no offender information is known, that is why it undercounts homicide)

[1] US homicide rate * FBI reported non-Hispanic white fraction of homicides / non-Hispanic white fraction of the population

There are people willing to go on murder sprees, and they number in the tens of thousands (or more) if anyone attempts this. Many of them are waiting, nearly holding their breath, hoping that the government tries such a thing. Quite possibly, a few of the mass shootings you've heard of were just those who "jumped the gun" (forgive the expression).

(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).

I mean, people are watching (I haven't) and wishing they hadn't.

He was shot in the neck because the shooter is amateur and didn't account for the bullet drop on this distance.

Let's say it wasn't witchcraft thing but something more widely accepted like prayer session at mainstream church/mosque or something of this sort. Wouldn't the devout people see this as a contract killing? What if the soother says he felt possessed? Shouldn't then he be let go in a religious society?

Wow!

He could have been aiming for the skull for all we know. He could have been aiming for the chest. Hell, he could have been aiming for someone behind Kirk.

In my nonprofessional opinion, that is crappy aim. I can hit an apple from 100 yards away, with a black powder rifle, with an unriffled bore, with iron sights, standing up, repeatedly. I would expect a modern rifle with a riffled bore and a scope and a larger target to be much more accurate from a prone position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmteh_NChOQ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPoint

Between that and cheap quadcopter drones, I expect political assassinations to skyrocket in the future.

So this is a outlier only in that someone was equipped and trained to a fairly serious degree. Someone on the order of a squad designated marksman (SDM) is certainly capable of this. The US military has a few thousand active duty personal trained to that level across the several branches, and there are 10's of thousands of veterans. There are also many SWAT and other LEOs and an uncountable number of enthusiasts and serious hunters with sufficient training and weapons.

The far right developed stars, stallions and philosophers that are effective in the popular culture no matter how vile some of those can be. There are up and coming leftist Americans but they will need to hustle to develop intro strong leaders. The mainstream figures from the American left like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders are just too lightweight.

Edit: funny how this comment fluctuates between 0 and 2 points. This edit will probably tip the balance though :)

I couldn't have named Kirk if I saw him or heard about him before he shot and it entered the news. Not sure what that tells us -- we should know more who our representatives are, or know about various "influencers" in politics and such?

EDIT: I saw you initially mentioned two representatives who were murdered but now it looks like there is only one. So even though you criticize others for not knowing who these murdered representatives were, it seems you don't even know who they were or if they were even murdered.

> Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but...

Well this is how usually talking in bad taste early starts ;-). It's kind of like saying "No offense, but ... $insert_offense_here".

"you know, I could be nice and call him [Governor Walz], but why waste time?"

https://www.startribune.com/trump-says-he-will-not-call-walz...

It was an attempt to quell the No Kings protests scheduled to happen the same day.

The better question to ask is, how many subscribers did the Democratic state representative from Minnesota and the other have?

There was no presidential message expressing sympathy and outrage then and complete radio silence from Republicans in general. And the amount of misinformation from the right was incredible. Even in this thread of nominally intelligent people, they're still repeating falsehoods.

Any expression of shock and dismay from conservatives now is pure theater. The right wing is absolutely fine with violence. Accusations of the violent left is of course a talking point projection as usual.

...and her husband and dog. The killer also had a long list of other targets.

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

Disclaimer that this is early and I may be wrong, but I read that he had a security detail (which seems rather likely). I doubt an attacker with a knife would have had success.

The gunman made his own gun, in a country with ultra-strict gun laws. The Unabomber made his own bombs. The Seattle mall Islamist knife attacker refused to stay down after being shot multiple times.

My takeaway: political terrorists are particularly motivated. Secondly, gun laws slow them down but don't stop them.

Unbadged and masked 'ICE' operators kidnapping people from public spaces is political violence.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion as to why letting the status quo be is a good thing. The path society is on is clearly towards a cyberpunk distopia, than anything that would unburden and improve the human existance of the many.

I always wonder if media hiding gore allows people to not get more upset about violence. The lynching of Emmett Till would not have had the same impact without his mother having an open casket funeral. Would things have gone differently if more people had been exposed to images from Sandy Hook?

Even though I have an extremely negative opinion of Charlie, I'd feel too bad thinking about the pain his family would be experiencing. The family (especially children) don't deserve that.

It is graphic and shows how fragile we are, how it will go down if you are in that situation

Gore definitely made me a depressed person in grade school, but the only reaction I'm having to this is concern about: - conservatives getting ready for violence - the state getting ready to use this to further erode civil liberties - the left fanning the flames for conservatives

If we saw death up close and personal, perhaps we could become a bit more empathetic. I seriously wonder if, for example, we published the horrific photos of the aftermath of a school shooting, that would result in more honest discourse in this country on gun control.

For those who want to know without exposing themselves: He's sitting in a chair when he takes a round to the neck. Clean exit. It's over within three seconds.

Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. Remember, it is only law abiding citizens who are affected by the gun laws. Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment

Same sentiment. For a lot of people, freedom is more valuable than even life itself.

But then again, when it comes to quoting a culture war grifter, you can find a lot of stupid ass quotes.

Great quote. I feel the same way about 9/11 - the feeling of confusion, like "wtf is going on?!" IMHO, only those who lived it can really relate.

  You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.

Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.

RIP Charlie Kirk, no human deserves that. The rest of us left are still not necessarily better people after that exact moment, hopefully everyone takes a pause.

The truth is the US has been seen periods of extreme rhetoric and even political violence, including most obviously an actual civil war, and also key periods like the labor movement and civil rights movement. It will happen again even if things cool.

Political violence and assassinations are obviously terrible and should hopefully not happen as debate allows consensus or at least compromise to be reached, but the reality seems to be if you allow the people a stake in their government, passion and anger will be instilled in some subset of those people cause government policies have real world implications, and the end result is extreme acts, many of which are detestable like this one. I don't see a way forward other than to prosecute crimes and let the debate rage on.

However, both the established parties seem to have become totally incompetent to do that, in very different ways. One party got taken over by people who make public statements on a daily basis that would have been immediately disqualifying at any time since 1950 or so. The other party is so bad at doing politics that they're beaten in elections despite running against those people.

The same way it did for the last 250 years as the world's oldest Democracy. By respecting and upholding our Constitution, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

There's just less tolerance for discussing or exhibiting "extreme" or highly unpopular opinions, nowadays, it seems. Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.

It’s going to sound absurd, but right now, USA’s global image is a very good counter-ad towards “complete” freedom of speech.

There are unstable people of all political persuasions and the marked lack of widespread political violence is hard won by years of obeying political norms that include not resorting to violence within political systems.

In the United States there was first a fraying of norms and now there seem to be fewer and fewer norms people are willing to uphold each day.

To focus on calling people “Nazis” and “Fascists” is to miss the wood for the trees.

What happened can't be condoned, but the violent rhetoric isn't just from people being called nazis.

If it was just a matter of people internalizing that killing fascists is fine and thus that calling people fascists is dangerous, then we would not see the same sort of violence being perpetrated against other politicians not getting the same label.

Kirk himself suggested that a "real patriot who wanted to be a midterm hero" should bail out the man who nearly killed Pelosi's husband. The rhetoric around political violence in this country has been ratcheted up to an insane degree, with or without any accusations of fascism, and this will continue or get worse as long as that remains the case.

I have a feeling he'll get caught.

It's a scary day.

You can still build something, teach something, help those who love you.

The despair is real but it goes away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Nobody who harnesses Youtube views with click bait titles like "XYZ destroys woke ABC" is actually debating, just harnessing likes.

The saddest part was that students receiving a university education actually showed up to this shitshow. Likely many were paid to ask questions at the mic.

I know they are worlds apart, but just look at what happened in Nepal...

I’m worried that if this escalates we will have a new federal holiday for the next Martin Luther King Jr not so long from now.

Well you killed our guys so how can you be surprised we killed yours?

If you can catch posts you think are unfairly flagged as they happen you can also send them to hn@ycombinator.com. Even if it's a day after they can second chance it and watch the comments.

Lowering the temperature does require cooperation. There's a prisoner's dilemma effect where the people with the most heated rhetoric tend to get what they want.

No, a political activist largely unknown outside of the US is not going to be the catalyst of a world war. I live across the pond and never even heard of this individual until an hour ago.

You might be afraid that this could inflame political tensions in the US, and not even that is a given. The US has a long story of political violence, this is unlikely to result in any major changes.

If I was a betting man, I would bet that in two months time most will not even remember this. Too much spectacle in the news all the time for any subject to stick for too long.

As for lowering the temperature, good luck. Anyone with above average influence is in a position to try and extract as much personal gain from this already.

It kills me inside because I would like to live in a world where this isn’t the case.

My understanding of the Italian political climate of the 60s, 70s, and 80s is that there were political groups/cells (on both the far right and far left) that organized around violent acts to further their political goals (which involved the eventual authoritarian takeover of the Italian government by either the far right or far left). For example, you can think of the Red Brigades to be akin to the Black Panthers, but with actual terrorism.

In contrast, most political violence in America has been less organized and more individual-driven (e.g., see the Oklahoma City Bombing). For better or worse, the police state in the US has been quite successful in addressing and dispersing political groups that advocate for violence as a viable means for societal change.

Please don’t shadowban me.

I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.

In particular regard anti democratic developments, an increasing oligarchy, and increased inequality.

If I was a leader, I would take this really seriously and start to make some hard decisions.

It is historically proven as the first step to violence. People seem to think that words don't matter.

They matter very much. Just because you can read millions of words a day, doesn't mean they're not powerful.

Support him or no, he didn't deserve to die for his political beliefs.

Sorry. We in the west don’t live like that.

My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.

Well, yes. People point this out regularly with mass shootings. Sometimes the shooters helpfully leave a list of all the violent rhetoric that inspired them. Anders Breivik claimed to be acting against an "existential threat". Those words get used a lot.

I would say it is true. Such killer is a threat to democracy.

To be clear, I don’t think Kirk was. But there are people who are even vocal about their disdain for democracy. It would feel weird to treat them as if they weren’t who they say they are.

IMO the sad reality is that we live in increasingly dark times. Anti democratic forces are stronger than they have been in recent history. Us all agreeing to not talk about it won’t change that.

Yes, it's true that lunatics on both sides may use their side's rhetoric as a call to action but often this isn't even the case and they're just hopelessly confused and mentally ill people. It'd be nice if we lived in a society where those people couldn't get guns or could get mental health treatment and it'd be nice if one side of this debate didn't weaponize these common sense ideas into identity politics but here we are.

Regardless of where you stand on the subject of concealed carry, I don't think its controversial to say we shouldn't be encouraging untrained/unvetted folks to go seek out would-be assassins before they have demonstrated themselves to be a danger. That's exactly how "armed security" shot and killed an actual bystander at the Salt Lake City 50501 demonstration earlier this year.