Who's Responsible for Charlie Kirk's Death?

The answer is in the question

https://unsplash.com/photos/woman-in-black-leather-jacket-holding-black-rifle-GKr7qGkzHE8

Statistically, the shooter is most likely to be a white, male conservative, but the people most responsible for Kirk’s death are Kirk and the people like him. He was a far right MAGA Republican who managed to piss off both Jews and Muslims. He spouted hatred and bigotry towards women, minorities and the LGBT community. So many people hated him, it could have been anyone for just about any reason, and all the while he strongly advocated for the right to bear arms. He argued that mass shootings were a price we should be willing to pay to protect our right to easy access to guns.

Ironically, some in the audience reported Kirk was shot as he was about to debate against gun control.

Or Kirk might have been shot to impress an actor like John Hinckley Jr. shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Aren’t Republicans always arguing that mental disorders and unstable or non-traditional homes—particularly during childhood—cause gun violence, while also arguing that when it comes to buying guns, mental disorders or unstable home lives are nobody’s business?

Republicans have fought against gun control despite data that explicitly shows the more regulations on guns, the less gun violence on average.

For those who argue a lot of gun violence is suicide and gun control doesn’t stop that, they’re wrong.

People have preferred methods of suicide. Men prefer guns and women prefer poison and cutting, but both use guns. Reduce access to firearms, and suicide rates go down.

Some men have reported that they would have committed suicide if they could have more easily acquired a firearm. They wanted a gun because they wanted to make sure, and they wanted it to be quick and painless. And if you don’t think self-inflicted violence against yourself should count, bash yourself in the face with a frying pan as hard as you can and get back to me.

The shooter could have been anyone who was a victim of gun violence or lost a child in a school shooting.

For decades, our votes increasingly do not matter. The wealthy get the legislation they want passed more often than the majority. When the right to vote becomes meaningless and people have been underpaid and treated unfairly for too long, they’re forced to turn to other options.

This reminds me of Luigi Mangione. A poor nobody gets shot and nobody cares. School shootings have become par for the course. But kill a person who’s rich and powerful, and both sides of the aisle and media outlets agree it’s beyond the pale.

The only reason Bernie Madoff got into so much trouble was because he had the gall to steal from the wealthy.

Laws don’t apply to the wealthy. They can buy their way out of anything and own mainstream media outlets.

The only real crime in America is robbing or killing the wealthy, and regardless of their supposed ideologies, they all agree they want to stay wealthy and powerful.

There was a school shooting right before Kirk was shot. Kirk’s shooting interrupted coverage of that story, which has been largely forgotten. What does that tell you?

Woodrow Wilson, who had serious flaws, was one of the last US presidents who slipped past Secret Service regularly to talk with citizens. The earliest presidents had no protection at all and were more connected to the people. Up until relatively recently, they fought in wars. Their children fought in wars. This made them more hesitant to engage in wars.

Now they’re more hesitant to intervene because war is profitable and serves their interests.

Once leaders are afraid of their constituents or those of political rivals, we no longer have a functioning system. Expect to see them speaking from behind bulletproof glass like guys working in ghetto liquor shops.

By his own argument, Charlie Kirk’s death is a price worth paying to stop gun regulation.

If Charlie Kirk didn’t want to be shot, maybe he shouldn’t have gone anywhere near a school.