Update: The killer of Charlie Kirk was apprehended late last night and it was publicly announced this morning. Turned into authorities by his own father ...
This morning's news conference concerning all the details was unlike anything I have seen in recent memory. Remarkable. If you can find access to it, you may it of interest. At least for this American, I found that it provided some glimmer of hope for the first time in a long while.
FYI, President Trump has publicly announced he will be personally attending Charlie's funeral next week. It will be something to behold how a young man at 31 years of age will be honored with what normally one would associate only with heads of state.
Yes, I saw a few fragments. I am torn on the idea of father turning in his son. Maybe he was too. On one side, maybe he already failed as a parent if his son learned how to shoot quite well and have access to serious weapons, and he didn't see him possibly turning into an executioner. On the other side, a son is a son, and family is family. Maybe not what it used to be, but still, if family means as much to him as it probably should, this decision will likely give him nightmares for life.
This assassinate will be remembered for a while... Unfortunately, it probably won't be the last. Gun control probably wouldn't solve this, since an individual who really wants access to a weapon can get it from the black market (or perhaps even build it nowadays?). Fewer would, that's true, but I think it has something to do with the American culture (and not only), where (in this case) some individuals think they can erase an idea by physically removing the one(s) propagating it. They achieve the opposite, if it isn't covered up (and sometimes even if it is, years later). It's been tested throughout history, and that's the effect. Sure, maybe Charlie Kirk is raised to a higher level than he deserved in life, due to his death, but the shooter achieved that.
???
Would you like to expand on this, so there is no misunderstanding of your intent in writing it?
That usually happens when people die, especially in tragic and emotional circumstances... All humans have flaws, and personally, I don't like any kind of radicalism (in any direction), although sometimes is probably needed. He was a guy defending his cause, with a good (even great) visibility and good arguments. He was also a polarizing person, because the other side would not have seen him with good eyes, for sure. I don't know if it's been determined why he was shot, but the fact that political assassination was among the top reasons why he could have been shot at the speculative level, right from the start, says a lot about how the other side saw him.
Okay. Thanks. Your word "deserved" stood out since, as I sure you are aware, many are publicly stating he got what was coming to him. He "deserved" to be killed.
From what you have now said, will not clearly stated, I will assume (hope) that does not include you.
Definitely not! It's like "shooting" the freedom of speech.
Exactly! Underscoring the fact, in spite of all the "useful idiots" once again screaming about the Americans "love affair" with guns, etc. this was an attack on our First Amendment freedom of expression. Not on our Second Amendment right to bear arms ...