Charlie Kirk and the two magic words

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed yesterday.

The identity of the shooter remains unknown at this time. His motives are also unknown. One could venture to guess, but I’m not going to do that.

Let me start with the obvious. It’s a tragedy. The man was sitting there, quite literally inviting people to “prove him wrong” – debating. Instead of doing that, someone chose to get a sniper rifle (this is just a guess at this point) and to kill him.

A couple of years ago, Charlie Kirk was asked about this sort of stuff – guns etc. You can read about that here, but I’ll save you the trouble, here are the relevant parts:

I’m not sure the “driving” part is worth discussing, but here goes: hey, did you know you could reduce that significantly by having safer roads and by encouraging working from home where possible? Did you know, given the choice, most people would choose to work from home instead of having to drive for one hour to get to work?

But again, I’m not sure that’s even worth discussing. What’s worth discussing, though, is the famous Second Amendment.

Like many laws we may laugh at these days (really, try to google “rule of thumb” and let me know what you think of its origins), they MAY have made sense “back then”. No doubt, the Second Amendment made complete sense in 1788. The U.S. War for Independence had just ended 5 years earlier. It would’ve made sense for the new country – what we now call the USA – to still be worried about the British Empire, for example. “What if they come back?”. Besides, many parts of the current-day USA belonged to other nations at the time (California, Louisiana, Alaska etc). US would need … well, fighters. What better way of getting them than by raising their own – gun in hand?

So, in my opinion, it made sense back then. In a way, it guaranteed that freshly acquired independence. It also guaranteed a future army, which in turn would acquire other pieces of land (and it did). Granted, some were bought (Alaska is the perfect example), but others were won (California).

But that was then.

A soldier with a rifle was worth significantly more back then. Nowadays, a single rocket does more damage than an entire regiment (and from a very safe distance, too).

As far as I know, nobody is interested in invading the US – not to mention “that insane”.

The thing is, Charlie Kirk even had “personal security”.

Naturally, there was little they could do. One man, one sniper rifle (presumably), one shot – good night. They simply took him to the hospital – but anyone who has seen the video would know Mr Kirk couldn’t possibly have survived. It’s something worth remembering when we consider his suggestions of having armed guards in front of schools etc. What would those guards be able to do against a sniper? Hide?

That aside, the Second Amendment – as stated above – made sense in 1788. I’d go even further: it was NECESSARY.

Nowadays, though….I’d say…not so much.

Every gun advocate would tell you that that’s what keeps “America” (they do seem to believe that the US IS the entire continent, but never mind that) free – free of tyranny, to be precise – and that as such, it’s a price worth paying.

I’d love to be able to agree with that. Really, I would. But there’s a tiny little problem there: it implies that should the people decide that the government of the day is working against their interests, they’d rise up – rifles and all – and they’d topple that government. Because (right?) no government would be able to withstand something like that.

I just…I just have one question. So …did the gun-toting part of the population do that when the US government worked against their interests? Say, when they started importing cheap migrants, undermining US citizens’ pay/job security? When CEOs decided to put US citizens out of work by moving their factories overseas while still selling their products in the US with the assistance of the US government? When the US government gave everyone and their cats H1B visas? When they can’t afford medical care? My brother in Christ, the most “American” thing we know of in these parts is this one:

Is that the freedom those guns are protecting?

I just can’t seem to remember ONE such incident. There was, of course, the 6th of January “insurrection”. No guns were involved, as far as I remember. Those people entered a building and…they took pictures – because, honestly, what else would you do in there anyway? It’s a … building. The government was fine. If they wanted to troll the protesters, they could’ve done…nothing. Just let them wander around the building, really, until they get hungry or something and leave. Then do nothing – I mean NOTHING. Not even one arrest – just to drive the point home “we’re not bothered, hope you had fun, because you sure as hell accomplished nothing”. Well, there was one thing they accomplished – they got a criminal record.

Whose tyranny are those guns supposed to protect US citizens from? My fellow treasonous colonists Americans, take my word (as a British citizen): we’re in no position to invade anyone, much less your country. Quite honestly, I doubt most of us could even afford a trip there – as unarmed tourists. The most British thing to invade the US is Prince Harry and, honestly, I don’t think he poses much of a threat to the US. His media appearances may cause the average IQ in the USA to drop by a few points, but in what concerns sovereignty, I’d say that you’re safe. I’m not looking to disrespect either Canada or Mexico, but I just don’t see them as much of a threat to the US either. Either way, should one country decide to go to war with the US, I feel like it’s not going to be snipers they’ll worry about. In fact, they’re more likely to be concerned with other stuff – like, I don’t know, nukes? (completely random example). As for “the other way around”, we’re not worried about your guns either. Should you choose to invade this island, I’d wager you’ll choose to go back to your country in a matter of days. Trust me, it looks nothing like what you may have seen in your favourite Harry Potter film – and the only spell British wizards specialize in is making the value of the pound sterling vanish into thin air. A-brokie-dabra!

One could make a case for guns being useful to protect one’s home – and that’s true. But there are two issues I’d raise here:

• do you protect your home with sniper rifles? I’m no expert in guns, but I feel like a sniper rifle might be a bit cumbersome in that sort of scenario. Perhaps a simple revolver might prove more useful?
• who exactly are you protecting your home from? OTHER people with guns? Do you…see the problem?

On the subject of revolvers, it turns out that just a few hours after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, another school shooting took place – this time in Colorado – leaving 3 young students dead. As pointed out above, Charlie Kirk even had personal security. Are students supposed to have their own security detail when they go to … school? Even if they did, no matter how absurd, what exactly did personal security do for Charlie Kirk?

I’m not anti-guns. I’m not pro-guns. I have no strong feelings on the matter either way. I’m simply struggling to understand the “Second Amendment” thing – these magic words that apparently justify having young people killed. If it truly does protect the US citizens from tyranny, then those deaths are a fair price, one definitely worth paying. But does it?

I have to wonder whether US citizens feel protected when they see their taxes. When they see foodbanks. When they’re asked to train their (cheaper) replacement – who just happen to be some thousands of miles away. When they unwillingly bail out failing banks who made the wrong bet. When they see the prices of various groceries (if I understand correctly, eggs are becoming something of a luxury). When they see the price of “healthcare”.

Charlie Kirk seemed to believe that 50,000 deaths were really just a statistic. It’s always a statistic, really, until you become part of it. Until then, it’s just “other people” who just happened to be “unlucky”.

As for me, all I can say is that I don’t understand this. If four US citizens were killed in a different country, there’d be an investigation. There would be a “lessons we need to learn from this” moment – and possibly actions would be taken to avoid something like that happening again. When you’ve got 4(8000) US citizens being killed “at home”, everyone goes like “well, yeah, it’s tragic, but you know – the Second Amendment”. The magic words have been spoken, so everyone nods. With that out of the way, they do the last thing on the checklist: they offer prayers.

Because it’s a silent prayer, I don’t really know what it sounds like. If I had to bet, I’d bet it goes something like “please, God, let this only happen to other people; please, God, make sure it’s someone else’s child or father, not mine”.