Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

[dirtywick]

I will repeat my previous question: How did he carve lengthy essays onto very small bullet casings?

Or is this just another made-up piece of crap from the right-wing ◊◊◊◊ posters of Leningrad...

WSJ Torched for False Report of 'Trans Ideology' on Charlie Kirk Shooter's Bullets, Muted Retraction: 'So Little Accountability'

The internet has been torching The Wall Street Journal after it falsely reported the bullets used by the alleged Charlie Kirk murderer had "transgender ideology" inscribed on them.

www.thewrap.com

they were just a few short phrases and had a different meaning than what was presented in their crusade against the left

 

[Dr.Sid]

Cartridge isn't that small. You can also write around.

 

[Dr.Sid]

WSJ Torched for False Report of 'Trans Ideology' on Charlie Kirk Shooter's Bullets, Muted Retraction: 'So Little Accountability'

The internet has been torching The Wall Street Journal after it falsely reported the bullets used by the alleged Charlie Kirk murderer had "transgender ideology" inscribed on them.

www.thewrap.com

they were just a few short phrases and had a different meaning than what was presented in their crusade against the left

I certainly would not bet what was the meaning, and if the guy is left, right, or just confused. Too soon to call.

 

[dirtywick]

I certainly would not bet what was the meaning, and if the guy is left, right, or just confused. Too soon to call.

if they are popular phrases in groyper communities, then that's what he wrote. these are pretty specific, aren't they?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

It's true the left has gone a bit farther leftward*, but at nowhere near the speed with which the right has sprinted away from the center like Leeroy Jenkins screaming racial obscenities.

*It used to be electorally acceptable for Democratic candidates to be against abortion rights, for example, a fact which many Democratic leaders still do not realize is no longer the case.

 

[stanfr]

Billionaires,

If only! I maintain it is the group we *should* turn on. Problem is, a significant portion of the right *loves* billionaires, and even some on the left.
Some of them have Stockholm Syndrome, but many of even the poorest simply *want* to be billionaires so they can do whatever the ◊◊◊◊ they want. They pray every day to Jesus or the FSM that they are gonna win the Powerball, so they can join the club of oppressors.

 

[jt512]

Sure, he said:
"All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning".
I suppose you think the 'non' original race were not immigrants?

No. I just know what it means to quote someone. And when they don't do it, I don't claim that they did, because, for one thing, that would be a lie. And for another, claiming that someone quotes Hitler (who has almost surely never read Hitler) is essentially calling them a Nazi. And labeling your political opponents "Nazis" and "fascists," as "progressives" do ad nauseam, is the first step in justifying violence against them. And if you don't think support for political violence is mainly a problem on the left, then you are ignorant of the facts. In a survey just out today, when asked, "Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?" fully one in four (25%) of those who rate themselves "very liberal" answered "Yes, violence can sometimes be justified," compared to an almost trivial 3% of those who rate themselves "very conservative." (Source: What Americans really think about political violence.)

 

[mumblethrax]

(who has almost surely never read Hitler)

Agree with you there. Whatever else is true about Trump, the man does not strike me as a reader.

 

[Pixel42]

I think the stats on which extreme actually commits the most political violence are rather more meaningful than polls on which extreme considers it the most theoretically justifiable.

 

[jt512]

I think the stats on which extreme actually commits the most political violence are rather more meaningful than polls on which extreme considers it the most theoretically justifiable.

I think the poll is a leading indicator.

 

[johnny karate]

No. I just know what it means to quote someone. And when they don't do it, I don't claim that they did, because, for one thing, that would be a lie. And for another, claiming that someone quotes Hitler (who has almost surely never read Hitler) is essentially calling them a Nazi. And labeling your political opponents "Nazis" and "fascists," as "progressives" do ad nauseam, is the first step in justifying violence against them. And if you don't think support for political violence is mainly a problem on the left, then you are ignorant of the facts. In a survey just out today, when asked, "Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?" fully one in four (25%) of those who rate themselves "very liberal" answered "Yes, violence can sometimes be justified," compared to an almost trivial 3% of those who rate themselves "very conservative." (Source: What Americans really think about political violence.)

Did this poll come out before or after you voted for hundreds of cop-assaulting insurrectionists to be pardoned and treated like heroes?

Was it before or after a right wing psycho assasinated two Democratic politicians?

Was it before or after another right wing psycho shot up the CDC and murdered a cop?

Just trying to get the timeline straight.

 

[johnny karate]

I think the poll is a leading indicator.

I think the hundreds of violent right wing insurrectionists you voted to set free is a better one.

 

[BDBoop]

Surprised she didn’t give herself whiplash with that about face.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Just going from the bullet inscriptions, it seems to me that there is no real motive that would be easy to understand without a massive dive deep into weird Internet culture.

It is, at best, political adjacent.

It is very likely that Kirk was the target because shooting him would gain maximum public attention, very much like the Butler shooting - any other accessible big celebrity would have done.
Just by going with Google Trends, targeting prominent Right Wingers gives you more attention because of the well tuned, always ready outrage machine.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The only lesson to prevent further killings like these are: delete the Internet
- or -
Stop training teenagers with weapons and don't give them access to them.

Most people go through some crazy ◊◊◊◊ mentally in puberty and right after, but it works itself out over time if it's not too easy to act on a particularly stupid idea you are hung up on.

 

[AmyStrange]

For review:
View attachment 63821

Let's review: the fat clown and his maga weirdoes are too stupid to understand anything that isn't a lie, and the above proves it.

 

[smartcooky]

I will repeat my previous question: How did he carve lengthy essays onto very small bullet casings?

Or is this just another made-up piece of crap from the right-wing ◊◊◊◊ posters of Leningrad...

30-06 casings are not small...

Its a high powered rifle. A "moose gun" The cartridge case between the web and the shoulder is almost 2" long. You could engrave the opening sentence of Orwell's 1984 on that with room to spare, using a cheap hand engraver from The Home Depot!!

 

[arthwollipot]

Source

 

[Jack by the hedge]

View attachment 63827

Source

Thanks, Arth. The most bewildering part of this story is so many people suddenly appearing to know the term groyper which I think I literally never heard before. I'm so in the dark that the explanation above could be completely straight fact or might be an absurd in-joke and I would have no idea either way.

 

[dann]

Where does one draw the line? We have the famous example of not shouting fire in a theater. Words *do* cause harm, in certain situations.
If one runs into a Harlem club and starts shouting the 'N' word at everyone, and them someone takes a swing at you--should you play the 'victim card'? Cause legally, in most cases you could, it is considered a criminal assault, despite the incitement. Yet the assaulter typically would not be sentenced to a long jail sentence or death, unless he was in Trump's new America.

I remember a time when skeptics were mainly interested in whether something was true or not. Nowadays, many of them have fallen down the rabbit hole of the right-wing 'free speech' argument where it is never about the veracity of something but always about their inalienable right to be wrong.

MAGA people would never run into a Harlem club and shout the N word. Mainly, because they know that it's not a place where they can recruit naïve white guys for their White Supremacist movement. Charlie Kirk certainly wouldn't. He preferred to debate unprepared college freshmen where he would be using the whole list of logical fallacies to get a couple of gotchas that he could edit together for his videos.

In other contexts than Harlem clubs, MAGA influencers love going on TV, radio and podcasts to complain about how they are being cancelled. The irony is that half of those guys have now been cancelled so much that they have found positions in the Trump administration.

Here is a great example of how Kirk should have been tackled, but unfortunately his killer came from a family that is very underprivileged in this respect. Instead of learning how to understand the world and find out what is true and untrue, he got all the gun training and Bible lessons he could possibly wish for.

Exactly How Charlie Kirk got SCHOOLED by a Cambridge Student (Rationality Rules on YouTube, July 18, 2025 - 44:16 min.)
Watch a Cambridge archaeology student systematically dismantle Charlie Kirk's entire worldview in just 5 minutes, exposing 15 different logical fallacies along the way. In this episode of Fallacy Forensics, we break down the viral Cambridge University exchange where Charlie Kirk - founder of Turning Point USA - faces Rudy Ellis Jones, a student studying archaeology and biological anthropology. What starts as Kirk confidently defending "universal moral truths" ends with him admitting "I still think it's wrong" - essentially confessing his entire argument is based on feelings, not facts.

If Kirk's killer had listened attentively to the Bible lessons, he might have learned a thing or two that would have come in handy in a confrontation with guys like Kirk, but it's not the kind of lesson most Bible teachers are capable of delivering, and if your only tool is a rifle, it is tempting to treat any opponent as a .
The video is very thorough and often a bit repetitive, but it contributes to getting the ideas across to its audience.

Another example of how to deal with ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ like Kirk:

Cambridge Debate Coach Reveals How She Humiliated Charlie Kirk (Rationality Rules on YouTube, Aug 28, 2025 - 54:15 min.)
Tilly Middlehurst sits down with me to reveal exactly how she demolished Charlie Kirk at Cambridge - and teaches you how to do the same to any bad-faith debater. When Kirk rolled into Cambridge expecting another easy win against "woke students," he had no idea a young feminist armed with anthropology, economics, and devastating logic was about to turn his entire playbook against him. In this exclusive interview, Tilly breaks down her preparation strategy, explains why she opened by declaring "I'm a feminist" (brilliant tactical move), and walks us through the exact moment she realised Kirk would never answer a single question directly. From the "smiles-per-capita" zinger that brought down the house to her surgical use of reductio ad absurdum, she exposes every technique she used to trap Kirk in his own contradictions. Most importantly, she teaches how to handle topic-hopping, bad-faith actors, and why answering "I'd have to look into that" actually shows intellectual strength. This isn't just an interview - it's a tactical breakdown from the woman who made Charlie Kirk rage-quit his own talking points, and she's teaching you exactly how she did it.