Do you get the newspaper? What nightly news do you watch? CNN? It's been ALL OVER! So you may be uninformed but able to make comments re this topicPractical steps would begin by being informed and possibly commenting rationally. Sorry to be harsh but.....

Love it... "Kind of" statements. Please research and provide FACTS. I'm so tired of this slamming of an assassination viction. Yes blame Both Kennedy's, MLK, and ALMOST our President for theirs.... The KIND OF statements are in the eyes, ears, and brains of the beholder. Statements can be SO mistrued. I find so many of these comments beyond belief. Not rational.

That is like depending upon Pravda and Izvestia for "the news" when one lived back in the day in the USSR. lol

Possibly because they are informed by the people they're killing, that deaths are an unfortunate but acceptable consequence of protecting their right to bear arms.

BTW wikipedia is not truly a good source, can be so biased. They were considering deleting 'Kirk Killing' from their feed....

I have ZERO idea what this means. Please be rational.

NOW I hope the Mods shut this silliness down!!!!!

On gun violence.. Kirk said:

I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023

How sick do you have to be to want to kill someone to prove a point. Sane people do not kill others for no reason.

Wikipedia is not a reliably unbiased source. Their leanings have been admitted and reported upon many times. When the "editors" of a page describe a conservative as "controversial" and refers to his exposing of radical professors as "harassment" (he isn't screaming for people to confront them in public to yell at them when they are eating out with family or getting gas, to give them no safe spaces - that was Maxine Waters), they are being slanted. When nearly half the country's population agrees with him, it is hard to justifiably call his opinions "controversial." Unless you're a wikipedia editor, that is.

They heavily edit and then if you go into add or correct you get banned and your edits removed. Ask me how I know - and it wasn't even a bias edit, I was adding a famous person to a town's "Notable People From There" feature, but he was a WWII hero and CMOH winner, so they did not want to add him. There is even a warning on the Charlie Kirk page stating the page is "heavily edited" (their bold and emphasis, not mine).

Wikipedia is biased. They are little different than that other once-reliably-neutral-but-no-longer website, snopes.

Bottom Line: Charlie Kirk and Martin Luther King jr. were two people who were killed because of their beliefs.

Did opposing views make one of them more or less deserving of death than the other?

You have no idea of the depth of Charlie’s intellect, faith or empathy. He was respectful to all and welcomed diverse views from anyone. He encouraged people to speak on any topic and he willingly took his time to debate with them, regardless how different their view was. Ignoring or belittling this valuable ability for civil discourse shows an inability to look in the mirror to see what’s really wrong with our current society.