General Discussion

Last edited Fri Sep 12, 2025, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not trying to nitpick the point, but only want to explain my queasiness. An assassination requires the victim be an "important person" and the killer be motivated by "political or religious reasons".

Kirk was important in certain circles, but until this week, probably only 2% of the public could state any significant part of his biography, so was he really "important"? I mean, when drug gangs kill the leader of rival gangs, they think the other leaders are important, but is that an assassination? We just call that a "gang killing", and ironically those were the last two words Kirk spoke on this planet.

And on motive, we just don't know. What we DO know is that many of these high profile gun murders are done by young white guys who have very little wisdom from life experience. They are highly impressionable and often bounce from one philosophy / extremist group to another looking for a home. I suspect that will turn out to be the case again with this murder. So can we really call that a political or religious motive?

I think it is better to call it what it is: a murder by yet another confused young white guy who never should have been within miles of a high powered weapon.