this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025

444 points (98.3% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

7748 readers

391 users here now

Rules:

The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheTechnician27@lemmy.world

418_im_a_teapot@lemmy.world

444

Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth it to Keep 2nd Amendment [2023] (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by TheBat@lemmy.world to c/leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 54 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm just... well, not necessarily happy, but satisfied that at least one shitgoblin who personally benefitted from countless tragedies was dealt the exact same blow he loved visiting on other people by proxy.

Just one person who profits from, let's not sugarcoat it, evil, taken out by his very own methods. I know most of the world is incredibly unjust, but just sometimes we get synchronicities like these that signal that, hey, there ARE consequences for being a terrible human being, and not all who deserve it get punishment... but it MIGHT happen any day and it might be YOU it happens to next.

That must be an incredibly sobering thought for people who have never heard "no" in their lives and have an army of servants at their beck and call.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

From what I've seen so far of the conservative's reaction to this, it's been anything but sobering. :(

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They are literally crying and showing empathy. It's not what Charlie would have wanted.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 7 points 1 day ago

The ones I've seen are frothing at the mouth for even more violence against 'libtards' or whatever, despite nobody even knowing who did it or what the motive was.

I'm going with the theory that it was a jilted gay lover. It's as likely as anything else.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 14 points 2 days ago

Speak for yourself, this is how I found out and it made my day.

[–] DreamAccountant@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago

Just another christain hate preacher doing their best to incite violence in our communities, and force their hate upon whole communities.

I'm glad this nazi fuck is dead. I hope whoever killed him kills plenty more nazi fucks doing everything they can every single day to harm me, my loved ones, and my community.

[–] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 36 points 2 days ago (2 children)

'Those who live by ~~the sword~~ gun violence will die by ~~the sword~~ gun violence."

[–] hexdream@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

And is often the case, so will innocent people who didn't.

[–] DreamAccountant@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Bullshit. Those who live by gun violence will harm a disproportionate amount of people, causing individuals and society suffering.

[–] TheFermentalist@reddthat.com 40 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Leopard missed his face. Got him right on the neck.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 days ago

It was a very tiny face, so, understandable

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Surprised this wasn't posted already.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

Been reading about this all day

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Unfortunate but necessary sacrifice

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I disagree with the first part, lol. What were the odds he would've done a 180 and started preaching love, wisdom, cooperation and virtue? That he would at any point become something besides a blight on the world? Or that he would simply shut his mouth? This is a net positive, not unlike the killing of a mass rapist being a net positive, and the only ones who could suffer momentarily are his children (but maybe in time they'll understand the same way the kids of this fictional rapist would/should also understand).

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's a play on words of something Charlie Kirk themselves actually said.

They quite famously justified gun violence as "unfortunate but necessary".

CK can rest in piss and get worms in his bones. The man offered the world not one iota of value. The world's better for his passing and was made continuously worse through his existence.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The only problem is that he will be made a martyr by the American diabolical cult that upholds villainy and immorality as virtue, and the world will continue accelerating into shit. Meh. 😔

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean you have two options.

Allow them to continue or whatever the fuck this is going to be.

He was doing real damage every day he was alive.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm in two minds about it, and I certainly agree with you regarding the damage he was doing, but I'm afraid of what the powers that be will do with this "sacrifice" and how further down the path of nonsense they will take those with double digit IQs...

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah but you can't make decisions based on what you are afraid will happen, which is rooted in uncertainty.

We can be quite certain if the real negative consequences this life has, and continued to have, and which was growing in the scale of their ability to cause violence.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I can say with certainty his death will be used as casus belli against those who still fight against immoral American mainstream "culture", though. What is done is done and I'm happy there's one fewer voice of hatred and inhumanity out there but the enemies of humanity might do more with his death than his life, that's all I'm saying. 😔

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just appreciate the counter argument that your other option was to allow him to continue to spew hate and violence against anyone who didn't submit to his white supremacy.

The right time to engage in the kind of political violence that can stop these movements was decades ago. The second best time is right now. You will not stop fascism with rhetoricc, or a change in laws. It's never, ever happened.

I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Do you think your grandparents or great grandparents were appreciative of the fact that they, their siblings and their friends had to go sacrifice their lives to stop fascism in Europe? No. But they were not given that choice. It was either fight or be crushed.

And that is the choice were left to by the slovens on both sides who allowed this creeping ideology to take root.

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I agree and understand your point, trust me, I'm part of the side that abhors everything he stood for and understand the need for violence in select times as well. I'm even religious so I believe he'll be enjoying Hell forever as well, I certainly don't think his death is repayment enough for his actions (everyone dies)! But can it be used to actually help us get rid of our shackles? Are we in a position to make that "final push"? Anyway, hopefully it'll be a force for good and not just fuel for the engine of Western civilizational suicide (that might just take the rest of the world down with it).

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

I say it’s actually better than the rapist, because Charlie Kirk’s influence was far wider, and his words could and did lead to a far larger and more widespread volume of suffering.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago

Not so pro life now is he?

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

¯\(ツ)/¯

[+] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -26 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is obviously not LAMF.

If someone said "it's unfortunate that some people die in car crashes, but that doesn't mean we should ban cars", and then they're killed by a drunk driver, would you call that LAMF? Was that person advocating for people to be killed in car crashes?

Obviously not.

[–] TBi@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In this case it would be akin to someone arguing that you should be allowed drink and drive getting hit by a drunk driver.

[+] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

No it wouldn't, that's a false analogy.

He didn't say you should be allowed to shoot people and/or use a gun in any unlawful way (which is what's analogous to 'drink and drive'), he said you should be allowed to own a gun (which is what's equivalent to owning a car).

[–] TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He literally said that we have to accept people are going to be shot and killed in the name of gun rights though

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

That's not the same as advocating for killing other people with guns, which is what he would have had to do for him being killed by a gun to be a LAMF.

[–] TBi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Maybe someone could own a gun. Possibly a shotgun for a farm or game hunting. But there is no need for anyone to have a hand gun or an AR15.

So for this analogy: Shotgun = car with regular driver AR15 = car with a drunk driver

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

but interestingly, Kirk was killed by a single shot outside the range of an AR15. Perhaps a musket, as the forefathers were considering when they wrote the second amendment.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Perhaps a musket, as the forefathers were considering when they wrote the second amendment.

Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

[–] TBi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Semi-automatic muskets as god intended!

[–] too_high_for_this@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

outside the range of an AR-15

Have you ever shot an AR? The effective range is about 600 yards and this shot was 140. That's stupid easy with an AR. I'm not a great shot and I can easily shoot a <1-inch grouping at 150 yards.

That being said, it was a bolt action rifle which is inherently more accurate.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But there is no need for anyone to have a hand gun

It's a good means of self-defense from an assailant. I personally hate guns and would never own one, but I must concede that, for example, women owning guns instantly levels the playing field, re assault and the disadvantage they usually have against a male assailant, etc.

or an AR15

Apparently it's popular enough of a hunting rifle for web pages like this to exist (found via a quick Google), and you already conceded hunting as a justified application for a gun.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

f someone said “it’s unfortunate that some people die in car crashes, but that doesn’t mean we should ban cars”, and then they’re killed by a drunk driver,

The apt analogy would be if someone said: "drunk drivers kill some people, unfortunately, but that is the price to have all the booze we want"... and then they get killed by a drunk driver

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, that's not quite as good an analogy, because it's not the alcohol itself that causes the death, re a drunk driver. It would be equally as strong as my analogy, however, if it was tweaked to 'it's unfortunate that some people die from alcohol poisoning, but that doesn't mean we should ban alcohol'.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

he was never referring to the shooters dying... he was talking about the innocent lives the shooter easily takes with a gun

if you are going to troll, at least put your mind to it

[–] PDFuego@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I see your point about the LAMF thing, but that's such a dishonest comparison. Your post history seems reasonable enough so I'm hoping you won't just be a dick about this. The difference is cars aren't a tool specifically for killing people. You're even changing the context in your comparison, this isn't a drunk driver killing a dude, it's someone intentionally hitting a man with their car. When the US gets a global reputation for being the place kids constantly take their parents' cars to school to kill other kids it'll be a fine point, until then it's hurting your case.

For the record, I'm not condoning or celebrating this either. I'm not going to mourn the prick, but I don't support openly murdering people and see no appeal in laughing or joking about it.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I see your point about the LAMF thing, but that's such a dishonest comparison.

Honesty has nothing to do with it. People are calling it LAMF because they are falsely equivocating saying you should have the right to own a gun, with saying you should have the right to shoot people. That's all there is to it. All I've done is point out the equivocation--in the absence of it, it's obvious this isn't LAMF.

Your post history seems reasonable enough so I'm hoping you won't just be a dick about this.

I don't believe you'll find me 'being a dick' about anything in my history, so don't worry.

The difference is cars aren't a tool specifically for killing people.

That isn't really relevant, though.

The point is simply that in order to something to be LAMF, the thing that was advocated for others must be the same thing that's happened to the 'LAMF'd'.

Kirk was advocating for maintaining the right to own a gun. Not for the right to shoot people.

On top of that, another aspect that's required is that the thing being advocated for is intended by the 'LAMF'd to apply only to certain others, and the LAMF comes in when it ends up applying to them as well (hence "never thought they'd eat my face"). In this case, he was advocating for gun ownership to be a right, in other words, something that applies to everyone. It's literally impossible for something that's advocated for everyone to become a LAMF situation; the 'for them but not me' assumption is a necessary component of the 'before'.

You're even changing the context in your comparison, this isn't a drunk driver killing a dude, it's someone intentionally hitting a man with their car.

But Kirk advocated for the right of owning a gun, analogous to owning a car. Not with unlawfully (accidentally or not) shooting someone, analogous to (accidentally or not) running someone over (which thankfully is always unlawful, lol).

Thoughts?

[–] PDFuego@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sorry, you've misunderstood, I don't disagree about any of that. I was talking about your use of car ownership as a comparison to gun ownership. It's something I see come up a lot in gun rights arguments and it's always seemed so unreasonable to me because of the difference I mentioned being so vital (perhaps because I live in a country much less... enthusiastic about guns). There's no reason for us to have that particular discussion and I have zero interest in doing so, I just took issue with your comparison, that's all.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I was talking about your use of car ownership as a comparison to gun ownership.

I understand you wanting to differentiate a weapon from a non-weapon causing the death, but it really doesn't impact the analogy I don't think, because in either case, the intended use of X is to use it when justified (e.g. re a gun, for hunting if it's that kind of gun, for self-defense if a handgun, etc.). Now, if there was zero application for X that was justifiable for a random individual to possess, then I'd be more on board with your point (e.g. an explosive beyond 'firecracker strength').

perhaps because I live in a country much less… enthusiastic about guns

Well, I live in the US, and I personally abhor guns, but I try (more than most, in my experience, hence my chosen alias) not to let it bias my arguments.

This is by no means any sort of 'pro-gun' argument. It's just that, since this is a themed community, when I see something that doesn't follow the theme, if I feel like it at the time, I'll point it out. That's really all there was to it, lol.