Reality Bites

One of the hot topics on social media in the hours following the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been the wild speculations that the killing must have been an op/professional hit/conspiracy. These opinions seem to be based almost exclusively on the idea that “only a pro could make that shot.”

First of all, I want to debunk the difficulty of the shot. Although it has been widely reported that the shot was from 200 yards (not that 200 yards is all that tough, either), a quick Google Maps recon shows that in all probability, the maximum distance of the shot was about 142 meters, or 155 yards. But looking at sightlines, it appears more likely that the shot was taken from a distance of 126 meters, or 138 yards.

Anyone who believes this is a difficult shot (with a rifle that has been identified as a bolt action .30-06, likely with a scope) is telling you that they know very little about shooting. These distances are not difficult at all for an average person with a rifle of that type, especially with the shooter proned out on a stable platform, possibly with a rest, on a pretty stationary target (Kirk was sitting in a chair when shot). This is not exactly Bob The Nailer type stuff.

“But what about the fact that he hit Kirk in the neck?! That’s a small target…the shooter would have to be good to make that shot!” Well, that is if you assume…and we know about assumptions, don’t we?…that the intended target was the neck. Let me share with you the story of the time I shot an impala in Africa. The impala was ranged at 150 yards, and I was shooting from the standing position, rested on shooting sticks. I placed the .308 caliber bullet directly in the ear hole of the impala, and it exited the back of the neck just below the base of the skull (we can talk about magic bullets changing directions in Dallas another day). Impressive shot, yes? Unless you consider that I was actually aiming for the shoulder, and the bullet did not go where I intended it to (later discovered to be at least partially due to a loose scope mount).

I told you all that to tell you that we cannot assume the killer intended a neck shot, and we have to consider that it was actually a poor shot that, although it did not go where intended, still landed a fatal hit.

So why would so many people seize on the idea that it was some sort of conspiracy or professional job? I believe the reasons are really psychological.

It would be really scary to have to accept the reality that there are, in fact, psychos out there. To accept that such a psycho, with very average skills, could visit death on any of us, at any time. It makes it seem very random, and that’s frightening. I get it.

So in a way, it is comforting to imagine that such a killing had to be the work of a rare expert, put into motion by a shadowy machine. I’ve seen it all over social media in the last 24 hours…people commenting, “It’s not supposed to be like this,” and “This couldn’t have been an amateur.” Clinging to conspiracy theories allows the believer to deny that death could really be that close, all the time…that it could be that random or uncontrolled. “It has to be a professional hit.” It’s a defense mechanism against unsettling reality.

But I’m a believer in Occam’s Razor, which simply put tells us that the least complex answer is the most likely. I find it much more likely that the reality is that there are lots of bad people out there, than that there is a shadowy cabal which planned and executed a (supposedly) complex assassination scheme. I’m not denying that it is uncomfortable to accept that there are violent psychopaths out there, but it is true. However, I would suggest that we take comfort in the fact that such violence shouldn’t make sense to the sane. As the late Dr. William Aprill taught us, “They are not like you.” If you look at the murder of Charlie Kirk and can find no reason in it, congratulations…you are also not like them. And that’s a good thing. There are more of us than there are of them, and we will win.