Hitler might've killed someone in WW1. Irregardless, Hitler had a whole big group of Charlie Kirks that helped convince millions of Germans to commit atrocoties. Hitler would've been nothing without his Charlie Kirks.
Well, 100% of the people you've met so far haven't killed you. I would argue that at least 95% of the people you've ever encountered have been good, in fact.
During natural disasters where society and infrastructure completely collapses and is destroyed, it is in human DNA to help eachother, collaborate, cooperate, and rebuild. Your 'ape-based species' bullshit is not founded in science, but founded by eugenisists stupid enough to look at apes and say "we're like, the same."
Human history is nothing but a series of people figuring out how to get along with eachother. People who focus on all the war and violence stuff are scary, and need some serious professional help. Yes, I'm talking about you, HugeNerd.
No, I doubt he was conscious for long enough to know he was shot. A neck shot like that he might as well have been shot in the head, to him it was probably instant.
Good. Remember how much the left loves fascists, hasn't even been a hundred years since millions of leftists died trying to stop them. I bet you get salty about that antifa movie called 'Saving Private Ryan.'
'Fencing response' is conducive with brain damage. Sudden blood pressure drop to the brain can cause that response. Practically speaking he died instantly, a neck shot like that might as well have been a head shot.
That was a clean slice to the throat and the guy was conscious for several moments afterwards. Kirk took a gunshot wound into/through the neck, pretty much all the blood in his head fell out within seconds, and he immediately lost consciousness.
Laws are written to be manipulated, that's why European culture uses laws and words as weapons, for European culture loves words to be twisted. This is why the "truth" always changes in the European mind, look no further than their use of "treaties" or "truces" or their fad-politics. Whether it's far-right capitalism or left-wing socialism, I fail to see the difference when they both rely on "production at all costs" at the expense of our natural world and turning our habitable environments into gravel pits and uranium mines all in the name of "productivity." The global south, or "third world", and natural peoples will all be capitalist workerbees or socialist proletarian under the European death-cult of "productivity" as they call it; I call it a culture of suicide with a medieval religious devotion to their faith except now it's shifted to science, technology, and money - just another example of how the truth always changes. They're incapable of any real thought, incapable of simply appreciating the magic of nature to admire a lake or mountain or people in being, and most of all they cannot listen unless the world around them is despiritualized into mechanical models and dead symbols written on dead leaves.
To me I don't see the shift towards left-wing, even the death of capitalism, to be revolutionary. It may be yet another revolution for the European mind, but to the rest of the world it's merely a continuation. In order for humanity to live in harmony with nature, European culture must die.
Because there's no consequences.