And even that's too simplistic. His point was, you will always have gun deaths anyway, you can't get them to zero, so we might as well protect guns, so we can protect all our other rights, like free speech.
It's was nearly the opposite of the callous-sounding out of context quote the bot farms are smearing him with. It's a true quote, but the context was a lot more gentle than 'gun deaths are worth it' makes it sound. He just said look at it pragmatically.
Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to get shot, but unfortunately Charlie Kirk acknowledged that some gun deaths are necessarily to protect 2A rights, and that would include his own
That’s not saying “we will have gun deaths anyway”
"...You're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them...we should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
If he could be brought back to life, he would stand by those words, even knowing that he ended up being one of the gun deaths. That's one thing leftists don't understand. They think he only said that because he assumed other people would die and not him.
What they’re referring to is when he said that gun deaths are a necessary circumstance for us to preserve our 2A rights
And even that's too simplistic. His point was, you will always have gun deaths anyway, you can't get them to zero, so we might as well protect guns, so we can protect all our other rights, like free speech.
It's was nearly the opposite of the callous-sounding out of context quote the bot farms are smearing him with. It's a true quote, but the context was a lot more gentle than 'gun deaths are worth it' makes it sound. He just said look at it pragmatically.
His quote was his quote. Words unfortunately matter.
“It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
That’s not saying “we will have gun deaths anyway”
Doesn't matter either way. He was right.
Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to get shot, but unfortunately Charlie Kirk acknowledged that some gun deaths are necessarily to protect 2A rights, and that would include his own
Yes, but so does context.
https://xcancel.com/Ronxyz00/status/1965872119604289791
"...You're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them...we should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
Yes, that was something else he said.
Both things are things that he said. They are not interchangeable.
If he could be brought back to life, he would stand by those words, even knowing that he ended up being one of the gun deaths. That's one thing leftists don't understand. They think he only said that because he assumed other people would die and not him.
Okay so then you’re saying the user in OP’s post is correct
Not they don't, because people like yourself will ignore meaning, intent, or context and invent your own.
If words don't matter then why are we debating what he said?