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
Well then, unfortunately, so was the redditor in OP’s post
No, just no.
Charlie Kirk never supported political violence, assassinations, school shootings, or anything of the like. In that very same quote, which you don't want to look at in context, he said we need more security at schools...like the one where he was just brutally murdered.
As always with this shit, gun control would not have stopped something like this. It was an old hunting rifle, not a new purchase or anything. Nothing would have stopped this, unless you're saying Charlie saying "we should not have a utopian [view on gun violence]" is him saying all gun deaths are fine, and he's wrong to say we'll never get gun deaths to zero.
'Political assassination' is not 'gun deaths' retard. They are so unconnected as to the extent that you can even have political assassination, by firearm, in a country with zero firearms.
You just support murdering your political opponents and the good news is you won, I think they accept your standard now too.
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.
You can't look at one bit without looking at the rest, since they all build on each other.
I have no clue why you're so attached to this. Charlie Kirk's point was to be realistic, he wasn't endorsing gun deaths, or supporting it. He genuinely condemned all violence, as far as I can tell, and was deeply saddened by political violence, as well as senseless mass shootings and the like.
He would not support the circumstances in his own death.
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.
Not exactly. If guns are legal, people are going to get shot once in a while. Leftists like the one in the screenshot take this to mean that if you understand this and you don't want guns banned, then you want people to get shot. That's not a reasonable way to look at it at all.
What I'm saying is the Charlie Kirk would not want guns banned, even after having been shot to death.
No. OP's post is incorrect. He would not have wanted his death to be used as an excuse to trample the 2A. He also would not have wanted to be shot. They are not mutually exclusive and framing them that way is retarded.
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
No, just no.
Charlie Kirk never supported political violence, assassinations, school shootings, or anything of the like. In that very same quote, which you don't want to look at in context, he said we need more security at schools...like the one where he was just brutally murdered.
As always with this shit, gun control would not have stopped something like this. It was an old hunting rifle, not a new purchase or anything. Nothing would have stopped this, unless you're saying Charlie saying "we should not have a utopian [view on gun violence]" is him saying all gun deaths are fine, and he's wrong to say we'll never get gun deaths to zero.
I see you are just a retarded faggot. The Twitter morons including the one in the OP are celebrating it.
'Political assassination' is not 'gun deaths' retard. They are so unconnected as to the extent that you can even have political assassination, by firearm, in a country with zero firearms.
You just support murdering your political opponents and the good news is you won, I think they accept your standard now too.
Did Charlie Kirk say he supported murder? Yes or no.
Fuck off demon.
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.
It's the same fucking 50 second clip.
You can't look at one bit without looking at the rest, since they all build on each other.
I have no clue why you're so attached to this. Charlie Kirk's point was to be realistic, he wasn't endorsing gun deaths, or supporting it. He genuinely condemned all violence, as far as I can tell, and was deeply saddened by political violence, as well as senseless mass shootings and the like.
He would not support the circumstances in his own death.
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 exactly. If guns are legal, people are going to get shot once in a while. Leftists like the one in the screenshot take this to mean that if you understand this and you don't want guns banned, then you want people to get shot. That's not a reasonable way to look at it at all.
What I'm saying is the Charlie Kirk would not want guns banned, even after having been shot to death.
No. OP's post is incorrect. He would not have wanted his death to be used as an excuse to trample the 2A. He also would not have wanted to be shot. They are not mutually exclusive and framing them that way is retarded.
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?