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.
He said gun deaths are going to happen regardless, we might as well support freedom.
He was saying we should reduce gun deaths, we should fix the culture, and we should have better security. He said he didn't want things like this to happen, and we should do what we can to stop it.
He didn't say they were necessary, he said they were inevitable, that they're going to happen. He did not say they were required to happen. If you want to play at being pedantic, at least be correct.
'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.
When he made those remarks, if we wanna talk context, they were in response to a question specifically referencing children shot in schools. Also gun deaths.
You can also survive a car crash if you’re not wearing a seat belt. However, it’s a safety precaution and helps reduce chance of death significantly
I do not support murder, I can declare that very confidently. I do not support anyone being shot, and I do not support the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
No, I don't buy this single digit IQ act, you do support the assassination of your political opponents. You don't really think that some infant in a kindergarten is affected by the same or similar mortality risk factors as a victim of political murder. You can stop pretending to be this stupid now.
Dying to a gunshot by accident or suicide, dying because you're a child who finds an unsecured gun, dying in a mass shooting, dying because a cop shot you for whatever reason, dying because a criminal chose to shoot you with an unregistered firearm, dying to a shot from a legal concealed carry weapon regardless of justification - all of these are examples of deaths that can be made less likely by restricting gun ownership in a society, albeit with the tradeoff of altering death risk in other ways.
Someone killed by a political enemy - an enemy who can take their entire lifetime to plot the murder should they wish to, using any method they wish to, for the motive of say, ooooooh idk, silencing a proponent of gun ownership - is not affected by any of these risks. They are also not protected by the supposed security offered by firearms restrictions, since the determined assassin can pick any method they want, including making their own gun from scratch as with Shinzo Abe. And of course, a political target is in fact much more likely to benefit from the intended purpose of legal gun ownership which is self-defence, via armed security. The only reason Kirk didn't have this defence in his favour was because he was such a retarded political target for the left, that I guess nobody thought to take the precaution. Nevertheless, he was targeted and every conservative will go that far and further to defend against political violence in future.
You know all these obvious facts of course. I just went through the effort of spelling it out so that your next mental gymnastics will have to be all the more elaborate. Go on, roll around.
Oh sorry, I didn’t realize what I support is determined by you 😂
I understand that stricter gun regulations won’t bring gun deaths down to zero. It’s a trade off I would happily accept if it means that people’s likelihood of survival rises.
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’m not saying he supported political violence
He said that some gun deaths are necessary for us to still have our 2A rights. His death is, unfortunately, a gun death.
He said gun deaths are going to happen regardless, we might as well support freedom.
He was saying we should reduce gun deaths, we should fix the culture, and we should have better security. He said he didn't want things like this to happen, and we should do what we can to stop it.
His exact words were that some gun deaths are “worth it”
He didn't say they were necessary, he said they were inevitable, that they're going to happen. He did not say they were required to happen. If you want to play at being pedantic, at least be correct.
He said they were “worth it.” Direct quote.
I see you are just a retarded faggot. The Twitter morons including the one in the OP are celebrating it.
I don’t see any celebration in OP’s post
Because you're a disingenuous faggot.
Aw poor guy
"Charlie supported what happened to Charlie."
Which is a fucking evil lie.
Charlie acknowledged directly that some gun deaths are necessary.
'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.
It literally is a gun death.
When he made those remarks, if we wanna talk context, they were in response to a question specifically referencing children shot in schools. Also gun deaths.
You can also survive a car crash if you’re not wearing a seat belt. However, it’s a safety precaution and helps reduce chance of death significantly
I do not support murder, I can declare that very confidently. I do not support anyone being shot, and I do not support the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
No, I don't buy this single digit IQ act, you do support the assassination of your political opponents. You don't really think that some infant in a kindergarten is affected by the same or similar mortality risk factors as a victim of political murder. You can stop pretending to be this stupid now.
Dying to a gunshot by accident or suicide, dying because you're a child who finds an unsecured gun, dying in a mass shooting, dying because a cop shot you for whatever reason, dying because a criminal chose to shoot you with an unregistered firearm, dying to a shot from a legal concealed carry weapon regardless of justification - all of these are examples of deaths that can be made less likely by restricting gun ownership in a society, albeit with the tradeoff of altering death risk in other ways.
Someone killed by a political enemy - an enemy who can take their entire lifetime to plot the murder should they wish to, using any method they wish to, for the motive of say, ooooooh idk, silencing a proponent of gun ownership - is not affected by any of these risks. They are also not protected by the supposed security offered by firearms restrictions, since the determined assassin can pick any method they want, including making their own gun from scratch as with Shinzo Abe. And of course, a political target is in fact much more likely to benefit from the intended purpose of legal gun ownership which is self-defence, via armed security. The only reason Kirk didn't have this defence in his favour was because he was such a retarded political target for the left, that I guess nobody thought to take the precaution. Nevertheless, he was targeted and every conservative will go that far and further to defend against political violence in future.
You know all these obvious facts of course. I just went through the effort of spelling it out so that your next mental gymnastics will have to be all the more elaborate. Go on, roll around.
Oh sorry, I didn’t realize what I support is determined by you 😂
I understand that stricter gun regulations won’t bring gun deaths down to zero. It’s a trade off I would happily accept if it means that people’s likelihood of survival rises.
Did Charlie Kirk say he supported murder? Yes or no.
No.
He said that he believes that some gun deaths are worth it if it means the 2A is protected
Fuck off demon.
No thanks
That wasn't a request. You're a literal fucking demon.