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.
And he's wrong? Only the government should have guns, or what? Even that doesn't get gun deaths to zero, since the government loves murdering people.
You never answered my questions. Can you get gun deaths to zero, or is Kirk wrong about that? Should Americans have access to guns? Because it seems to me his argument is completely correct, and a no brainer.
We should have the freedom to be armed. And, yes, gun deaths will happen if guns exist...just like how knife deaths happen. Someone will do something bad, and those bad actions should be condemned. But they're going to happen.
I just don't get the counter argument to Charlie's point, unless you remove all the guns, or think he's wrong that gun deaths will never reach zero.
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.
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”
And he's wrong? Only the government should have guns, or what? Even that doesn't get gun deaths to zero, since the government loves murdering people.
You never answered my questions. Can you get gun deaths to zero, or is Kirk wrong about that? Should Americans have access to guns? Because it seems to me his argument is completely correct, and a no brainer.
We should have the freedom to be armed. And, yes, gun deaths will happen if guns exist...just like how knife deaths happen. Someone will do something bad, and those bad actions should be condemned. But they're going to happen.
I just don't get the counter argument to Charlie's point, unless you remove all the guns, or think he's wrong that gun deaths will never reach zero.
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.