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.
I don’t think it’s worth it that we as a county, and our children, face such a significantly greater risk of death by firearm than most any other country with stricter gun laws. In my ideal scenario, I’d love to reduce this risk as much as possible, which would include a major reform of gun laws.
(Notice im never using the phrase “down to zero”)
Obviously it’s impossible to get gun deaths down to zero because I still think firearms are a necessary tool in many applications. I don’t know why I’m expected to specify this stance lol.
I think yes law abiding Americans should have access to firearms, provided much more strict conditions than what we have now. I think there should be a major crackdown on illegal firearms sales, and guns being sold without training and registration.
I’m not arguing his point at all, I just disagree with it. I don’t think gun deaths are worth it. I don’t think Charlie’s death is worth it, I don’t think schoolchildren 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.
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.
I would say he’s wrong, yes.
I don’t think it’s worth it that we as a county, and our children, face such a significantly greater risk of death by firearm than most any other country with stricter gun laws. In my ideal scenario, I’d love to reduce this risk as much as possible, which would include a major reform of gun laws.
(Notice im never using the phrase “down to zero”)
Obviously it’s impossible to get gun deaths down to zero because I still think firearms are a necessary tool in many applications. I don’t know why I’m expected to specify this stance lol.
I think yes law abiding Americans should have access to firearms, provided much more strict conditions than what we have now. I think there should be a major crackdown on illegal firearms sales, and guns being sold without training and registration.
I’m not arguing his point at all, I just disagree with it. I don’t think gun deaths are worth it. I don’t think Charlie’s death is worth it, I don’t think schoolchildren 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.