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.
Let's change only the subject of Charlie Kirk's quote so you can see that what he's saying is completely rational.
Imagine the government and the left are trying to ban cars because some people die in car accidents. Charlie sees this as absurd as would anyone.
"some car deaths are necessary for us to still have our right to drive cars"
Obviously the point he's making is obvious when you see this. He's not saying that car deaths are a requirement to the right to own cars, merely that when the pros and cons of allowing the people to own cars vs not owning cars are weighed, the inevitable deaths that will happen from car deaths are necessary for the overall pro which far outweighs the cons. It's thinking with your head instead of your emotions.
If you took away everything that could potentially harm someone, you'd be living in the UK where they confiscate butter knives from your car, or declare a pencil a deadly weapon.
His point is nations that enforce constitutional rights, particularly those made for the benefit of the citizens, where some people die, is better than nations that strip those rights and take away freedom from the citizens and about the same amount of people die.
Mexico doesn't allow guns. I believe there's like a single gun store where you can legally buy guns in the entire country, and yet it's one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the Cartel having plenty of guns.
Anyone taking Charlies quote as some sort of Karmic point are intentionally not seeing the point he's making. And that's not even getting into the fact that he was specifically targeted and assassinated which is far rarer an occurrence and falls into a much smaller percentage than mere gun deaths. If a mall shooting happened and he happened to be an unfortunate bystander caught in the crossfire, the quote would be more apt, and while Charlie would still defend the 2nd Amendment, because defending the 2nd Amendment and not being pro killing are not mutually exclusive (quite the opposite in fact) at least then the Redditors would have a bit more leg to stand on.
But the fact that this was a targeted intentional assassination of Charlie Kirk himself, puts him in a small group of people in history, fairly seperate from the mere "death by gun" statistic which is highly inflated by gang violence, suicide, etc.
When you remove hispanic and black gun violence, we have gun violence akin to most European countries like Denmark, Finland, etc.
Yes it would be absolutely absurd for governments to ban cars to prevent car deaths, because in the USA it is necessary tool for many people to get groceries, or go to work, etc. Cars are a necessary form of travel (better public/mass transport investments would help fix this, since that’s something the US as a whole is MAJORLY lacking, but I digress).
However, we do regulate car ownership pretty heavily. Cars require license plates and annual registration. We require to have our license with us at all times when we operate them. We require driving tests even when we move to a new state, because we have to adhere to their laws in registration.
Gun ownership, not so much. I got a gun as a gift not too long ago. As far as anykne is concerned, I don’t own one. But it’s in my closet. My brother bought it online.
Charlie made this statement, just for the record, in response to a question referencing school shootings, where these aren’t bystanders of gang violence, but the literal targets.
You know the leading cause of death of school children in the US?
Guns ARE heavily regulated, in fact to a degree that is easily arguable to be unconstitutional.
There's this false idea that's pushed by media that Europeans and even some Americans believe that you can just walk in with an ID into a gun shop and walk out with an AR-15 as easy as buying a birthday cake from the grocery.
We're not even allowed to own machine guns anymore when back in the day the tommy gun was actually marketed to farmers as a great defense weapon against bandits.
The most regulated cities in America are the most dangerous with guns.
Chicago, no guns allowed. New York City, no guns allowed....would you feel safer there or any of the other states and cities that have much laxer gun laws?
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.
Let's change only the subject of Charlie Kirk's quote so you can see that what he's saying is completely rational.
Imagine the government and the left are trying to ban cars because some people die in car accidents. Charlie sees this as absurd as would anyone.
"some car deaths are necessary for us to still have our right to drive cars"
Obviously the point he's making is obvious when you see this. He's not saying that car deaths are a requirement to the right to own cars, merely that when the pros and cons of allowing the people to own cars vs not owning cars are weighed, the inevitable deaths that will happen from car deaths are necessary for the overall pro which far outweighs the cons. It's thinking with your head instead of your emotions.
If you took away everything that could potentially harm someone, you'd be living in the UK where they confiscate butter knives from your car, or declare a pencil a deadly weapon.
His point is nations that enforce constitutional rights, particularly those made for the benefit of the citizens, where some people die, is better than nations that strip those rights and take away freedom from the citizens and about the same amount of people die.
Mexico doesn't allow guns. I believe there's like a single gun store where you can legally buy guns in the entire country, and yet it's one of the most dangerous places on earth, with the Cartel having plenty of guns.
Anyone taking Charlies quote as some sort of Karmic point are intentionally not seeing the point he's making. And that's not even getting into the fact that he was specifically targeted and assassinated which is far rarer an occurrence and falls into a much smaller percentage than mere gun deaths. If a mall shooting happened and he happened to be an unfortunate bystander caught in the crossfire, the quote would be more apt, and while Charlie would still defend the 2nd Amendment, because defending the 2nd Amendment and not being pro killing are not mutually exclusive (quite the opposite in fact) at least then the Redditors would have a bit more leg to stand on.
But the fact that this was a targeted intentional assassination of Charlie Kirk himself, puts him in a small group of people in history, fairly seperate from the mere "death by gun" statistic which is highly inflated by gang violence, suicide, etc.
When you remove hispanic and black gun violence, we have gun violence akin to most European countries like Denmark, Finland, etc.
Very well said.
You bring up a good point worth discussing.
Yes it would be absolutely absurd for governments to ban cars to prevent car deaths, because in the USA it is necessary tool for many people to get groceries, or go to work, etc. Cars are a necessary form of travel (better public/mass transport investments would help fix this, since that’s something the US as a whole is MAJORLY lacking, but I digress).
However, we do regulate car ownership pretty heavily. Cars require license plates and annual registration. We require to have our license with us at all times when we operate them. We require driving tests even when we move to a new state, because we have to adhere to their laws in registration.
Gun ownership, not so much. I got a gun as a gift not too long ago. As far as anykne is concerned, I don’t own one. But it’s in my closet. My brother bought it online.
Charlie made this statement, just for the record, in response to a question referencing school shootings, where these aren’t bystanders of gang violence, but the literal targets.
You know the leading cause of death of school children in the US?
Guns ARE heavily regulated, in fact to a degree that is easily arguable to be unconstitutional.
There's this false idea that's pushed by media that Europeans and even some Americans believe that you can just walk in with an ID into a gun shop and walk out with an AR-15 as easy as buying a birthday cake from the grocery.
We're not even allowed to own machine guns anymore when back in the day the tommy gun was actually marketed to farmers as a great defense weapon against bandits.
The most regulated cities in America are the most dangerous with guns.
Chicago, no guns allowed. New York City, no guns allowed....would you feel safer there or any of the other states and cities that have much laxer gun laws?