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.
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.
Dang, that's so weird, I remember he supported the right to own a gun, not murdering someone in cold blood via assassination.
What they’re referring to is when he said that gun deaths are a necessary circumstance for us to preserve our 2A rights
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”
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.