Best not to speculate on motivations at this time, IMO. It's the most likely scenario given his notoriety, but we don't know anything yet and that's a slippery slope.
That is a ridiculous thing to say. In my opinion it’s unconscionable. His point was never “the second amendment is good because you can murder those you disagree with.”
I do believe it was closer to "The second amendment is good and we have to accept some people are going to die because of it". I do have doubts that he expected to be one of those victims.
>"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe." --Charlie Kirk 2023
Is irony a sickness? It may be unpleasant, but as he says, maybe it's a prudent deal.
It's being posted as a gotcha because he fought against firearm control and he was killed with a firearm. His death, like many firearm-related others, would have been significantly less likely to occur if firearm possession was properly regulated and curbed, like it is in many other countries.
>I understand your point. But even if he said otherwise would still be posting this?
>Point is it just seems like a giant gotcha and it’s not fair
Who says life is fair? Was life fair for those school kids in Minnesota? The kids murdered in Uvalde? And on and on and on. Where's the fairness for them?
And why is it more important for Kirk to be treated fairly than those children? That's not a rhetorical question.
I'm not condoning murder. Full stop.
Whoever killed Kirk -- for whatever reason(s) -- should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law by the state of Utah.
To be clear, I didn't know Kirk or anyone in his family. I don't celebrate his death either.
But while it's sad, and even tragic, why is his death more important or relevant than the thousands of other deaths by gun in the US just this year?
All that said, there is a certain irony here -- as he explicitly allowed for exactly this outcome as acceptable in support of the Second Amendment.
And if, as he explicitly said, a certain number of deaths are acceptable (I don't agree, BTW) in support of a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, why isn't his death also an unfortunate, but necessary offshoot of that?
One could argue that advocating against firearm control and regulation has resulted in significantly increased societal harm, which could also be identified as not fair, if not even evil/hateful, especially from those who have directly suffered from it.
Of course two wrongs don't make one right, and people can be more classy than this, but it's a totally understandable sentiment and response.
None of my claims disagree with what you just said. People posting the "gotcha" also likely don't disagree with you.
In fact, I suspect that most hate firearm-related violence and have worked to stop/curb it, and were opposed by Kirk who undeniably unfairly got a taste of his own medicine.
