Charlie Kirk and guns

[Mugfills]

A man has died and that's a terrible thing.

I'd never heard of him, but my sons, neither of whom take a lot of interest in politics generally, did know a lot about him. He was clearly a very skilled politician and debater, and some of the clips I've seen since show a man who could ask some very interesting questions calmly and make (imo) abhorrent positions seem reasonable.

One of the quotes I've seen is

"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."

So, presumably he included his own life as one of those acceptable costs, or did he mostly mean poor black lives and other people's children?

If those people were only killed by a person deliberately crashing into someone or running them over in order to maim and kill and also cars only existed to kill by driving, no other reason at all to have a car except to kill another person then something would probably be done and people would want cars banned.
Guns only exist to kill. It’s not like a gun has another use like enabling people to get to places, so it’s a ridiculous comparison. If all guns were banned human beings would not be inconvenienced in the slightest.

@ForeverScout There’s no legal right to drugs. There is to have guns.

True, but if we're talking freedom, then why aren't people allowed to have drugs? Presumably "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" covers substances you put in your own body.

A legal right to have guns doesn't have to mean anything more than the guns in existence at the time of the second amendment. It doesn't have to mean giving mentally ill people semiautomatic weapons of war with no background checks or any kind of controls whatsoever.

The "legal right" has been taken well beyond what the founders could envision, and just because something is hard or impossible (stopping various illicit trades, or sensible controls on weapons), doesn't mean it's not worth trying. You wouldn't just give up on drugs because of the deaths they cause, why are people giving up on a midground with guns? It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Statistically most Americans, Republicans & Democrats both, support sensible gun control measures. They don't view it as impinging their legal rights. And they're well past done losing people they love.

Beyond that, there used to be a legal right to own slaves, and later to segregate black people from white. There used to be legal right to rape your spouse. Women didn't have the legal right to vote for a long time. They didn't have body autonomy, then they did, now they don't again. Things change, laws can change. There are many ways to interpret and uphold second amendment rights without open slather access to weapons of war.

The reaction to his death was nothing to do with what I wrote. If other people are celebrating his death then that’s weird.

What I have said all the way through our conversation is that his views were extremist and vile. Yes occasionally he spoke sense (in my opinion) but on the whole his entire career was built upon hate, division and extreme prejudice. All tied up nicely with his ‘faith’ 🤢

At no point did I comment on his death.

I read that for every 100 Americans there are 120 guns. There are 850 million guns in private ownership in the world and half of them belong to Americans. Frightening.

This! ☝

Millions of people buy a car. Millions of people buy a gun (where it is legal to do so). Millions of people buy knives. Cars, knives and guns are lethal weapons. Most of the millions buy a car or a gun or knives with no intention of killing anyone.

A small number of car owners have chosen to deliberately kill.
A small proportion of gun owners have chosen to deliberately kill.
A small proportion of knife owners have chosen to deliberately kill.

I see no difference in that the freedom to own any or all of these lethal weapons means that some people will, sadly, pay the price with their lives.

Charlie Kirk did not die 'by the sword' (as some claim) as his 'sword' was freedom of thought; freedom of speech and debate.

Cannabis is legal in some US states

@Pedallleur It’s not legal everywhere. Guns are. The culture is very different as is the history of guns as self defence. Now misused of course. Guns are in the Constitution. Drugs are not.

Absolutely this.

He “debated” with college kids. Cambridge students wiped the floor with him.

His sword was also championing the second amendment and literally saying that school shooting victims were a necessary consequence of the right the bear arms.

Despicable. This person claimed to be Christian? I’m atheist but if I’m wrong and there is a god, surely that god would be in despair right now, people spouting such views in “his” name?

Except that he literally didn't say that.

But it is what is being spun that way.

Yes, he did. He said after the Uvalde shooting in 2022 he said that they were worth it and a “pretty prudent deal”.

Its easily found via Google that this is exactly what he said. He is now a statistic.

He threw gasoline on the fire of division- he supported gun rights. There are worse injustices than for him to be a casualty in a war he sought to profit from.

He said he was happy for lives to be lost in order to keep guns in people’s hands so it’s only right for it to be him frankly.

Well, yes. It's as much as I said. The 'right' to own a gun, a car, a knife means that the consequence will be deaths. It's no different. All are weapons of death. Most of these things are owned by people who mean no harm. Some are owned by people who will accidentally kill. Some are owned by murderous individuals with hatred in their heart who will mow down innocent children and innocent adults.

You're half right. Charlie Kirk's Christian God is sad at the individuals and societies and countries that have turned their face away Him. Fortunately there are many more Christians who will continue to speak the Lord's Truth. That is their great commission.

The Truth is the enemy of lies - therefore the ones who want to stifle the Truth are the ones who are celebrating the violent murder of a daddy, husband and friend and who resort to twisting and misrepresenting a man who merely wanted to engage with people in a gracious and open way to talk/debate/discuss.

It is no unexpected that a certain sector want more than anything to shut down freedom of thought and freedom of expression by resorting to murder and the celebration of that same murder.

Fortunately there is at least one main news outlet that is more honest in their reporting:

the ones who want to stifle the Truth are the ones [...] who resort to twisting and misrepresenting a man who merely wanted to engage with people in a gracious and open way to talk/debate/discuss.

I fear you're a bit stuffed then, aren't you?

As are all the other people misrepresenting Kirk as "merely want[ing] to engage with people in a gracious and open way to talk/debate/discuss".

Because I've now been looking at Kirk's back catalogue. Turning Point's "Professor Watchlist" website is not about merely wanting to engage with people in a gracious and open way to talk/debate/discuss.

I don't see what your issue is then. Ck supported gun ownership, acknowledged and felt deaths were a prudent by product of the second amendment, he has died as a result of that, yet the magas are blaming the dems who are for the most part anti gun.
He and the perpetrator had a right to own a gun and now ck is just another statistic. You live by the sword you die by the sword.

Is the professor watchlist any different form those that have lost jobs, family and friends because of the trans lobby?

As with the deaths due to guns, he said that the deaths were a necessary consequence of having the second amendment which allows gun ownership, others have linked this to the school shootings. (Paraphrased)

as with all of these "quotes" and soundbites I recommend finding videos or writings of those that are supposed to have said them.

It's out of the same box. It sets people up as targets for Twitter storms and mass phone call storms intended to hound them.

So, no, not "merely wanting to engage with people in a gracious and open way to talk/debate/discuss."

Many people in the US are trying to bring in gun laws and other measures to reduce gun-related deaths in the US. That's why it's a contentious issue that been part of every election cycle since before Columbine. I don't think it's right to erase that and claim 'nobody' is doing so just because it hasn't been as successful as people would like.

And no, I don't think gun bans are going to happen in the US any time soon, even with all the work going on. I do think looking more into ammo than the guns might be a better step, but it's still a hard slog with the right to guns woven deep into the mythos of US founding and beyond.

The experience of Prof Stacey Patton, for example.

https://www.left-horizons.com/2025/09/12/us-professor-speaks-out-on-charlie-kirk/

I don't agree with everything Patton says, any more than I agree with everything Kirk says.

If you set out your stall claiming to be allll about free speech, about allowing people to express and debate ideas even if they are anathema to you, then this treatment of Patton has no place.

But it seems that Turning Point is about free speech for me, but not for thee.

And by the way, I agree with @FrippEnos about the importance of following back to the source of soundbites, to hear more and hear context.

I've been doing this.

That's why I've formed the opinion I have of Kirk.

In many cases it's actually worse in the long form.