I strongly disagree with the right to bear arms. I think allowing civilians to own and carry guns just because they want to is not only ridiculous but also irresponsible and incredibly dangerous.
But I believe others have the right to disagree with my opinion, and to declare their opposition in public.
The young man who murdered Charlie Kirk did so knowing he was in a state which has the death penalty. He either cares so little for his own life or believes he was entitled to murder, that he felt his actions outweighed the risk of execution he now faces. If he values his own life so low, and was prepared to take the life of a stranger, what makes anyone think he’d value the life of a child, his parents, his siblings or anyone else, more? Life is expendable to people like that - yours included.
I hadn’t heard of Charlie Kirk until he was killed. Seeing social media declaring him to be a right-wing fascist monster who advocated killing gay and trans people, but knowing the internet isn’t always reliable, I took a look at some of his videos.
I saw him voice opinions with which I strongly disagree.
I also saw someone who, during a debate with a college-aged trans person, say that his greatest wish was for the trans person to stop trying to medicalise themselves out of their internal trauma and to hopefully learn to become happy in their own body and be at peace with themselves.
I also saw someone who, when talking with a college-aged person who introduced themselves as a gay conservative, say that whilst he personally did not support the young person’s choice of lifestyle, he recognised him as a decent person who held many of the same values and that he welcomed the gay young person into the conservative movement just as he was, without needing to change.
Clearly, Charlie Kirk was a monster.
I could not find him saying that children being shot is an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership, but if he did that does sound very troubling.
But perhaps this wording is a summary, an interpretation, rather than a direct quote. In which case, perhaps we need to consider it against a backdrop of a culture in which gun ownership is the norm. That is difficult for people like me who live in the UK.
But, then again, despite banning gun ownership here, we, as a society, seem to believe that the untimely deaths of 1400 people a year, 70 of whom are children, is an acceptable price to pay for the right to own and drive a car. So maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to condemn Charlie Kirk’s opinion. Those in glass houses etc etc.
As for those mothers who say they wouldn’t turn in their child for murder if they lived in a place with the death penalty - does that only apply to murder? Would you also cover up rape? Oklahoma pushed to allow the death penalty in cases of child rape, a crime that has lasting repercussions for the victim for the rest of their lives. Some victims sadly commit suicide because they cannot deal with the trauma, and rapists are very likely to commit rape multiple times until they are caught.
Would you refuse to turn in your child for rape, thereby potentially allowing your child to rape another, perhaps a victim who then took their own life? Or is it just right-leaning men that you’d allow them to kill?