_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
444
Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth it to Keep 2nd Amendment [2023]
(www.newsweek.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
444 points (98.3% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
7748 readers
186 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is obviously not LAMF.
If someone said "it's unfortunate that some people die in car crashes, but that doesn't mean we should ban cars", and then they're killed by a drunk driver, would you call that LAMF? Was that person advocating for people to be killed in car crashes?
Obviously not.
In this case it would be akin to someone arguing that you should be allowed drink and drive getting hit by a drunk driver.
No it wouldn't, that's a false analogy.
He didn't say you should be allowed to shoot people and/or use a gun in any unlawful way (which is what's analogous to 'drink and drive'), he said you should be allowed to own a gun (which is what's equivalent to owning a car).
He literally said that we have to accept people are going to be shot and killed in the name of gun rights though
That's not the same as advocating for killing other people with guns, which is what he would have had to do for him being killed by a gun to be a LAMF.
Maybe someone could own a gun. Possibly a shotgun for a farm or game hunting. But there is no need for anyone to have a hand gun or an AR15.
So for this analogy: Shotgun = car with regular driver AR15 = car with a drunk driver
but interestingly, Kirk was killed by a single shot outside the range of an AR15. Perhaps a musket, as the forefathers were considering when they wrote the second amendment.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Semi-automatic muskets as god intended!
Have you ever shot an AR? The effective range is about 600 yards and this shot was 140. That's stupid easy with an AR. I'm not a great shot and I can easily shoot a <1-inch grouping at 150 yards.
That being said, it was a bolt action rifle which is inherently more accurate.
It's a good means of self-defense from an assailant. I personally hate guns and would never own one, but I must concede that, for example, women owning guns instantly levels the playing field, re assault and the disadvantage they usually have against a male assailant, etc.
Apparently it's popular enough of a hunting rifle for web pages like this to exist (found via a quick Google), and you already conceded hunting as a justified application for a gun.
The apt analogy would be if someone said: "drunk drivers kill some people, unfortunately, but that is the price to have all the booze we want"... and then they get killed by a drunk driver
Well, that's not quite as good an analogy, because it's not the alcohol itself that causes the death, re a drunk driver. It would be equally as strong as my analogy, however, if it was tweaked to 'it's unfortunate that some people die from alcohol poisoning, but that doesn't mean we should ban alcohol'.
he was never referring to the shooters dying... he was talking about the innocent lives the shooter easily takes with a gun
if you are going to troll, at least put your mind to it
I see your point about the LAMF thing, but that's such a dishonest comparison. Your post history seems reasonable enough so I'm hoping you won't just be a dick about this. The difference is cars aren't a tool specifically for killing people. You're even changing the context in your comparison, this isn't a drunk driver killing a dude, it's someone intentionally hitting a man with their car. When the US gets a global reputation for being the place kids constantly take their parents' cars to school to kill other kids it'll be a fine point, until then it's hurting your case.
For the record, I'm not condoning or celebrating this either. I'm not going to mourn the prick, but I don't support openly murdering people and see no appeal in laughing or joking about it.
Honesty has nothing to do with it. People are calling it LAMF because they are falsely equivocating saying you should have the right to own a gun, with saying you should have the right to shoot people. That's all there is to it. All I've done is point out the equivocation--in the absence of it, it's obvious this isn't LAMF.
I don't believe you'll find me 'being a dick' about anything in my history, so don't worry.
That isn't really relevant, though.
The point is simply that in order to something to be LAMF, the thing that was advocated for others must be the same thing that's happened to the 'LAMF'd'.
Kirk was advocating for maintaining the right to own a gun. Not for the right to shoot people.
On top of that, another aspect that's required is that the thing being advocated for is intended by the 'LAMF'd to apply only to certain others, and the LAMF comes in when it ends up applying to them as well (hence "never thought they'd eat my face"). In this case, he was advocating for gun ownership to be a right, in other words, something that applies to everyone. It's literally impossible for something that's advocated for everyone to become a LAMF situation; the 'for them but not me' assumption is a necessary component of the 'before'.
But Kirk advocated for the right of owning a gun, analogous to owning a car. Not with unlawfully (accidentally or not) shooting someone, analogous to (accidentally or not) running someone over (which thankfully is always unlawful, lol).
Thoughts?
Sorry, you've misunderstood, I don't disagree about any of that. I was talking about your use of car ownership as a comparison to gun ownership. It's something I see come up a lot in gun rights arguments and it's always seemed so unreasonable to me because of the difference I mentioned being so vital (perhaps because I live in a country much less... enthusiastic about guns). There's no reason for us to have that particular discussion and I have zero interest in doing so, I just took issue with your comparison, that's all.
I understand you wanting to differentiate a weapon from a non-weapon causing the death, but it really doesn't impact the analogy I don't think, because in either case, the intended use of X is to use it when justified (e.g. re a gun, for hunting if it's that kind of gun, for self-defense if a handgun, etc.). Now, if there was zero application for X that was justifiable for a random individual to possess, then I'd be more on board with your point (e.g. an explosive beyond 'firecracker strength').
Well, I live in the US, and I personally abhor guns, but I try (more than most, in my experience, hence my chosen alias) not to let it bias my arguments.
This is by no means any sort of 'pro-gun' argument. It's just that, since this is a themed community, when I see something that doesn't follow the theme, if I feel like it at the time, I'll point it out. That's really all there was to it, lol.