_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
199 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
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.