It's a concession that spree killings will happen.
It's 0.5% of the argument, and it's just debating honestly.
And you justify his murder over that?
Lol k
What is the rest of his argument?
Fair enough - you can see a clip of him bringing out a common part of it here in a YouTube Short.
And thisis the most important part- basically, as it stands we are already sacrificing human lives for human liberty. He uses car crashes in the above clip - 55,000+ Americans die per year in car accidents, yet nobody says we should ban private car ownership because we understand that the inconveniences caused is through the roof. We also would diffuse the blame for these accidents to specific individuals who are guilty of specific acts - we can actually create a system of accountability....
The same can be said of alcohol: 13,000+ deaths of drunk driving in 2024 in the US alone, yet there is no prohibitionist movement in the US that is remotely serious.
Point being: Charlie Kirk supports keeping firearms legally ownable to private citizens because it serves the purpose of defending us from the government and also from criminals...
... And ina much longer format, he would trundle out all the old arguments about guns and crime prevention, and he would even talk about how certain jurisdictions with very high rates of gun ownership experience homicide rates very similar to very safe European states...
Ironically... Look it up...Provo, UTAH,where Charlie died, is one of those places where about half the people own guns and they tend to have 1-2 murders per year in an area with a pop of just over 100k, so they get very European homicide ratenumbers.
Fun fact: there were no murders there for six years between 1999 and 2005.
Play stupid games...