>There was a school shooting on the same day as Kirk's death: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/students-wounded-shooti... If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms", brushing it aside to be forgotten. He of course did so many times in life, notably in 2023 when he was quoted doing so in the media:
Notice they said "he would be writing and speaking about how such violence...is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable - even necessary - to 'preserve our freedoms.'"
To which you responded:
>He would have really advocated for violence, or school shootings? That seems odd.
Where did they say "advocated" or "encouraged" or anything remotely like that? "Acceptable" and "necessary" are not saying "pro-" as you are implying they said. So right out the gate you are misrepresenting the person and moving the goalposts so that a bar which you have established on your own must be met.
So my question is: why should anyone feel obligated to meet your challenge? They said Kirk ultimately determined that these sacrifices are acceptable, even necessary, for the second amendment which he considered a good thing worthy of virtually any cost. You twisted that into claiming he was advocating for violence and school shootings. Clearly that is not what they said at all.
The way you’re approaching this discussion is the same way people like Shapiro and Kirk (used to) approach debates. Just like the above quote from Charlie where he said it’s [sic] “ridiculous to expect no deaths in a country that allows guns.“ Who said zero deaths? Why is that the bar and who set it? It clearly isn’t reasonable. But when pundits like them says things like that, they get to paint anybody who disagrees with them as having foolish expectations