“Charlie Kirk supported gun rights and so deserved to be killed.”
That’s an actual argument we’re constantly hearing. But also…
~ Charlie Kirk supported 65mph speed limits — which leads to many deaths above what it would be if the speed limit were 25mph. So would he deserve it if he died in a car accident?
~ Charlie Kirk supported free speech — which can lead sometimes to social manias and societal damage and deaths. So would he deserve it if he somehow died due to misinformation?
~ Charlie Kirk supported people being allowed to rock climb and sky dive — which leads to unnecessary deaths. So would he deserve it if he fell to his death while climbing?
~ Charlie Kirk supported swimming pools being legal — which tragically drown thousands of children each year. Would he “deserve it” if he drowned?
~ Charlie Kirk supported the right to own dogs — and dogs sometimes kill people. Would he “deserve it” if mauled by one?
~ Charlie Kirk supported air travel — which, though safe, still involves occasional crashes. Would he “deserve it” if he died in a plane crash?
~ Charlie Kirk supported allowing people to eat unhealthy food — which contributes to heart disease. Would he “deserve it” if he had a heart attack?
~ Charlie Kirk supported electricity in every home — which occasionally causes house fires. Would he “deserve it” if he died in one?
Freedom entails risk. Cages eliminate risk. But we’re not pets.
