“Charlie Kirk supported gun rights and so deserved to be killed”

“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.