Charlie Kirk.

We take the exact same approach to children being knocked down by cars here.

Think how much of an improvement it would be for society if we banned private car ownership and everyone had to travel by public transport or by bike: we'd not only save nearly 200 lives a year (and 40,000 deaths if they did the same in the US) but we'd probably solve obesity in children and improve their mental health enormously, since they could get out and wander around the place like we used to do.

So would it be ok to call anyone who thinks the right to own their own car is more important than all the above, "scum"?

And if one of the petrolheads over on the motoring forum was killed in a car crash, would it be fair enough to suggest that they had "lived by the sword and died by the sword"?

The reality is that we as a society do think that the number of traffic deaths every year is "worth it". It's just that most people aren't honest enough to say so. So what's the difference with Kirk's opinion on guns?

Wasn’t it announced that it was a bolt action rifle? Not sure of the model, but don’t they take individual bullets? Not cartridges.

That's not much of a reason though. Cars and trucks have been used to commit mass killings, and you could as easily say that guns are intended to save lives from attackers, or to hunt for food. Similarly chemicals made to improve food production are used to commit terrorist acts.

So my question remains. Cars are provably harmful to humans, especially to children who don't even get the benefit of car ownership. Would it be fair to call adults who think private car ownership an important right "scum", and to say it was "ironic" if one of them gets killed in a car ramming?

I just like to expose scummy behaviour from the Far left.

Tell me you're a cyclist without telling me.

Kirk's own words:

“I think it’s worth it to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.

Source https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/america-is-gripped-by-political-violence-and-trump-s-vitriol-is-part-of-it/ar-AA1MlvpV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=2a4fbb49869749cfb496ad6962e144b6&ei=46

Oh the irony.

apart from cars and guns , why have you left out hatchets, saws , all kinds of knives including Stake knives, stones screw drivers, baseball bats, rope, twine, ladders, mushrooms, aeroplanes, ship, lilos, gliders, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.? These are things that we use everyday in getting on with life yet they have all been involved in peoples’ death!

The guns/cars argument 😂

Cars are legal so let's give everyone the right to own any type of firearm they want 🤦‍♂️

This post is a classic example of taking quotes out of context to push a lazy narrative. Charlie Kirk's full statement was part of a broader discussion on balancing constitutional rights with societal risks, not a blanket acceptance of "gun deaths". It's disingenuous to clip it like this without the surrounding context, just to score cheap points on virtue signaling.

Again, I'm referring to what I'm saying. You're free to ask questions, make assumptions, spread truth or peddle lies, nobody is stopping you do anything or framing things a certain way - which is kind of ironic given the incident itself.

Not sure what your contention is TBH, but might be worth taking a breath and re-reading the initial response. Not every reply or engagement is a confrontation or challenge.

Charlie was fully in favour of the US second amendment rights though and was quite a liberal when it came to control laws so it's not really being taken out of context when you consider his beliefs

Yes,I'm well aware that there are scumbags on the internet saying stupid things, however these are exactly the sort of people who'd been lecturing everyone else over the years about being kinder etc.

Just pointing out that lefties are very bit as scummy as right wingers are however they've been allowed to pretend otherwise for years.

they've done the same thing with his quote about empathy.