Charlie Kirk shot dead today

[Sean007]

This is exactly the problem. That 20-second clip is a classic case of cherry-picking to push a narrative. Without the full discussion, it’s impossible to see what he was actually addressing, the nuance, or the examples he gave.

Here ya go:

It is not any différent that in the shorter clip. You can think hé is right or wrong hé is promoting more guns despite the fat that the US has more guns that any country in the world and more deaths by guns per capita as well. You can think gun contrôle would not change anything and putting armes guards everywhere is the solution. His comparison with driving is preposterous, as I dont think there are significsnt variances in the world on car accidents ( never researched it)…. everyine meeds a driver licence. Again it is a matter of opinion but that is what he said. He packages it well, he is a good speaker, but he is wrong in my view. But still no reason to shoot him nor to be happy about his death which is still a tragedy.

 

[Valentina Amante]

It is not any différent that in the shorter clip. You can think hé is right or wrong hé is promoting more guns despite the fat that the US has more guns that any country in the world and more deaths by guns per capita as well. You can think gun contrôle would not change anything and putting armes guards everywhere is the solution. His comparison with driving is preposterous, as I dont think there are significsnt variances in the world on car accidents ( never researched it)…. everyine meeds a driver licence. Again it is a matter of opinion but that is what he said. He packages it well, he is a good speaker, but he is wrong in my view. But still no reason to shoot him nor to be happy about his death which is still a tragedy.

As I mentioned, I’ve never been a CK fanatic, I don’t follow him religiously, and I’ve even roasted him once, just like I do with pretty much every politician.

That said, context matters. This particular version of the clip sheds a lot more light on what he was actually trying to say, and it changes the way you interpret his point. Without it, the meaning can be easily misunderstood... as it has been.

 

[neverbored]

If you Read the whole sentence written by Eager Beaver it was worded as a potential explanation or an educated guess, not as a statement of fact. Not sure why you used only a portion of his text.

I don't know why you could't understand the reason I didn't need his whole post. Only the part I was curious about...

just seemes like "it seems possible" or even an "educated guess" pretty random statement to make without anything to support it don't you think? hence my question for clarification.