>I understand your point. But even if he said otherwise would still be posting this? >Point is it just seems like a giant gotcha and it’s not fair Who says li

>I understand your point. But even if he said otherwise would still be posting this? >Point is it just seems like a giant gotcha and it’s not fair Who says life is fair? Was life fair for those school kids in Minnesota? The kids murdered in Uvalde? And on and on and on. Where's the fairness for them? And why is it more important for Kirk to be treated fairly than those children? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm not condoning murder. Full stop. Whoever killed Kirk -- for whatever reason(s) -- should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law by the state of Utah. To be clear, I didn't know Kirk or anyone in his family. I don't celebrate his death either. But while it's sad, and even tragic, why is his death more important or relevant than the thousands of other deaths by gun in the US just this year? All that said, there is a certain irony here -- as he explicitly allowed for exactly this outcome as acceptable in support of the Second Amendment. And if, as he explicitly said, a certain number of deaths are acceptable (I don't agree, BTW) in support of a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, why isn't his death also an unfortunate, but necessary offshoot of that?