查理·柯克在 2023 年重新发布的视频中表示，为了保护我们的权利，枪击死亡是“值得的”（1）

 
@ashb8068
I don’t agree with what happened to Charlie, but Charlie agrees with what happened to him.
 
虽然我并不认同发生在查理身上的事情，但是查理本人却认同这种会降临到他身上的结局。
 
@d.joseph98
“We need fathers in the household to decrease gun violence.” Charlie Kirk shooter had a father in the household
 
“我们需要家庭中有父亲的存在来减少枪支暴力。”而枪击查理·柯克的凶手他自己的家庭中就有父亲。
 
@skittlemilks1614
Charlie Kirk supported what happened to Charlie Kirk
 
查理·柯克所支持的立场，恰恰导致了他自身遭遇的这件事。
 
@kalen8693
If you say deaths are ever worth it to protect anything. You are no longer human.
 
如果你竟然认为为了保护任何东西，付出死亡的代价都是值得的，那么你就已经不再配称为人了。
 
@donnaelliot390
I can't think of a more important "God-given right" than the right to exist.....FYI, God didn't give us the right to bare arms, he didn't create the 2nd amendment or guns, and he certainly didn't mention guns at any point......
 
我想不出还有什么比生存权更重要的“上帝赋予的权利”了。顺便说一句，上帝并没有赋予我们持枪的权利，他也没有创造第二修正案或者枪支，而且他在任何场合都肯定没有提到过枪支。
 
@Alexander-Kurtz
Ironically, Kirk's death is just violence statistics, the kind of gun's deaths, he deemed as: "worth to have a cost of gun's deaths to protect our Second Amendment...".
 
具有讽刺意味的是，柯克的死亡现在仅仅成了暴力统计数字中的一个，而这正是他本人曾认为“为了保护我们的第二修正案，值得付出的一种枪支死亡代价”。
 
@IshmaelSheo
Doesn't seem like that for the rest of the world. The US is the only country that has 'school shooting drills'. Think about that.
 
但在世界其他国家看来并非如此。美国是唯一一个进行"校园枪击演练"的国家。大家仔细想想这个问题。
 
@Summertimers
He had good points in the beginning but then that last line is what got him, not trying to joke but he should have ended his talk before that last quote. He had his point across that we will never get rid of gun deaths but we can try to reduce them. End it there.
 
他开场的论点很有道理，但最后那句话让他前功尽弃。并非开玩笑地说，他本应在引用最后那句之前就结束发言。他已经清楚地表达了核心观点：我们永远无法完全消除枪支死亡，但可以努力减少伤亡。到此为止就恰到好处。
 
@donnaelliot390
I don't think Kirk was counting on him being one of the "some", when he said, "I think it's worth it, I think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year". Sadly, he didn't appear to care if the "some" were your kids or loved ones. Karma!
 
当柯克说出"我认为这是值得的，不幸的是每年付出一些枪支死亡的代价是值得的"时，他恐怕没料到自己会成为这"一些人"中的一员。可悲的是，他似乎根本不在乎这些"一些人"是否会是你的孩子或亲人。这就是因果报应！
 
@dub604
So a man who made millions of dollars rationalizing school shootings as an acceptable tradeoff for gun liberty, has DIED, after being shot at a university and we're supposed to shed a tear? On the same day that children were shot at a school in Colorado?
 
一个靠将校园枪击合理化为枪支自由的可接受的代价而赚取数百万美元的人，在大学校园里中弹身亡了，难道我们还要为此落泪吗？而且这事就发生在科罗拉多州学校儿童遭枪击的同一天？
 
@nineiron1481
When the "chickens come home to roost"!! For those who witnessed this mans violent death at the hand of a white male from a conservative two parent home, who loved guns, makes you wonder if the "Higher Power" is trying to send another message to the civilized people. Just imagine if you can what those little kids in the classrooms experienced as a result of those high powered rifle rounds hitting their little bodies. And what did America do? NOTHING, NOT A THING!!
 
这真是"恶有恶报"！！目睹这名男子死于一个来自保守的双亲家庭、热爱枪支的白人男性之手，让人不禁思考上天是否在试图向文明社会传递另一个信息。试想一下，那些教室里的小孩子们被大威力步枪子弹击中幼小身躯时的感受。而美国又做了什么呢？毫无作为，完全没有采取任何行动！
 
@antuerpiasunday564
For those who go to college but can’t understand a statement: what he was saying is that is highly important for a society to have the right to protect themselves- and by doing it - we are of course at risk of unfortunate events to occur like murders and evil things happening. He said he is realistic to the fact that if you give the right of a gun to people- it’s impossible to say there will be no evil crimes happening. He believes what can be done is rules so we can get those numbers down, including more present fathers and strong family upbringing and faith culture to help. However it’s utopic to think evil crimes won’t happen. And although they would happen, it’s still worth to keep the right of protect yourself- also because evil is in people. Even if guns are out- you just saw a girl being stabbed on a train station. Would you stop making knives too ?
So his point is: it’s worth to have the right of protection.
Also, please notice that 70% of criminals guns are illegally gained. So, no matter if you make it difficult for a regular good citizen to have one- the bad guys will gain it illegal ways.
Now you know what drives people to killing is also ideology and hate.
Love each other, hear each other and be open to facts!
 
对于那些上大学却理解不了基本论述的人们，他所说的核心观点是：一个社会拥有自我保护的权利至关重要，但这样做确实会面临谋杀等恶性事件发生的风险。他清醒地认识到，当赋予民众持枪权时，根本不可能完全杜绝恶性犯罪的发生。他认为可行的做法是通过立法来降低犯罪率，包括增加父亲对家庭的陪伴、强化家庭教育以及信仰文化的引导。然而，幻想彻底消灭罪恶犯罪根本是不切实际的乌托邦。尽管恶性案件仍会发生，保留自我保护的权利依然值得坚持，毕竟人性中本就存在恶的因子。即使全面禁枪，你们不也刚刚目睹了地铁站里女孩被刺杀的新闻吗？难道还要因此禁止刀具生产吗？
所以他的核心论点就是：拥有自我保护的权利是值得的。
另外请注意，犯罪分子使用的枪支中有70%都是非法获取的。这意味着即便给守法公民设置再多持枪障碍，犯罪分子照样能通过非法渠道获得武器。
现在你们该明白了，驱动人们杀戮的还有意识形态和仇恨。
请用爱对待彼此，倾听不同的声音，并始终保持对事实的开放态度！
 
@16dalife20
He said a few gun deaths are worth it, but he didn't realize it was going to be his
 
他曾说过少数枪击死亡是值得付出的代价，但却没有意识到最终会轮到自己头上。
 
@thomasthompson6378
"I think it's worth it to have the costs of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." I cannot think of a single lawyer, of either party, who would agree with this.
 
"我认为每年付出一些枪击死亡的代价是值得的，这样我们才能保留第二修正案来守护上帝赋予我们的其他权利。"我实在想不出有任何律师——无论是哪个党派——会认同这种荒谬的说法。
 
@patriciapalmer3899
Would he, given his stance that a few deaths are "worth it," have been willing to pay that cost with his own life? Would he have sacrificed one of his children, or anyone else he cared about? Or did he think such deaths are only worth it if they are someone else's problem?
 
既然他坚持认为少数人的死亡"值得付出代价"，那他是否愿意用自己的生命来承担这个代价？他是否愿意牺牲自己的孩子或是其他在乎的人？还是说，他只认为当死亡发生在别人身上时才是值得的？
 
@mikoake
The national outpouring of grief for this guy is sickening! He was OK with gun deaths of other people. By the way, any national sympathy for the mass shooting that took place on the same day? No?
 
全国为这个人表达的哀悼简直令人作呕！他当初对他人死于枪击可是毫不在意的。顺便问一句，同一天发生的大规模枪击案可曾获得过全国性的同情？没有吧？
 
@Stationair-t6h
The 2nd Amendment was written in 1791 shortly after the Revolutionary War. It was designed to let the common man carry a weapon to protect against a 'tyrannical government' - in other words it was written to prevent another Revolutionary War happening. But i's a COMPLETELY outdated and absurd law now. It's literally like the British people today wanting the right to own medi crossbows as a defense against a tyrannical king. It's ridiculous. So many thousands of innocent people dead because of a law some guys in wigs wrote nearly 250 years ago in a completely different political era..
 
《第二修正案》于1791年在美国独立战争结束后不久颁布。这项法案的初衷是让普通民众能够携带武器来防范"暴政政府"——换句话说，其立法的目的就是为了避免再次发生独立战争那样的武装冲突。但时至今日，这已经完全成了过时且荒谬的法律。这就好比现在的英国民众要求拥有中世纪的弩箭作为对抗暴君的权利一样荒唐。仅仅因为250年前一群戴假发的立法者在完全不同的政治环境下制定的法律，数以万计的无辜民众失去了生命。
 
@joedit3233
What if someone had instead said, I fully understand that to have the right to have backyard swimming pools, that 400 of our children will die of drowning deaths each year. I think it's worth it. Because that's how many kids drown in pools every year for us to have the luxury of swimming pools. So apparently we as Americans think it's worth it
. . . .Or, instead said, I think the right to drink alcohol in America, have a beer after work or a glass of wine at dinner is worth the more than 11,000 alcohol related traffic deaths of men women and children in the United States each year. Otherwise the same people who want to ban guns would also want to ban alcohol if they truly cared about innocent deaths. Because that's how America feels even if they don't come out and honestly say it like Kirk did. Because even though most who have swimming pools or drink alcohol will never be involved in a related death, just as 99% of gun owners will never be involved in a gun related death.
 
假如有人这样表态：我完全清楚拥有后院游泳池的权利意味着每年会有400个孩子溺水身亡，但我认为这是值得的，因为这就是我们为享受游泳池的便利所付出的代价。显然我们美国人认为这样的交换是合理的。或者换种说法：我认为在美国享有饮酒的权利——无论是下班后喝杯啤酒还是晚餐时品杯葡萄酒——其价值超过了每年超过11000名男女老少因酒驾交通事故丧生的代价。如果那些要求禁枪的人真的在乎无辜者的生命，那么按照同样的逻辑他们也应该要求禁酒。这就是美国社会真实的想法，尽管大多数人不会像柯克这样坦诚地说出来。因为就像绝大多数拥有游泳池或饮酒的人永远不会卷入相关死亡事件一样，99%的枪支持有者也永远不会涉及枪支致死事件。
 
@accurategamer7085
They don't want you to have guns not for safety but so they can be psychopathic more freely. Look at UK and these assassinations. They hate guns but love using them to hurt others.
 
他们禁止民众持枪根本不是为了安全考量，而是为了让当权者能更肆无忌惮地施行暴政。看看英国最近发生的那些刺杀事件就知道了——那些政客自己憎恶枪支，却比谁都热衷于用枪支来伤害他人。
 
@GrimmJohn6
“It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” This aged so well
 
"虽然每年都要付出一些枪支暴力死亡的代价，但为了捍卫宪法第二修正案，这些都是值得的。" 如今再看这番言论，简直讽刺到了极点。
 
@ryan85208
This is literally how the founding fathers looked at our rights. By having them there would be bad things that happen but feedom and the good that comes with it out weighs the bad.
 
这正是开国元勋们对待公民权利的根本立场。他们清醒地认识到，保留这些权利固然会带来某些负面影响，但自由本身及其衍生的积极价值永远要比那些弊端重要得多。
 
@99firebell
Love by the sword; Die by the sword.
I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure. - Clarence Darrow
 
凡动刀者，必死于刀下。
我从未刻意诅咒过任何人死亡，但确实曾带着极大的欣慰阅读过某些讣告。——克莱伦斯·丹诺
 
@bartdierickx4630
Epic logic same as: We shouldn't have speed limits cause you can't reduce fatal car accidents to zero and it's our god given right to drive as fast as we can.
 
这般史诗级荒谬的逻辑就好比说：我们根本不应该设置车速限制，既然无法将致命的交通事故降为零，那么开多快就应该是我们上帝赋予的权利。
 
@bopmathews
Having more armed guards at schools?? How about having a better society where you can go to school without fear of being killed???
 
在学校部署更多武装警卫？为什么不从根本上建设一个更美好的社会，让孩子们能够毫无恐惧地安心上学呢？
 
@NextWaveProductions
No one is saying that better gun control laws will lead to zero deaths, Charlie, but they will at least make it harder for people who shouldnt have guns, to get guns.. If he knew that he was going to be shot in front of his family , would he feel the same.
 
查理，根本没有人说过加强枪支管控就能彻底杜绝命案，但至少这能让不该持枪的人更难获得枪支。如果他早知道自己会在家人面前遭遇枪击，难道还会坚持同样的立场吗？
 
@willienillie6337
Power of the tongue. He supported what happened to him in order to protect our god given right. Why are people in denial?
 
这就是言语的力量。他为了维护上帝赋予我们的权利，最终亲身承受了自己所支持的后果。人们为何就不敢直面这个事实呢？
 
@marineman2298
If Nancy Pelosi was assassinated in the same manner, would Air Force 2 bring her body home? Accompanied by the Vice President?
I don’t condone what happened to Charlie. Charlie condoned what happened to Charlie.
 
倘若南希·佩洛西遭遇同样方式的暗杀，难道会出动空军二号运送灵柩返乡吗？还需要副总统亲自随行护航吗？
我虽然不认同发生在查理身上的这场悲剧，但查理本人可是始终纵容着最终反噬自身的暴力行为。
 
@dub604
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage." (Charlie Kirk: "The Charlie Kirk Show" on Oct. 12, 2022)
I do not support what happened to Charlie Kirk. But let’s be clear... Charlie Kirk supported what happened to Charlie Kirk….
When Paul Pelosi was attacked Charlie Kirk called on his supporters to donate money to the attackers bail fund so where do we donate money to Tyler Robinson's bail/defence fund? It's what Charlie would have wanted.
 
"说实话我实在受不了'共情'这个词，在我看来这根本是新时代生造出来的伪概念——它造成的危害远大于益处。"（查理·柯克：2022年10月12日《查理·柯克秀》节目发言）
我绝不支持发生在查理·柯克身上的袭击事件，但我们必须把话说清楚...查理·柯克本人始终在纵容最终反噬自身的暴力行为...
当初保罗·佩洛西遇袭时，查理·柯克公开号召支持者给袭击者的保释基金捐款，那么现在我们应该往泰勒·罗宾逊的保释/辩护基金哪个账户打款呢？这分明是查理生前最乐见其成的做法啊。
 
@WiIdCuriosity
"You'll never live in a society with an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That's nonsense... I THINK IT IS WORTH TO HAVE A COST OF, UNFORTUNATELY, SOME GUN DEATH EVERY SINGLE YEAR. So that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights, That is a prudent deal." - Charlie Kirk
Kirk didn't deserve to die by gun violence, nobody does but this is a clear example of reaping what you sow.
 
"你永远不可能生活在一个公民普遍持枪却完全没有枪支死亡的社会，这种想法根本就是无稽之谈...我认为每年不幸付出一定数量的枪支死亡代价是值得的。唯有如此，我们才能通过第二修正案来守护上帝赋予我们的其他权利，这实属明智的交易。"——查理·柯克
柯克确实不该死于枪支暴力，任何人都不该遭遇这种不幸，但眼下这种情况恰恰印证了什么叫自食其果。
 
@tracyc4099
Countries with consistently low gun violence rates, such as Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, which include extensive background checks, mental health uations, and significant restrictions on who can own firearms and what types are permitted. These nations have very few firearms in civilian hands, with police carrying handguns and civilians limited to shotguns and rifles under strict conditions.
 
日本、新加坡和韩国等枪支暴力率持续处于低位的国家都实施了全球最严格的枪支管制法律。这些法律体系包含全面的背景审查、心理健康评估，并对持枪的资格及枪械类型实行重大限制。在这些国家，民间持有的枪支数量极少：警察配备手枪，平民则只能在严格条件下使用猎枪和步枪。
 
@NathanJamieson-y6q
First things first… I am not American nor did I know Charlie Kirk personally. However I can see when people cut parts of a statement so they can say “See??? I was right!” It’s the same thing my children do when they deliberately leave out details of a story to suit their narrative or interests. What is the saddest thing about this type of lying is that whoever does it acts like it’s the truth even when they know it’s not, and other people believe them without looking into it themselves. When the blind lead the blind they both fall in the well.
 
首先需要声明的是...我并非美国人，也与查理·柯克素未谋面，但我能明显看出有些人通过断章取义来宣称"看吧？？？我说得没错！"。这种行径就像我家孩子们为迎合自己说法或利益而故意遗漏细节时的表现。最可悲的是，撒谎者即便心知肚明也在煞有介事地表演，而其他人不经核实就轻信这些谎言。当盲人给盲人引路时，最终只会双双坠入井底。
 
@Therese.T-t1u
First off, Charlie literally said we need more armed guards and stronger security in schools to PROTECT kids. That alone proves he wasn’t shrugging off shootings — he was demanding real solutions.
People twisting his words into “Charlie thinks school shootings are worth it” are flat-out lying. What he actually said is that freedom comes with tradeoffs — which is true of every freedom we enjoy. He NEVER said he’s okay with kids dying.
Look at the numbers: the CDC reports ~46,000 gun deaths a year, and more than HALF are suicides. But people push this false narrative as if every single one is a school shooting. That’s not just misleading — it’s manipulative.
Meanwhile, studies show 55,000 to over a million Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) every year. That’s tens of thousands — maybe millions — of families who didn’t become victims because someone had the means to fight back. Sometimes the gun isn’t even fired; just having it prevents the crime.
So ask yourself: why ignore those lives saved? Why do you want to strip away the right of ordinary people to defend their families? Would you really rather let innocent people be slaughtered by criminals just to push a talking point?
Charlie’s point was clear: protect kids with real security, protect families with their rights, and stop pretending the only story here is mass shootings.
 
首先，查理的的确确说过我们需要在学校里配备更多武装警卫和更强的安保力量来保护孩子们。单凭这一点就足以证明他根本没有对枪击事件漠不关心——他是在呼吁真正的解决方案。
那些把他的言论扭曲成“查理认为校园枪击是值得付出的代价”的人完全是在撒谎。他实际表达的是自由必然伴随权衡的取舍——我们享有的每项自由皆然如此。他从未表示过可以接受儿童伤亡。
看看数据：美国疾控中心报告每年约4.6万起枪支死亡案例，其中超过半数属于自杀。但有人刻意营造错误的叙事，仿佛每起案件都是校园枪击。这不仅是误导——更是蓄意的操纵。
与此同时，研究显示每年有5.5万至超过100万次防御性枪支使用案例，这意味着数万乃至数百万家庭因持枪自卫而免于受害。有些时候枪支甚至无需击发，单是展示就阻止了犯罪。
请扪心自问：为何要忽视这些被拯救的生命？为何要剥夺普通人保护家人的权利？难道为了宣扬某个观点，就真的宁愿眼睁睁看着无辜者被罪犯屠戮吗？
查理的立场很明确：用切实的安保保护孩子，用合法的权利守护家庭，别再假装大规模枪击是唯一值得关注的故事。
 
@JasonShearin-t6g
Then clearly he approves of what happened to him. He ensured the 2nd amendment is going nowhere, just like he always wanted ti do.
Now, report my comment to the FBI as calling for more shootings.
Lets see if we can get me a life sentence for political terrorism for this racist anti white statement.
No, im not being sarcastic. Report me. As a racist terrorist i beling in prison for life.
 
那么很明显他是赞同发生在自己身上的事情的。他确保了第二修正案绝不会被动摇，就像他一直想要做的那样。
你可以现在就去向联邦调查局举报我的评论，说我是在煽动更多枪击事件。
我倒要看看能不能因为这种反白人的种族主义言论，就让我被判个政治恐怖主义的终身监禁。
不，我可不是在说反话。尽管举报我。像我这种种族主义恐怖分子，就应该在监狱里度过余生。