Gun deaths 'worth it': Texas councilwoman shares Charlie Kirk remark, draws ire

Express News ^ | 09/11/25 | Rhyma Castillo, Staff Writer

[Responsibility2nd]

Progressive Texas politician Elizabeth Beck is facing backlash after sharing an April 2023 remark from conservative political pundit and gun-rights activist Charlie Kirk, in which he seemed to suggest that some gun deaths are an unfortunate but necessary cost in maintaining the Second Amendment.

Beck, a Fort Worth councilwoman representing District 9, shared the remark Wednesday through a post to her Instagram stories in the wake of Kirk's harrowing shooting death. The post featured a screenshot of an April 2023 Newsweek article with the headline: "Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth it to Keep 2nd Amendment." The screenshot included a photo of Kirk directly underneath the headline. The politician's post had a single word emblazoned over Kirk's image: "Unfortunate."

Beck has since deleted the story post, which was initially published to what appears to be her personal Instagram handle @ebj_girls — but not before drawing a barrage of backlash from all sides, including vocal Tarrant County GOP leader Bo French, who called for Beck's resignation via X, formerly Twitter.

[rktman]

Do NOT give up rights based on fear and misuse of those rights. Unfortunately the first amendment has been misused by left wing radical extremists to push hateful messages leading to someone misusing the 2nd amendment yesterday. Sadly. But, the good outweighs the bad. NO infringing!

[adorno]

Imagine if China had a gun rights guarantee in their constitution before the communists took over. Same with Russia and other totalitarian countries.

The second amendment would have saved hundreds of millions of lives worldwide.

America doesn’t have a totalitarian government, thanks to the second amendment.

[3RIVRS]

Funny as hunting rifles like this one are supposed to be “ok” with these folks. It’s a lie but here we are.

[nitzy]

Whenever people make this idiotic point, they need to be asked, “Precisely which proposed law would have prevented Charlie’s death from taking place?”

Are they suggesting we should ban hunting rifles?

[ComputerGuy]

I can think of a few deaths that might be ‘worth it’.

[thegagline]

“Precisely which proposed law would have prevented Charlie’s death from taking place?”

A ban on free speech. The Democrats were heading that direction under the Obama and Biden administrations. When they retake the White House, they will go full UK speech police with some added German “ kill the opposition.”

[Antoninus]

Charlie made that statement in the context of the fact that the rights of the law abiding are sometimes abused by bad actors, but that is no reason to deny law abiding citizens their rights. For example, people drive drunk and use their cars to kill people. But no one would think that the answer to that problem is to ban cars. The right to freely move about as we wish comes with the acceptance that many will die each year from drunk drivers.

The position is logical in context. Of course, the Left has no use for either logic or context.

[unixfox]

Funny as hunting rifles like this one are supposed to be “ok” with these folks.

Make no mistake, they want ALL guns and they want us dead.

[SecondAmendment]

> Are they suggesting we should ban hunting rifles?

Yes, they will take it peace meal, whatever they can get.

In the 60s they tried to ban handguns arguing that they were NOT military use weapons and thus not protected by the Second Amendment ...

[Tell It Right]

Agreed. And, frankly, even our WW1 Allies should be glad the U.S. has the 2nd amendment. It was one reason Mexico declined to accept Germany’s request (Zimmerman telegram) to distract us by attacking us first. Germany promised to help Mexico take the southwest U.S. Mexico replied that it wasn’t worth the effort in part because the American citizens in the U.S. were too well armed for a sustained takeover to succeed.

[fidelis]

Both great replies for people to have in their tool-kit when these kinds of questions or statements come up.

[HYPOCRACY]

And cars aren’t guaranteed in the Constitution.

[mmichaels1970]

Similar to the 6th Amendment. Sometimes the guilty go free because a jury made a bad decision. It can suck sometimes. But we don’t scrap the 6th Amendment.

[Blue Turtle]

They want the guns yet it’s what they use to silence us.

[lastchance]

I have read the full Kirk statement. Basically he was saying giving up our Second Amendment Right will not make the U.S. a safer place and if the cost of preserving those rights means there will be gun deaths he is willing accept that because it is worth it. (In my opinion the alternate is a populace helpless against tyranny.) He also mentioned that we live with such rational acceptance of risk in other matters such as driving. (To paraphrase). He was not condoning gun violence. But he was rejecting what the Left sees as the solution to gun violence.

[Beowulf9]

Beautifully put.

[lastchance]

No one, either Charlie or posters claimed they were. Kirk was talking about rationalizing risks and how we accept there is often a cost in exercising both our rights and the privileges we have. The government does regulate automobiles but even the most strident of regulations will not produce a 100% safe vehicle.

I did not follow Kirk but (correct me if I am wrong) I get the impression he was very much against the idea of creating a Utopia.

[lastchance]

Yes, my thoughts exactly.

[Sertorius]

The response to 9/11 should have been to issue all passengers knives instead of taking away their toenail clippers.