If you are an absolutist (or close to that) of any given concept, you need to accept and own the negative consequences of being so stalwart. If you are a staunch supporter of (modern interpretations of) the Second Amendment, then you need to own and accept that tens of thousands of people each year will die as a result.

For example, I’m a free speech person. I posture that giving governments censorship abilities, even in cases of hate speech, will inevitably lead to abuse. When people are (understandably!) upset about terrible people who lead terrible protests in public, I am ready to have that discussion. Stalwartly supporting this concept means that I must be.

Folks who refuse to limit access to guns need to receive pushback! They prioritize the right to own a handheld device that shoots deadly metal pellets at high speed over the lives of tens of thousands of people. Maybe there’s a strong philosophical case to be made for this! I don’t think there is, but forcing them to answer this simple question is a good place to start.