You don't deserve death just because you justify a situation in which some people die.

If a person is against, say, laws against tobacco, that person doesn't deserve lung cancer. If a person argues for leniency on criminals, they don't deserve to be murdered.

I am baffled that I have to explain this. I don't think you understand the logic you are defending or its consequences.

There was no statement of deserving.

Kirk felt that preventable gun deaths were an acceptable cost to the continuation of the Second Amendment.

He fell victim to a preventable gun death. No more, no less.

It's irony not an argument. From people that refuse to acknowledge that gun laws need to be changed and have a brain rot interpretation of the 2nd amendment in an age where a supreme Court is treating the document more like guidelines.

Where did you read about deserving?

Kirk didn't believe he was going to be affected by the open gun policies he supported and now he died due to not fully unrelated causes. Pointing that out doesn't imply thinking he deserved it.

as much as one can assume the intent of having posted a quote, a quote in isolation is factual

It's irony.