The implicit part of your question was answered. I just ignored the part where you misparaphrased parent.
He didn't say Kirk advocated violence but that he was indifferent towards it in favor of the 2nd amendment. Isn't it interesting how a pro-lifer like Kirk didn't care that much about lives if it's about gun ownership?
Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun.
The reason you're getting the interactions you are is because you set up a false dichotomy. Kirk's moral calculus involves accepting that possibly some more people will die, beyond what would happen otherwise, in order to guarantee what he considers an essential right to everyone. This is perfectly compatible with "caring about lives".
It's interesting that you mention driver's licenses. Would you say that intellectual consistency would require a "pro-lifer" to be in favour of nobody being allowed to own a car? After all, sometimes fatal driving accidents occur.
He did care about lives. Allowing some evil from gun deaths is the price of allowing a population to arm themselves. At the time he made the point that allowing some road deaths is worth allowing the population to drive. It doesn’t mean he endorses road death either.
> the price of allowing a population to arm themselves
It is very hard for someone living in the UK to understand things from the US context. It just comes across as bizarre that people accept that school children will relatively frequently die for this. I do not feel impelled at all to own a gun. It isn't something that I ever think about.
So when you say things like the phrase above, it is very alien to most people from the UK. We just don't understand what the benefits are of owning guns that justify the negatives.
By the way, this isn't an attack, it is just me sharing a state of mind with you.
Sure. I lived in the UK for 15 years, and have lived in the US for 2.
In London, someone grabs your phone, threatens to take your watch with a machete, or tries to rape your child. In New York someone marches down the street wanting to punch anyone that gets close. You let yourself be victimised and then report it.
In Texas, they generally don't do these things because they might get shot. People defend themselves.
In exchange, we accept there will be some unwanted violence. Kirk made an analogy here: we don't want road deaths, yet we don't ban cars. We don't want school shootings, but we don't ban guns.
South Africans in London have similar perspectives regarding being able to defend themselves.
London has got worse, that is true. Or at least, that is the impression you get from the media. Personally, I lived in central London for years and didn't feel unsafe.
But the rest of the UK is extremely safe. Compared to the US? Very! And we don' have guns to defend ourselves. How does that work? And it is the same in many, many countries that don't have guns - a lot safer than the US.
So that argument for guns just doesn't work. There must be something deeper to it. It must really be something that triggers a deeper response in people.
London has gotten worse, do you think this is debatable today? Plus I do not think that the "I feel safe" has much merit. It has some, but not that much. What if I told you I did not feel safe in London? You felt safe in some area, I did not feel safe in some other. I do not think this conversation would be fruitful if we focused on this alone.
Check the statistics[1] with regarding to robbing, knife crimes, homelessness, and so on. Perhaps that is a better starting point?
I have been told by many locals to not wear an expensive watch around designer stores, or touristic hotspots because robbery happens on a daily basis, it depends on the time of the day and which day it is, of course.
I have watched many YouTubers visiting London as well and they tell quite the story, too.
I had two terrorist attacks on my neighbourhood (London bridge) and one on the way to work (Westminster bridge) in fifteen years. If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot.
You're a programmer. You understand statistics. I think your ideology is clouding your ability to talk about this honestly. From the very casual look I took, you're 4 times more likely to die as a result of violent crime in the US than the UK.
So picking these incidents and citing them as a reason for owning guns, while ignoring the whole picture strikes me as dishonest.
I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment.
In any case, I think the argument that was brought forward in favor of guns does not hold true universally for every places. For example, in Hungary, you do not need guns as a deterrent.
Perhaps London would benefit from it, I actually have no idea and I do not know if I could have any way of telling.
> I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment.
It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe. Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK.
I live in the UK. It is objectively safer to live in the UK where we are not allowed to own guns. To us, it is absurd to claim we need guns to be safer when we look at what actually happens in the US as a result of guns.
I don't think this is really a controversial take.
That is why the argument for gun ownership actually happens at a deeper level in the psyche.
> It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe.
It obviously makes the argument that Texas isn’t New York or London and has little street crime, as a result of gun ownership. You wanted to understand the mentality? That’s the mentality. No road men in Austin.
> Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK.
Yes you can. That’s a fine argument, I agree with it. I’ve made comments about not wanting to die because someone had a bad day earlier in this thread supporting exactly this argument. You’re arguing with someone else rather than reading my responses.
It is not a cherry-picked example at all. That is the essence of the mentality. It is used as a deterrent. If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot.
I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now?
I am Eastern European, no guns here either, and as I said, it may not universally apply to all countries, or even cities within one country.
> I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now?
Sure, I can read English, I can understand the actual English words you're typing and the point you're trying to make. I just think it isn't true, and an honest reading of statistics would show that.
But I don't think we're going to get honesty here.
This does not imply what I said though, it just confirms that more guns does not imply more gun violence.
You did not leave an answer to "If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot." though.
You wanted to know the mentality behind it, and this is the mentality behind it, so now you know why people say and believe these things. As I previously have said, this probably cannot be universally applied to all countries, but it theoretically could be, especially if we consider the fact that "more guns -> more gun violence" is just simply not true. I have a feeling it is a cultural thing. How come Serbia (among other countries) have lots of guns yet no firearm-related violence? Many other countries have much less guns per 100 people (as per statistics), yet gun violence is through the roof. We have to look at it from many different aspects. We need ask ourselves "why?" or "why that is?", what are the differences? What are the cultural differences?
Just to be sure, I am not in favor of guns, but I do believe in that guns can be a deterrent in some places at the very least, and we know that more guns do not lead to more firearm-related homicides, so theoretically it could work in some or many places. I do not know much about Serbia. I wonder how come they have lots of guns yet barely any related crimes.
What ideology? I thought we were having a civil discussion of how the UK compares to the US.
The US has a lot of violent cities, I live in NY (in a very good area) and there’s still more street violence than you’d expect in a similar area in London. But that’s a coastal city. People don’t have guns here.
If someone walked down the street in Austin threatening to kill people that wouldn’t happen. Honestly.
I think you're making disingenuous arguments, which is why I attributed it to ideology. But you're correct, this just started off with a casual comment from me, so I don't think I should be going into that territory, apologies.
Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write.
I’m not sure if I have an answer one way or the other - I’d like it if I could buy milk in NY without someone threatening violence, and don’t think it’s right for jihadists to stand in the middle of London saying they’ll kill all the jews without the police doing anything, but I also don’t want to live somewhere where someone snaps and they have access to an automatic weapon.
Check out both tables and you will see that the facts do not say what you think they say, at all.
Homicide rates by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants (2017):
Jamaica - 47.857
United States - 3.342
Serbia - 0.415
Ranking by country for civilian-held firearms per 100 population (2017):
Jamaica - 8.8
United States - 120.5
Serbia - 39.1
Those are just to compare three countries, but you will see a similar trend for all other countries.
It shows that Serbia has loads of guns, yet barely any firearm-related homicides, whereas Jamaica has much less guns, yet homicide rates by firearm are way higher than the US.
Thus, the statement that "More guns -> More gun-related violence" is evidently false.
Merely that street crime is less in areas with guns.
You’re quoting national statistics, which include places with no guns and a lot of street violence - I’ve already mentioned that, if you’re not going to read when I respond to you there’s no point having this conversation.
I live in central London. It mostly feels safe although I did get a phone snatched once.
I also visited Austin Texas and spent a night staying in the center on 6th street and didn't feel safe. Aggressive black guys shouting and stuff. I googled that location when I got to the lodging and someone was shot there a year earlier.
I guess it depends the area but I wouldn't say guns have made Texas a haven of peace.
Bingo. Same logic applies to car jackings or home invasions. Just the fact that the next potential victim could be armed and many states have laws that allow victims to use lethal force to defend themselves has a massive deterrent effect.
Interesting metaphor because we changed the cars to make them safer, improved the roads, added speed limits and added requirements to get a driver license.
What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns?
According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts but cared about lives. I doubt that he thought like that when it came to road safety.
He was really kind to people that didn’t vote his way, consistently, on video. Posting him quoting the bible doesn’t change that. And part of being kind to people is letting them know when they make choices that aren’t in their own interests, which includes trans identifying people.
> criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation.
The definition of a criminal is somebody who breaks the law, which means anyone who breaks any law is disregarding the existence of a law. This is not unique to gun legislation.
If your bar for whether or not we should have laws and restrictions is whether or not people will break them, then I don’t really know how you can square that with the necessary existence of our judicial system.
Let’s look at this another way: despite DUI laws, there are people still drinking and driving every day. Should we remove the restriction and just allow drinking and driving?
Let's roll back the tape a bit. This is the key excerpt from the comment you were initially responding to that you're claiming did not get a sufficient response:
>There was a school shooting on the same day as Kirk's death: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/students-wounded-shooti...
If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms", brushing it aside to be forgotten. He of course did so many times in life, notably in 2023 when he was quoted doing so in the media:
Notice they said "he would be writing and speaking about how such violence...is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable - even necessary - to 'preserve our freedoms.'"
To which you responded:
>He would have really advocated for violence, or school shootings? That seems odd.
Where did they say "advocated" or "encouraged" or anything remotely like that? "Acceptable" and "necessary" are not saying "pro-" as you are implying they said. So right out the gate you are misrepresenting the person and moving the goalposts so that a bar which you have established on your own must be met.
So my question is: why should anyone feel obligated to meet your challenge? They said Kirk ultimately determined that these sacrifices are acceptable, even necessary, for the second amendment which he considered a good thing worthy of virtually any cost. You twisted that into claiming he was advocating for violence and school shootings. Clearly that is not what they said at all.
The way you’re approaching this discussion is the same way people like Shapiro and Kirk (used to) approach debates. Just like the above quote from Charlie where he said it’s [sic] “ridiculous to expect no deaths in a country that allows guns.“ Who said zero deaths? Why is that the bar and who set it? It clearly isn’t reasonable. But when pundits like them says things like that, they get to paint anybody who disagrees with them as having foolish expectations
