6 ms·

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

• johnisgood 1y ago
  > Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun. I do not think that he was against regulation, and keep in mind that criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation.
  • Forgeties79 1y ago
    > 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?
• nailer 1y ago
  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.
  • croes 1y ago
    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.
    • nailer 1y ago
      > What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns? Kirk's point was that we do for guns (domestic violence etc red flags). But like cars we don't ban them. > According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts No.
      • croes 1y ago
        So he was pro mandatory weapon training, limits on gun power and capacity? That would be the equivalent of what we did against traffic deaths. Red flags have the disadvantage they come after the damage.
  • munksbeer 1y ago
    > 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.
    • nailer 1y ago
      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.
      • MisterMower 1y ago
        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.
      • munksbeer 1y ago
        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.
  • yencabulator 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • nailer 1y ago
      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.
  • Yeul 1y ago
    [flagged]
  • nativespecies 1y ago
    [flagged]
• zahlman 1y ago
  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.
  • Nervhq 1y ago
    Oh wow no reply to your excellent car analogy. This is my shocked face.