6 ms·

I have read one page into your responses in threads on HN and found no clarification as to how my rephrasing misses the point. I respect your lack of desire to

I have read one page into your responses in threads on HN and found no clarification as to how my rephrasing misses the point. I respect your lack of desire to engage on the topic and will not ask it of you, but FWIW: if you believe you are making the point that Charlie Kirk did not assert that the tradeoff of protecting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an acceptable tradeoff for the deaths of Americans in mass shootings (which implies the ones lost are expendable, at least expendable enough that we won't change the society's norms to prevent those deaths)... You are not.

zahlman 1y ago
> I have read one page into your responses in threads on HN and found no clarification as to how my rephrasing misses the point. I found it for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228530 If you still think this is an argument about people being "expendable", then it appears we simply disagree about what that word means.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  We seem to disagree about what the word means because I agree with your read on Kirk's position, above. "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." ... And he was the "some more people" this week.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    >... And he was the "some more people" this week. This phrasing is simply incoherent to me. Accepting that "possibly some more people" will die, agnostic to anyone's intent, is clearly not the same as accepting a probability of being personally targeted for murder.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      The statistics don't really care that he was personally targeted. Are you trying to draw a difference between politically-motivated assassination and random violence? I'm not. Because the violence is often not "random." Kirk was mid making that point when he was killed; he was about to debate gang-on-gang violence. Most killings in the US are targeted. Killers (even the psychotic ones) generally have a personal motivation, some self-justification to pull the trigger. The guns make it far easier to succeed than it would be otherwise. I'm giving Kirk the benefit of the doubt here. Because if what he really meant was "someone's life is the price of our freedom... But not me, I'm special, I'm doing everything right..." He wasn't misguided, he was stupid. And I don't think he was stupid. So I'm left with the wry observation that the manner of his own death was consistent with his philosophy on the necessity of gun ownership to protect essential liberties.
      - fawkesalbus 1y ago
        This is an amazing thread and dialog. I commend both of you for keeping it civil and respectful (exactly how Charlie would have wanted). Just two things to add: 1. Driving, cleaning agents and all the other examples are effectively assumed to be rights but they are not guaranteed by the US constitution. The second amendment on the other hand is very explicit. So it only makes the case stronger for the second amendment (~10k non gang violence, non suicide related gun deaths vs ~40k deaths from car accidents per year, although even one death is too many imho) 2. I would recommend listening to the full comment from Charlie about “some gun deaths are inevitable”. He started with the premise that the US already has a lot of guns and in a country with so many guns, you can’t have ZERO gun related deaths. And then went on to say what he said about some gun deaths being rational/prudent etc. So the spirit of what he was saying wasn’t that some people were expendable but more so that from a practicality standpoint you can’t expect to not have any gun related deaths at all. In another video he talks about gun confiscation/ forcing Americans to give up their guns (at gun point ;) ?) and how that won’t work either but that’s besides the point. Once again thanks for such a thoughtful dialog. Really appreciate it!
zahlman 1y ago
> if you believe you are making the point that Charlie Kirk did not assert that the tradeoff of protecting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an acceptable tradeoff for the deaths of Americans in mass shootings He did make that assertion. > (which implies the ones lost are expendable, at least expendable enough that we won't change the society's norms to prevent those deaths) It does not imply this.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  If the people who will be the "some gun deaths every single year" aren't expendable, what are they? Because it sounds like they're the ones we spend to buy the freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. As Kirk said in 2023, "Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty." If you're paying human lives for something, those lives are expendable by definition. Etymology of the word: Latin, expendere, "to pay out, weigh out." In the US, our armed citizenry is part of our liberty. This year, Charlie Kirk had the extreme misfortune to be part of the price.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    >If the people who will be the "some gun deaths every single year" aren't expendable, what are they? They are the same as the people who die in car crashes every year, or who are poisoned by household cleaners, etc.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      The people who die in car crashes every year are certainly seen as expendable by reckless drivers.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      ... Yes. That's the "expendable" ones: the people we're willing to sacrifice in exchange for enjoying the benefits of owning cars and household cleaners. Kirk was sacrificed to the benefit of owning guns.

zahlman 1y ago

> I have read one page into your responses in threads on HN and found no clarification as to how my rephrasing misses the point. I found it for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45228530 If you still think this is an argument about people being "expendable", then it appears we simply disagree about what that word means.

shadowgovt 1y ago
We seem to disagree about what the word means because I agree with your read on Kirk's position, above. "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." ... And he was the "some more people" this week.
- zahlman 1y ago
  >... And he was the "some more people" this week. This phrasing is simply incoherent to me. Accepting that "possibly some more people" will die, agnostic to anyone's intent, is clearly not the same as accepting a probability of being personally targeted for murder.
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    The statistics don't really care that he was personally targeted. Are you trying to draw a difference between politically-motivated assassination and random violence? I'm not. Because the violence is often not "random." Kirk was mid making that point when he was killed; he was about to debate gang-on-gang violence. Most killings in the US are targeted. Killers (even the psychotic ones) generally have a personal motivation, some self-justification to pull the trigger. The guns make it far easier to succeed than it would be otherwise. I'm giving Kirk the benefit of the doubt here. Because if what he really meant was "someone's life is the price of our freedom... But not me, I'm special, I'm doing everything right..." He wasn't misguided, he was stupid. And I don't think he was stupid. So I'm left with the wry observation that the manner of his own death was consistent with his philosophy on the necessity of gun ownership to protect essential liberties.
    - fawkesalbus 1y ago
      This is an amazing thread and dialog. I commend both of you for keeping it civil and respectful (exactly how Charlie would have wanted). Just two things to add: 1. Driving, cleaning agents and all the other examples are effectively assumed to be rights but they are not guaranteed by the US constitution. The second amendment on the other hand is very explicit. So it only makes the case stronger for the second amendment (~10k non gang violence, non suicide related gun deaths vs ~40k deaths from car accidents per year, although even one death is too many imho) 2. I would recommend listening to the full comment from Charlie about “some gun deaths are inevitable”. He started with the premise that the US already has a lot of guns and in a country with so many guns, you can’t have ZERO gun related deaths. And then went on to say what he said about some gun deaths being rational/prudent etc. So the spirit of what he was saying wasn’t that some people were expendable but more so that from a practicality standpoint you can’t expect to not have any gun related deaths at all. In another video he talks about gun confiscation/ forcing Americans to give up their guns (at gun point ;) ?) and how that won’t work either but that’s besides the point. Once again thanks for such a thoughtful dialog. Really appreciate it!

zahlman 1y ago

> if you believe you are making the point that Charlie Kirk did not assert that the tradeoff of protecting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an acceptable tradeoff for the deaths of Americans in mass shootings He did make that assertion. > (which implies the ones lost are expendable, at least expendable enough that we won't change the society's norms to prevent those deaths) It does not imply this.

shadowgovt 1y ago
If the people who will be the "some gun deaths every single year" aren't expendable, what are they? Because it sounds like they're the ones we spend to buy the freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. As Kirk said in 2023, "Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty." If you're paying human lives for something, those lives are expendable by definition. Etymology of the word: Latin, expendere, "to pay out, weigh out." In the US, our armed citizenry is part of our liberty. This year, Charlie Kirk had the extreme misfortune to be part of the price.
- zahlman 1y ago
  >If the people who will be the "some gun deaths every single year" aren't expendable, what are they? They are the same as the people who die in car crashes every year, or who are poisoned by household cleaners, etc.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    The people who die in car crashes every year are certainly seen as expendable by reckless drivers.
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    ... Yes. That's the "expendable" ones: the people we're willing to sacrifice in exchange for enjoying the benefits of owning cars and household cleaners. Kirk was sacrificed to the benefit of owning guns.