3 ms·

At this time, the conversation about what he said has been going on for so long (nearly a decade) that nobody is under any obligation to present more context. H

At this time, the conversation about what he said has been going on for so long (nearly a decade) that nobody is under any obligation to present more context. His position on these topics was pretty clear. I don't think he should have been shot for his beliefs. I do think his beliefs included the idea that it was important for people to be armed independently of the government, and if that means more people get shot than would otherwise, that's an acceptable price to pay. After all, "Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities" (https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...). In context, it's clear that if his philosophy is consistent, his death should fit his own "with a price" criteria (same as if he'd died in a car accident on the way to the event). ... Incidentally, this is an interesting discourse because he goes on to suggest that the solution to school shootings is armed guards. Kirk had a five-member security detail and the support of six members of the campus police. If this appearance was consistent with past ones, he also had a bullet-proof vest under his shirt. So it appears Kirk was wrong about one hypothesis at least: not even armor and a security detail guarantees the safety of the first person in the crosshairs.

CMay 1y ago
I think anyone who has the mental capacity to understand how something might be taken dangerously out of context and has any interest in being respectful should make some attempt to clarify these things. If they exclude critical information intentionally, it shows bad faith and disrespect. Switzerland, Iceland and Finland all have high rates of gun ownership, yet have far less gun violence per capita. That said, gun violence and crime in general also trends higher in warmer weather, yet all of those countries are a little on the colder side. The US itself used to have far less gun violence too. What causes these problems has been known for a long time and it's not the guns. The solution is neither to take everyone's guns away or to put armed guards everywhere. The solution is known and it's possible that AI models will help reduce this particular problem along with some structural changes to social media platforms before any sort of careful legal changes can occur. It's probably true that if you take everyone's guns away, you will get less gun related deaths and maybe even overall deaths for a while. Then if an authoritarian takeover happens, they can take your rights away and your citizenry is at a much larger disadvantage in protesting this. Then the government can silence all the media and kill 10-50 million people unopposed. In the US specifically, guns alone wouldn't necessarily save us, they are just a single pillar of the overall list of protective mechanisms for freedom. I will add though, that gun suicides should be excluded from the data, because they significantly inflate the numbers even though they're high even without that. The details around his death specifically and his security specifically aren't relevant, as he was a particularly high profile and high risk individual which is not 99% of deaths.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  > The solution is neither to take everyone's guns away or to put armed guards everywhere. The solution is known and it's possible that AI models will help reduce this particular problem along with some structural changes to social media platforms before any sort of careful legal changes can occur. What is the solution?

CMay 1y ago

I think anyone who has the mental capacity to understand how something might be taken dangerously out of context and has any interest in being respectful should make some attempt to clarify these things. If they exclude critical information intentionally, it shows bad faith and disrespect. Switzerland, Iceland and Finland all have high rates of gun ownership, yet have far less gun violence per capita. That said, gun violence and crime in general also trends higher in warmer weather, yet all of those countries are a little on the colder side. The US itself used to have far less gun violence too. What causes these problems has been known for a long time and it's not the guns. The solution is neither to take everyone's guns away or to put armed guards everywhere. The solution is known and it's possible that AI models will help reduce this particular problem along with some structural changes to social media platforms before any sort of careful legal changes can occur. It's probably true that if you take everyone's guns away, you will get less gun related deaths and maybe even overall deaths for a while. Then if an authoritarian takeover happens, they can take your rights away and your citizenry is at a much larger disadvantage in protesting this. Then the government can silence all the media and kill 10-50 million people unopposed. In the US specifically, guns alone wouldn't necessarily save us, they are just a single pillar of the overall list of protective mechanisms for freedom. I will add though, that gun suicides should be excluded from the data, because they significantly inflate the numbers even though they're high even without that. The details around his death specifically and his security specifically aren't relevant, as he was a particularly high profile and high risk individual which is not 99% of deaths.

shadowgovt 1y ago
> The solution is neither to take everyone's guns away or to put armed guards everywhere. The solution is known and it's possible that AI models will help reduce this particular problem along with some structural changes to social media platforms before any sort of careful legal changes can occur. What is the solution?