4 ms·

> a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths > That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that a

> a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths > That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. > I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. > Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified".

zahlman 1y ago
> This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. No, it isn't. The disingenuous framing is the one supposing that his model of "some gun deaths" included political assassinations. It clearly did not. > That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified". It is "of course there will be deaths". Just as it would be if the subject were cars, or kitchen knives, or poisonous household cleaners, or pesticides, or any other potentially lethal thing that ordinary Americans have access to. If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough to include this, then it is too weak to conclude that there is any harm or moral wrong in saying it. To pick on this is to miss the point completely: > This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted. I've explained this in many other comments already. And I'm doing this as a Canadian who doesn't share Kirk's view.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough ... This standard is not weak. That is a dishonest attack. His statement is meant to justify the obviously un-needed deaths of children as a necessary evil for Americans to have a "God given right" to own guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > His statement is meant to justify the obviously un-needed deaths of children as a necessary evil for Americans to have a "God given right" to own guns. And this is not a basis for concluding that he was morally wrong to say it. Unless you feel the same way about everything else that causes preventable deaths. (Note that the quote says nothing about children. This is a dishonest emotional plea.)
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      Many shooters choose schools as their crime scenes, to the extent that there's even a term for it: school shooting. Acknowledging facts isn't a "dishonest emotional plea."
      - zahlman 1y ago
        This is irrelevant to the fact that Kirk did not mention children in the quote.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        That's irrelevant to the fact that Kirk was talking about school shootings.

zahlman 1y ago

> This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. No, it isn't. The disingenuous framing is the one supposing that his model of "some gun deaths" included political assassinations. It clearly did not. > That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified". It is "of course there will be deaths". Just as it would be if the subject were cars, or kitchen knives, or poisonous household cleaners, or pesticides, or any other potentially lethal thing that ordinary Americans have access to. If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough to include this, then it is too weak to conclude that there is any harm or moral wrong in saying it. To pick on this is to miss the point completely: > This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted. I've explained this in many other comments already. And I'm doing this as a Canadian who doesn't share Kirk's view.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough ... This standard is not weak. That is a dishonest attack. His statement is meant to justify the obviously un-needed deaths of children as a necessary evil for Americans to have a "God given right" to own guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...
- zahlman 1y ago
  > His statement is meant to justify the obviously un-needed deaths of children as a necessary evil for Americans to have a "God given right" to own guns. And this is not a basis for concluding that he was morally wrong to say it. Unless you feel the same way about everything else that causes preventable deaths. (Note that the quote says nothing about children. This is a dishonest emotional plea.)
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    Many shooters choose schools as their crime scenes, to the extent that there's even a term for it: school shooting. Acknowledging facts isn't a "dishonest emotional plea."
    - zahlman 1y ago
      This is irrelevant to the fact that Kirk did not mention children in the quote.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        That's irrelevant to the fact that Kirk was talking about school shootings.