4 ms·

Your link doesn't prove me wrong? It's what he said: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death.

Your link doesn't prove me wrong? It's what he said: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it 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 his point of view. He became a victim of gun violence which he said is worth the cost. > This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side. Thanks for projecting! Try to focus on what we're discussing instead of descending into ad hominem. > strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere I'm not discussing political assassinations, and neither was Kirk. I'm discussing Kirk's own views on gun violence in the United States and the "cost" of unrestricted access to firearms, of which he himself was a victim. Political assassinations are a small subset of this "cost." Would you like to compare the number of mass shooting events in these countries, or is it too inconvenient that the US is #1 in mass/school shootings?

Andrew_nenakhov 1y ago
> That's his point of view. He became a victim of gun violence which he said is worth the cost. You are lying again. He became a victim of a targeted political assassination. Such assassinations happen in every society, whether they have the 2nd amendment or not. His opponents argued that restricting access to guns would reduce gun violence — as in school shootings, etc — and that might be true, at the cost of having no protection from the tyranny of the government. But such restrictions would not help prevent Kirk's own assassination, as evidenced by thousands of political assassinations everywhere around the world where access to guns is restricted, and this makes your statement a lie. This is nothing more than a rather distasteful attempt to score some political points.
- text0404 1y ago
  Nope, once again you are misconstruing my words. I don't take kindly to being called a liar by a fool. I originally said the following: > Kirk was ultimately "cancelled" by the same society that he fomented. He was against empathy, used his platform to disparage and attack vulnerable groups, against gun control, and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment. He was a victim of a violent society he actively encouraged and campaigned for. I am talking about the kind of society that Charlie Kirk wanted. One without empathy, where vulnerable people are attacked, and there are no guardrails on access to firearms, which he encouraged. Yes, political assassinations exist, but that doesn't change the fact that Charlie Kirk died because he encouraged a violent society; one that ultimately made him a victim. You've decided to focus on one aspect of what I said, creating a strawman claiming that it's my entire argument, and continue to engage in ad hominem. Please use more critical thinking skills, as I'm tiring of you projecting your own insecurities and motivations onto me. I suggest reading more books from experts in their fields, instead of right-wing blogs like the one you linked (focus on sociology and anthropology may help with this specific topic). A course on formal logic may also help, along with introductory philosophy. You seem to think I'm trying to "score points" in some kind of game here. I don't consider this a game at all and it says a lot that you do.

Andrew_nenakhov 1y ago

> That's his point of view. He became a victim of gun violence which he said is worth the cost. You are lying again. He became a victim of a targeted political assassination. Such assassinations happen in every society, whether they have the 2nd amendment or not. His opponents argued that restricting access to guns would reduce gun violence — as in school shootings, etc — and that might be true, at the cost of having no protection from the tyranny of the government. But such restrictions would not help prevent Kirk's own assassination, as evidenced by thousands of political assassinations everywhere around the world where access to guns is restricted, and this makes your statement a lie. This is nothing more than a rather distasteful attempt to score some political points.

text0404 1y ago
Nope, once again you are misconstruing my words. I don't take kindly to being called a liar by a fool. I originally said the following: > Kirk was ultimately "cancelled" by the same society that he fomented. He was against empathy, used his platform to disparage and attack vulnerable groups, against gun control, and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment. He was a victim of a violent society he actively encouraged and campaigned for. I am talking about the kind of society that Charlie Kirk wanted. One without empathy, where vulnerable people are attacked, and there are no guardrails on access to firearms, which he encouraged. Yes, political assassinations exist, but that doesn't change the fact that Charlie Kirk died because he encouraged a violent society; one that ultimately made him a victim. You've decided to focus on one aspect of what I said, creating a strawman claiming that it's my entire argument, and continue to engage in ad hominem. Please use more critical thinking skills, as I'm tiring of you projecting your own insecurities and motivations onto me. I suggest reading more books from experts in their fields, instead of right-wing blogs like the one you linked (focus on sociology and anthropology may help with this specific topic). A course on formal logic may also help, along with introductory philosophy. You seem to think I'm trying to "score points" in some kind of game here. I don't consider this a game at all and it says a lot that you do.