Because it is incredibly apt. He and his campaigns and influence have worked very hard over the years to stop progress on gun reform, aimed at preventing the very kind of violent actions that he was unfortunately subject to today.
This doesn't condone violence but offers context as to how he would've assessed a similar situation if he weren't the target.
I don't see that he suggested a solution. Just the opposite, he pointed out that gun laws also aren't a solution. Much like the war on drugs isn't. Much like "though shalt not kill" didn't stop the inquisition, or the Moorish conquest.
No murders? No. You should read about the "Nirvana fallacy".
Fewer murders? Yes. The homicide rate is 0.854 per capita in Australia (5.763 in the US) and much lower than US in most European countries (Russia being the exception).
Look, if you're unable to back your point, that's a good time to reflect. Come back when you can. If you don't participate in that sequence of events, that's what anyone of sound mind would call ignorance.
Back your points with citation. We can all agree that's an important part of learning.
I think I need to just post the Sartre quote over and over again. The inability or disinterest of certain factions of the right in having a good faith argument is just genuinely frustrating.
I'm still here if you'd like to make an argument. The above rebuttal is not remotely a good faith argument. It appears to be a hope that repeating misinformation will somehow make it an accepted truth.
That might work for circles of low performing political movements, but it doesn't work for those of us interested in a scientific approach to knowledge.
By all means, explain what making guns illegal has actually done for Australia, the whitest country in the world, and the UK, the capital of knife crime.
You're about to prove facts that neither of us want to admit.
The correlation between lower crime and gun laws is very weak and disproven by countless other examples. The two countries given as proof aren't exceptions to that. Instead they are examples of how lower poverty correlates with lower crime rate.
Race isn't a factor, just as gun laws aren't. Pointing out that race isn't a factor is the opposite of racism.
Because it’s both a deeply ironic thing for him to have said and also fairly emblematic of his political movement. It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy - if he’d said “only dumb idiots slip on banana peels” and then died after slipping on a banana peel, there’d be a lot of content posted organically about that, too.
It's almost like when a lot of people are posting some ideas get picked on and shared en masse. Why not say the same exact thing about all those "guys he's in stable conditions he's gonna make it" tweets that got spammed? Wasn't that a campaign also?
Fwiw, I don't think anyone should ever be killed, but nobody's entitled to anyone's sympathy, and it's not messed up that many people find it difficult to sympathize with Kirk, given the political positions he preached.
For example, maybe (or maybe not) for you it's just an abstract argument about far-away matters, but when Kirk called Leviticus 20:13 (the one about killing men who lie with men) "God's perfect law", it's not so abstract to gay people.
I don't celebrate his death, I fear the consequences it will most certainly bring (especially with the hot mess going on in the US), but given his evidenced lackluster attitude to tens of thousands of gun victims every year in the US alone, a kick in the face to the relatives of all the victims and their families, yes I do not feel a single shred of smypathy for him.
That is a definition of “violence” that does not register with most people, and especially in a discussion of one of the most brutal public murders we’ve seen in awhile in this country
My position is that guns should be strictly regulated and traffic as well to achieve zero traffic deaths ("Vision Zero"). Alternatively, the US could look into what gun culture difference they have to Switzerland, because the Swiss have amongst the most liberal gun laws of Europe but are pretty average amongst European countries when it comes to gun violence.
Kirk's position was to have guns as unregulated as possible, so I pretty much DGAF when the consequences of his position come home to roost.
Helsinki in Finland proves Vision Zero be possible [1] and a number of European countries have gun policies [2] that basically restrict carrying guns to hunters, people in proven danger of life, police officers and special security guards, in addition to gun sports who can own, but can't carry outside of dedicated venues.
Objectively, my position is both serious and not just realistic, but actually lived reality here in Europe. You are free to visit our continent whenever you want, I can only recommend it.
We've tried vision zero here (city in CA), and it's resulted in constant driver aggravation due to slowing down commute traffic, worse driving than before, and more traffic fatalities than before.
Helsinki may be a lucky coincidence. It doesn't prove it's possible everywhere.
We really should regulate cars far more than we do.
There are only ~16,000 non-suicide related firearm deaths in the US. There are about 40,000 vehicle related deaths in the US. We could save a lot of lives if we made our society far less car dependent and had more restrictions on allowing people to operate vehicles in public spaces.
