I'm not an American, I'm an Australian. Our gun deaths sit at 0.9 per 100000 people instead of 14 per 100000 and I approve of our gun laws. In that sense, I guess I'd say that roughly 6% of this gun death was okay.

In a broader sense, it is of course not okay to shoot someone, but that's taking the quote out of the context of gun control measures.

It isn't okay for anyone to die from gun violence, but if we're gonna have to expect people to be sacrificed on the altar of the gun nut lobby, then it makes the most sense that the gun nuts should be the ones to suffer the consequences of the policies they support. The tree of liberty and blood blah blah blah.

He means lets not disarm ourselves for evil. Not that evil is OK, but that some evil may occur due to not disarming.

I disagree with him on guns, but that is the point.

Is anyone on the right asking for stricter gun control laws as result? That should answer your gotcha question.

[flagged]

They certainly are, police cause gun deaths all the time in service of maintaining law and order.

But to middle class snobs who think they're morally above it all, such dirtiness is a reality they can wave away with a dismissive comment of superiority, safe from all that messiness, in their nice suburb homes.

So long as they intentionally ignore these lower class facts that some wrongdoers exist who can literally only be stopped by deadly force, they can continue to put their chins up and lament the inferior-to-them simpletons who think guns have to be a thing, in between taking long savouring sniffs of their excrement after every bathroom visit.

You've missed the parent's point. Society routinely accepts some level of risk, even when it leads to deaths, in exchange for other values. For example, dogs kill about 43 people annually in the U.S., yet we still allow them as pets. Electricity causes over 1,000 deaths a year, yet we don’t ban it. Kirk's position was simply that gun deaths are an acceptable price for the right to own guns - a fairly mainstream view in the US.

People are hit by trains all the time.

> hard time following through positions logically,

Spoken like a person who either doesn't know or doesn't care that current anti-abortion policies in several red states have women scared to get pregnant, despite wanting to do so voluntarily, because doctors are refusing life saving procedures on the mother if the state can possibly perceive it as abortion, leading to many scenarios of live births to dead mothers, including one case of a corpse being artificially kept alive for weeks for the sake of the baby.

The abortion laws of most blue states are already a rational compromise (still a very conservative leaning one) between the practical rights of women and the religious beliefs of far right totalitarians.

What about if a person can't support their child at that time in their life and they don't have a support system to help them? the government doesn't make it easy to give a kid up for adoption and also doesn't make it easy to adopt kids. The kid will likely not have a good life, especially as the government cuts benefits. Is it really worth bringing a child into this world if you're setting them up to fail? Is that really the correct thing to do? Are you really being kind to the child by kicking it in the teeth from birth?

What if the birth will kill the mother? Is that not okay either?

It's not even political. You just follow the logic and you kind of have to support abortion. There isn't really a logical reason not to.

I actually believe the world is really messy and you have to have solutions that deal with the messiness. Being absolutist in any direction will never be right. Taking the extreme opposite position of mandated abortions is equally stupid and quite frankly as childish. It's surprising anybody on this site would defend something so illogical.

Also read this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-w...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770

A small but important correction. The debt was never cancelled, but socialized and payed by all the American citizens. A loan that was taken voluntarily by adults was arbitrarily reassigned and forced upon the rest of the American citizens, including all those who never had accepted to take such debt.

Completely violating the principles of personal responsibility.

It is very easy to be generous and altruist with someone else's money and then even take the credit for it.

It's the Hortmans who were killed, the Hoffmans survived their attack. It's easy to confuse them because the assassin was working his way through an alphabetized list of democratic politicians.

> Gabby Giffords assailant was pretty insane but reports from people that knew him claimed he was liberal

Unmasking myself a bit here but one of my college roommates at University of Arizona also attended classes with Jared at Pima Community College. Jared liked to burn flags, collect guns, and think the world was conspiring against him. The dude was insane (see his mughsot), not liberal.