zlacker

[return to "Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah"]
1. tmsh+s41[view] [source] 2025-09-11 00:53:22
>>david9+(OP)
Looking at recent events through a historical lens: the 1960s saw the assassinations of MLK, RFK, JFK, and Malcolm X during a wave of progressive change. Today’s assassination attempts and targeted violence seem to follow a similar pattern during periods of significant social and political shifts.

As RFK said after MLK’s death, we must choose between “violence and non-violence, between lawlessness and love.” His call for unity and rejecting hatred feels as urgent now as it was then.

Violence is never the answer. But understanding these tragic patterns might help us navigate our current moment with hopefully more empathy.

◧◩
2. pm90+Q51[view] [source] 2025-09-11 01:02:55
>>tmsh+s41
This is dangerous false equivalency. Charlie Kirk was not advocating for the rights of the downtrodden. He was a right wing provocateur, and he’s on the record saying that “some gun deaths are ok” in service of the 2nd amendment, and in making light of the nearly deadly political attack on the Pelosi family.

Political violence, especially deadly violence is not ok. But comparing Charlie Kirk to MLK is also not ok.

◧◩◪
3. b0ring+pw1[view] [source] 2025-09-11 05:18:49
>>pm90+Q51
Would you say that some car deaths are OK in service of transportation or that we should lower the speed limit until there are 0 deaths from vehicle accidents?

Tradeoffs between rights and safety are always made. I interpret "some gun deaths are ok" as to mean that they are inherently dangerous, and that seeking 0 accidental deaths is too high of a standard for something to be allowed. And we don't hold other parts of daily life to this standard, like vehicles or medicine. If you want to get into degrees, that's fine, but a blanket shutdown on the sentence doesn't do that.

◧◩◪◨
4. euLh7S+pW1[view] [source] 2025-09-11 09:51:45
>>b0ring+pw1
> that we should lower the speed limit until there are 0 deaths from vehicle accidents

We totally should. I mean it isn't even controversial idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero . If we start with "all traffic related deaths are excessive" then trying to get rid of them in any way possible is only natural. Shame that 2nd amendment fans will be against any requirements for gun owners, event if they are similar to European commercial drivers tests.

Psychological test before buying a gun? What a heresy.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. olalon+se3[view] [source] 2025-09-11 18:28:58
>>euLh7S+pW1
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. thranc+ss3[view] [source] 2025-09-11 19:54:58
>>olalon+se3
What do we get out of guns that would justify all those deaths, exactly?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. olalon+ro4[view] [source] 2025-09-12 06:09:18
>>thranc+ss3
Hunting, entertainment, tyranny prevention and respect of the constitution.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. thranc+wF4[view] [source] 2025-09-12 08:59:03
>>olalon+ro4
> tyranny prevention and respect of the constitution.

Haha, sure. One, the tyrannical government is taking roots day by day and no one does shit. Two, even in this fantasy world where half the people wasn't on board with the destruction of our democracy, if the people as a whole were to take arms, they'd be going after a professional army whose budget is many orders of magnitude higher than this citizens militia's.

[go to top]