zlacker

"Some gun deaths are okay" is saying the quiet part out loud, but it's not wrong. When you let a large group of people have access to something dangerous then some number of them will die and kill using the dangerous thing, whether the thing is cars or paracetamol or wingsuits or guns.

I say this as an Australian. We have a far more restrictive system of gun control than the US and yet we still see tens of gun deaths a year, because some gun deaths are okay even if we set the number a lot lower than the US does.

>>strken+(OP)
Was this one of the OK ones?

>>darker+42
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.

>>strken+(OP)
id interpret what he meant differently than "some gun deaths are ok"

instead his opinion is more, "all gun deaths are ok"

he was never going to be worried about the count or a more nuanced comparison of how many gun deaths are acceptable

>>darker+42
Is anyone on the right asking for stricter gun control laws as result? That should answer your gotcha question.

>>darker+42
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.

>>nailer+HR1
Evil is happening right now, the guns are freaking useless.

>>dazilc+d51
yes, the DOJ

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms...

>>thranc+tk2
Yeah I don’t really get the 2A people who want guns to protect from a tyrannical government. To do that you’d need to make a whole lot of other things legal like tanks, anti aircraft missiles, artillery, etc, and allow civilian groups to get together and practice using those things for combat. Without that, the intent of the 2A has sailed long ago.

>>strken+(OP)
By my understanding he said that though unfortunate, gun deaths are sometimes a price to pay for the right to bear arms. Noting that less than half that gun killings in the US are committed by people that legally owned that gun.

And I have the sensation that all the ones we drive a car nowadays are engaging in a similar type of risk acceptance, we know there's too many people dead every year in car accidents, but we still believe that overall having access to cars outweighs the risks, without meaning that car accidents are acceptable and trying to improve the safety of the cars and roads meanwhile.

Kirk thought in a similar way that gun control and possession were definitely good for the US population and that gun deaths were still a price to pay for it.

BTW, gun possession is also legal in all EU countries. It just not considered a right, but a privilege. And this is accepted by most parties in EU, both left and right.

>>darker+42
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.