"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth 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." — RogueAI

Not reasonable statement? Replace “guns” with “cars”. Still unreasonable?

It just seems so...karmic. — RogueAI

The irony isnt lost on me, but I think Kirk would 100% include his own death as part of that acceptable trade off. Say what you want about Kirk, he did not lack conviction. To the point above, we certainly accept that trade off with driving vehicles dont we? Vehicle accidents kill more than guns, why dont we ban cars? Or make everyone drive 5mph? And thats just for our convenience, there are many who think right to bear arms is much more important.

Can we not turn this into a discussion about firearms? Is that remotely possible here? There are so many cheap and easy ways to kill a person. A knife, a baseball bat, a hammer, a screwdriver, messing with the gas tank, following him home and running him off the road, tampering with food, running him over on a morning jog, the list goes on. — Outlander

Firearms make it very easy to kill a lot of people quickly. And from far away. It would be rather difficult for the Las Vegas mass shooter, for example, to do the damage he did with a screwdriver. Since Kirk was an outspoken 2nd amendment proponent, and was literally killed while answering questions about shootings, the whole firearm thing seems germane.

Since Kirk was an outspoken 2nd amendment proponent, and was literally killed while answering questions about shootings, the whole firearm thing seems germane. — RogueAI

OK -- in that way I'm interested in a 2nd amendment discussion, but I want it to be a sub-plot: first political violence in the world and then 2nd amendment.

Vice-versa I feel like, tho this is germane, it'd turn into a debate we've had many times before, whereas I'm trying to use a case which might spark some thoughts that aren't the talking points.

Can we not appreciate the irony AND be disgusted by the reaction to a political assassination? One shot from a sniper position. Primary suspicion of motive has to be political. Liberals may not know him but he was big with the right, an important political figure.
But lets talk about how justified it was?

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth 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."
— RogueAI

Not reasonable statement? Replace “guns” with “cars”. Still unreasonable? — DingoJones

I need my car to go to work and the store and other things. I don't need my gun for anything, except to assuage my irrational fear that someone will break in and I'll be unarmed.

The irony isnt lost on me, but I think Kirk would 100% include his own death as part of that acceptable trade off. — DingoJones

Really? You think so? You think if an angel came down and said, "Charlie, I can make this assassin miss you be a hair, or you can be gunned down and leave your wife and kids behind and you can become a martyr for the 2nd amendment. What shall it be?" Charlie would have picked martyr?

Say what you want about Kirk, he did not lack conviction. To the point above, we certainly accept that trade off with driving vehicles dont we? Vehicle accidents kill more than guns, why dont we ban cars? Or make everyone drive 5mph? And thats just for our convenience, there are many who think right to bear arms is much more important.

Again, cars have important uses outside of killing things.

Nick Fuentes hated Kirk and he has a small army of white nationalist thugs.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nick-fuentes-slams-charlie-kirk-over-support-for-israel/id390071758?i=1000723989144

Are you sure it wasn't one of them?

Can we not appreciate the irony AND be disgusted by the reaction to a political assassination? — DingoJones

Sure.

I'm still disgusted with the means of politics. I've often found that raising this disgust about other such scenarios results in excuses so I'm a bit skeptical.

I want to point to the genocide in Gaza at the moment more than this sensationalist plot in asking the question, though. I am looking for a wider perspective than this one event.

This is a disturbing thread.

Just doing my job, sir.

And, yeah, it's a disturbing thought.

Really? You think so? You think if an angel came down and said, "Charlie, I can make this assassin miss you be a hair, or you can be gunned down and leave your wife and kids behind and you can become a martyr for the 2nd amendment. What shall it be?" Charlie would have picked martyr? — RogueAI

No idea how Kirk would react to an angel. That is not the trade off I stated I was referencing your direct quote not your non-sequitur hypothetical scenario. Accepting that you yourself would be included in a statistic is obviously not the same as choosing to die a martyr.

Again, cars have important uses outside of killing things. — RogueAI

Sure, I agree a car is a more useful tool. More necessary to my day to day life certainly. I don’t think the right to have a gun is about variety of use or day to day need though.
My point with that analogy was specifically about accepting some deaths as a trade off for freedom to have a gun. We do the exact same thing with cars, we accept that some people (many more than gun deaths actually) are going to die as a trade off for our speed limits and traffic volume (or as a trade off for the freedom to drive and if you prefer).

Are you sure it wasn't one of them? — RogueAI

Nope, it may well turn out to be them or any number of other motives…but I doubt you’d wanna bet much money on it :wink:
If it turns out to be a jilted lover or something, Ill stand corrected.

Yet the question is -- the ballot or the bullet? How do we justify each position, philosophically?

My point with that analogy was specifically about accepting some deaths as a trade off for freedom to have a gun. We do the exact same thing with cars, we accept that some people (many more than gun deaths actually) are going to die as a trade off for our speed limits and traffic volume (or as a trade off for the freedom to drive and if you prefer). — DingoJones

Again, because cars are essential for many people in this society. Driving is inherently dangerous and we accept the risks because cars are so necessary for so many. That's not analogous to guns.

The reason the 2nd amendment is germane but off topic is that it's not how you'd pursue the bullet -- you don't revolt by appealing to the supreme court that your revolution is justified because of the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, they are, but I want to sideline that notion for this topic.

Sure.

I'm still disgusted with the means of politics. I've often found that raising this disgust about other such scenarios results in excuses so I'm a bit skeptical.

I want to point to the genocide in Gaza at the moment more than this sensationalist plot in asking the question, though. I am looking for a wider perspective than this one event. — Moliere

Im honestly not sure what you mean here.

Oh, suppose I say, "There is a genocide in Gaza", then the response -- not from you but due to media -- would be "Israel has a right to defend itself"

But that's not what they're doing. They're committing a genocide.

Yet if they succeed, as the United States did, they'll win. If they eliminate everyone then they'll get to keep the land. We passed on the genocide stick to them.

How do you vote to influence that?

I remember you talking about the group of anarchists you housed with.

I figured you'd prefer if they could stay rather than be pushed out.

I never lived there. I only surfed with them. I would prefer that that they weren’t burnt out of their homes.

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with ballots or bullets though. My comment was regarding people who would resort to murder in order to make a political statement or affect politics.

Yet the question is -- the ballot or the bullet? How do we justify each position, philosophically? — Moliere

You have to listen to your gut, I guess. Is a slave justified in killing the entire master's family if it means he'll be able to get a decent chance to escape? Probably. Would the Jews in Nazi Germany have been justified in gunning down every government official they came across? Certainly. If this country bans abortion entirely and a government official tries to step between a woman and the sympathetic doctor about to perform the abortion and she has a gun? I would support her using deadly force.

It relates because thems could have taken the means into their own hands and forced the gov to not take their land other than "move on" to be vagabonds elsewhere.

Again, because cars are essential for many people in this society. Driving is inherently dangerous and we accept the risks because cars are so necessary for so many. That's not analogous to guns.
4m — RogueAI

Cars are not analogous to guns when it comes to necessity, I agree. Thankfully for my point I am not making an analogy about necessity. Im making an analogy about the trade-off for lives, in that sense cars and guns are analogous.

I think my points stand.

Im making an analogy about the trade-off for lives, in that sense cars and guns are analogous. — DingoJones

In the case of cars, we're willing to accept a certain amount of deaths to drive at speeds that make cars economically viable. Nobody would drive a car at 5mph on the freeway. We sacrifice safety for efficiency.

How is that the same with guns?

Oh, suppose I say, "There is a genocide in Gaza", then the response -- not from you but due to media -- would be "Israel has a right to defend itself"

But that's not what they're doing. They're committing a genocide.

Yet if they succeed, as the United States did, they'll win. If they eliminate everyone then they'll get to keep the land. We passed on the genocide stick to them.

How do you vote to influence that? — Moliere

I see. Honestly Im not really buying your broader premise here. Im not even a fan of Kirks but Im not going to pretend him and gaza have anything pertinent in common for the sake of justifying violence and assassination.

It does.

Or, if if it doesn't, as you bemoaned this is not a thread on regulating weapons.

This is a thread that could apply to people in Britain, Spain, Germany, etc. etc. can participate in.

It doesn't matter.

To Gaza? No. Nothing pertinent.

It's the responses to it -- like Donald Trumps -- that made me think this way. "Well... c'mon Trump how many kids have you authorized to be killed today?"

I said that about Obama before if that's a worry. And Biden. etc.

But now we live in a time when we're actively supplying weapons to Israel who is committing a genocide.

Yet the media harps on about the shame of what was a talking head and memorializing it.

Which is what brought me to the question: If you can't outvote Trump, et al., what's the other option?

I don't claim this event in any political movement way -- I'm using it as a means to broach the question about the lameness of voting in the United States.

Malcolm was right.

Once you realize it's not just a "this time" but an "every time I'm going to lose" -- what else is there?

Being funneled into NGO's that blow smoke up your ass, or....?

Which is what brought me to the question: If you can't outvote Trump, et al., what's the other option? — Moliere

What do you do if Trump&co declare martial law and suspend elections? And then try to collect all the guns from registered Democrats and suspected LGBTQ people?

I'm asking about what a group ought do when they realize voting not only didn't work this one time, but won't work because it's set up that way. — Moliere

Right. Let's stick to that, then, please. As the OP, it would be more effective if you correct those who deviate from your purported line of discussion.

Voting isn't there to "work", it's there to aggregate and determine the will of the people into a social "law" or reality that becomes a binding law in accordance to a a particular Constitution.

Now, many people believe, the average person is fairly stupid. I am one of them. So, naturally it will lead to stupid things which lead to suffering and existential anger. That much is not very difficult to ascertain.

This is why we have "influencers" who try to become barons and counts in their own social circles, eventually hoping to become bishops and lords, and perhaps one day, even greater.

But in the end, per your OP, it comes down to more people disagree with what you believe than those who agree. Therefore, your belief is essentially ignored in favor of that of the majority. It doesn't matter who's wrong or who's right, what matters is that there's more of them than you. Again, humanity is generally it's own worst enemy. People are not very smart. Especially in the modern age where things that used to take a lifetime of practice can be done in the push of a button. The mind looks for the path of least resistance, in just about every measurable way and aspect.

So, if your idea is powerful enough to convince others to abandon their ingrained beliefs in favor for your own, you could try that route and "educate" people. Hence the old saying, that I may have just made up, all war ultimately starts and ends in the mind. Otherwise, you either accept the fact your idea or worldview is less popular than others, and live out your life out in quiet dignity around those who share it. Or you move somewhere with people who do share your worldview.

Killing doesn't change anything. Not really. Not after a time. Humanity always melds and forms into its default state given enough "freedom" and lack of direction. It's like a pendulum. It goes back. And forth. Back. And forth. Once you understand this, you too can be content in this world of malaise, wretchedness, and general stupidity.

I'd be, unfortunately, verified in my beliefs.

And, yeah, not give them up. We don't live in a time when "giving them up" is something we can do.

Eh, I think this is too big picture.

The United States is not a democracy because of so many reasons. The easiest way to see this is to look at the polls of what people want and see what politicians vote for.

The hard way to see this is to look at what Citizen's United exacerbated.

I like the idea of "I trust you enough that if I don't win it'll carry on"

But these are fascists that want to eliminate gays and make sure we're a Christian nation and continue to make war.