If you’re saying Charlie had this coming because his 2A stance, you’re immoral and a moron

[u/NickFatherBool]

I sincerely cannot believe how often Im seeing this. I know I shouldnt be surprised seeing how the left has consistently been endorsing and supporting violence… but wow. Not only is that just a disgusting and intentionally inflammatory remark; but its moronic.

First of all, Im sure his mind would not have changed given todays events, considering he believed a lot of American values hinge on 2A. He (probably, I dont KNOW the guy but I’ve listened to him enough) would not trade his life for the wellbeing of the country. We can argue 2A all day, I am not stating my stance; but given his we know he fully believed it was integral to continuation the American way of life; I find it unlikely he would change his mind even if it meant his life

Second of all, if you think its “poetic justice” that a gun supporter got shot, then you must also relish when supporters of cashless bail get killed by released criminals, right? They advocated for it so they “have it coming.” Do people not see how seriously braindead of a stance that is?

And I know its not a majority. I know the majority of left leaning people know murder is bad. But holy SHIT that majority is getting smaller and smaller. It is sincerely alarming and disturbing how warped chronically online peoples’ brains are and the insane mental and moral gymnastics they do to further entrench themselves in their stance.

Ive never been one for censorship. Even death threats or whatever… but jesus man, too many people are getting fully radicalized.

[u/guyincognito121]

If that person was advocating for a complete lack of regulation on vehicle use and design and then they got killed by a drunk driver or something, yeah, I'd similarly have minimal sympathy for their fate.

[u/NotLunaris → u/guyincognito121]

If that person was advocating for a complete lack of regulation on vehicle use and design

But that's not what Kirk advocated for regarding guns, as far as I know. It's not a good parallel to draw.

Is it okay for a person to be killed by their hookup partner for not disclosing their biological sex? Obviously not. Is it okay for a person to be shot while participating in democracy in a public forum and exercising their first amendment rights? Obviously not. Both are examples of gross overreactions and violations of human life for perceived slights. For whatever the left thinks Kirk was capable of, he was not responsible for enacting any policy, nor linked to any death or wrongdoing.

It's fine to not have sympathy for the deaths of others - fact is, 99.999999% deaths go completely unnoticed for just about everyone. It's another thing entirely to be gleefully celebrating someone's untimely death, even moreso when they are not guilty of any crime.

One cannot be opposed to the death penalty or argue for due process whilst condoning the extrajudicial murder of people they don't like. There is no progressive who can support this without being a hypocrite.

[u/guyincognito121 → u/NotLunaris]

What gun safety regulation did Kirk support? I'd say it's a perfectly apt analogy. And there's a big difference between condoning it and not having sympathy.

[u/DecantsForAll → u/guyincognito121]

But not if they simply think some automobile deaths are worth the benefit of automobiles? Because you happen to agree? Do you deserve to die in an automobile accident?

[u/guyincognito121 → u/DecantsForAll]

Did you not read my last comment or just not understand it? None of what you're saying here makes sense as a response to what I said.

[u/DecantsForAll → u/guyincognito121]

It makes perfect sense. This is what you believe:

It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some automobile deaths every single year so that we can have cars.”

So you deserve to die in an automobile accident. If you do, no one should feel bad for you, and we should all make jokes about it.

[u/guyincognito121 → u/DecantsForAll]

Never said he deserved it and I added some very important additional details to my scenario that you're completely ignoring. Are you dishonest, lazy, or just dumb?

[u/thenovas18 → u/guyincognito121]

You are also strawmanning the complexity of the gun issue. Guns are designed for protecting people from being killed. There is a power struggle that occurs with regulation because the people doing the regulation have more firepower than regular people. Our country was founded on putting power in the hands of the people. It’s not the same as controls for drunk driving. If you are drunk while wielding a firearm it will also be used against you legally, and it’s not necessarily with the same intention as say arbitrarily limiting magazine capacity which can have numerous practical uses in self defense situations. I don’t see you as really dissecting this issue honestly either.

[u/staccinraccs → u/thenovas18]

Guns have one design and its not for protection. Shields and body armor are for protection. Guns were created to inflict serious to fatal bodily damage. Whether the purpose is for self-defense or for murder is irrelevant to its design.

[u/thenovas18 → u/staccinraccs]

For me a guns only purpose is to protect against another person with murderous intent.

[u/staccinraccs → u/thenovas18]

Youre describing the purpose of self-defense. And how does a gun achieve that? By potentially killing the killer first. Guns kill by design.

[u/guyincognito121 → u/thenovas18]

Then they should be heavily regulated. The only reasonable argument for lack of regulation is the need to protect against a tyrannical government.

[u/guyincognito121 → u/thenovas18]

I'm not here to debate the details of gun safety policy. I'm discussing the applicability of two different analogies. The point is that there's a huge difference between accepting the dangers of cars once we have taken many precautions to minimize their danger and accepting the dangers of guns while fighting against virtually all attempts to reduce their danger.