Not defend Kirk, but you didnt hear it anywhere. But you would have read it plenty.
The actual quote is this: “You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … 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. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
He gave more context to his point of view here: “Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
I personally dont like the analogy here, as it doesnt take into account that driving a car has lots of safe guards in place. You have to register your car in every state. You have to take lessons and pass a test in order to be able to drive. In some places in the US, you can just walk into a gun show, and walk out armed to the teeth with zero checks.
School shootings are just something you’re going to have to live with in a country with a gun culture. I think I heard that somewhere.
That’s what MAGA tells me. Thoughts and prayers are the answer.
Not defend Kirk, but you didnt hear it anywhere. But you would have read it plenty.
The actual quote is this: “You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … 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. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
He gave more context to his point of view here: “Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
I personally dont like the analogy here, as it doesnt take into account that driving a car has lots of safe guards in place. You have to register your car in every state. You have to take lessons and pass a test in order to be able to drive. In some places in the US, you can just walk into a gun show, and walk out armed to the teeth with zero checks.
In any argument, details matter.
Cars also have very obvious uses besides harming people.
Also, people buy cars to drive them. Deaths and injuries are not the purpose of a car.