Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
"Kirk was happy to see innocent children put to death"
He was pro 2nd amendment and protecting those rights. He advocated different safety measures in order to prevent school shootings, such as
-armed security guards in schools, as you see at sporting events, banks, airports
-security upgrades to schools such as reinforced doors, bulletproof glass, and secure entry points
-arming school staff who are trained & willing, as a last line of defense
Can disagree with his solution to preventing school shootings all you want. But to repeat any iteration of "happy to see children put to death" is just vilifying him in your own mind in order to reconcile being happy that's dead.
In the quote where he said "it's worth it" + "having an armed citizenry comes with a price", he also said "driving comes with a price - 50,000 people die on the road every year - that's a price. 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 every year".
It'd be baseless and inflammatory to say Kirk is happy to see children killed by drunk drivers.
|
What a stupid post, I owe Azure an apology.
'He didn’t enjoy the corpses, he merely accepted them' is basically your argument here, with all the ethical sophistication of a mafia accountant. To point out that he did not smile at the deaths is irrelevant, he
rationalized them,
normalized them, and lobbied for the conditions that made and continue to make them
all but inevitable.
His 'solutions' are the usual conservative theatre of futility and surrender politics. Yes, let's turn schools into armed bunkers so that children can be educated under siege, conceding the carnage as permanent and trying only to harden the targets. He didn’t seek to prevent the bloodshed, his answer was to build thicker walls around it.
And the car analogy is as obscene as it is
lazy. Driving deaths are tragic externalities of an activity
not designed to kill; guns are designed expressly for that purpose. A society that accepts accidental deaths from transport is not morally equivalent to one that shrugs at deliberate slaughter by firearms.
No no, take solace that you're right that he may not have celebrated the deaths. But it's a compete failure of intelligent thought on your part to fail to recognize that he framed them as the acceptable price of his ideology. And when you declare children's lives to be an unfortunate but tolerable toll, you don’t have to giggle while they die to be implicated in their deaths. You only have to keep calling it "worth it".