[Northern Light]

Like I just mentioned, the Mauser 30-06 is a conventional low capacity, bolt-action rifle commonly used in big game hunting. It can be easily acquired in most jurisdictions and even if there was gun control, it wouldn't have prevented his murder.

Perhaps.

I think getting tied up w/whether a particular fire arm would be legal under any control is to potentially miss other impacts.

For instance, Universal Background Checks might have prevented this person from purchasing any fire arm.

But also, there is just a cultural factor.........in a country where carrying guns in the open, on your person, or in your vehicle doesn't automatically attract attention, negative or otherwise......its not only easier to carry out such an operation and to anticipate an escape......

Its also just more of a mindset that using a firearm as a means of revenge, or dispute settlement or making a point........ etc. has a measure of social acceptability. Its very ubiquity makes it so.

A gun control regime doesn't make anything impossible. If you have enough money and determination, you can get access to just about anything you want; but truthfully the effort and cost are beyond most people's level of interest.......which is what makes it effective.

Its the very act making guns comparatively rare, and gun violence less normative that works to reinforce a notion that guns are not the acceptable means to an end.

In any event, more gun control in the U.S. would be a good thing, irrespective of whether it would have saved Mr. Kirk's life, in this case.

 

[PL1]

No. As someone on the (very far) left I vehemently disagree with this. Because guess who's going to be setting limits on what speech is allowed now? That power will eventually be in the hands of someone you disagree with, and then what?

For those that haven't watched, here's a great defense of free speech by Christopher Hitchens, speaking right here in Toronto many years ago.

Of course, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of that speech. That is something else entirely.

Hate speech is not and should not be protected. I have a pretty high tolerance for what I accept. But hate crosses that line.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

No. As someone on the (very far) left I vehemently disagree with this. Because guess who's going to be setting limits on what speech is allowed now? That power will eventually be in the hands of someone you disagree with, and then what?

For those that haven't watched, here's a great defense of free speech by Christopher Hitchens, speaking right here in Toronto many years ago.

Of course, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of that speech. That is something else entirely.

That's a philosophical issue - because guess what, consequences are a far more effective (and at times, insidious) limiter of speech - and the ability to deliver consequences is mediated by power. Just look at the situation in the US.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Freedom of speech should be protected at all cost, no matter a person's beliefs are. Nobody deserves to die because of being crazy. Violence is never the answer

Hate speech is not and should not be protected. I have a pretty high tolerance for what I accept. But hate crosses that line.

No. As someone on the (very far) left I vehemently disagree with this. Because guess who's going to be setting limits on what speech is allowed now? That power will eventually be in the hands of someone you disagree with, and then what?

For those that haven't watched, here's a great defense of free speech by Christopher Hitchens, speaking right here in Toronto many years ago.

Of course, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of that speech. That is something else entirely.

As a troika, let me respond thusly.

1) I agree with @gabe that no one's assassination should be countenanced on the basis of their speech. However, infuriating, and perhaps, depending on jurisdiction, even illegal, assassination is certainly neither legal nor acceptable.

However, let me differ with him in as much as no right, or freedom is absolute. The old line on this is that you cannot falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, because people in their rush to evacuate may trample others who could become injured or even die. The consequence of the speech in that context is too great to be permitted.

Hate speech is similar. I am for police cutting media/professors/commentators or the general public a wide swath of latitude. One should not restrict speech merely because if offends, is disrespectful, or otherwise obnoxious. Indeed, even speech that can cause harm should be protected, to a point......where the harm caused is less than that, by allowing the speech to stand.

But in Mr.Kirk's case, to take but one example, he explicitly endorsed the stoning of gay people to death. You sure you want to protect that speech @gabe ?

2) I'm clearly with @PL1 here, but I certainly endorse the idea that hate speech laws need to be limited in scope, and in scale. By the former, I mean that obnoxious, rude, even erroneous speech is simply not sufficiently dangerous that it ought to be covered by the law, unto itself. The speech needs to, in mind, reach three standards or benchmarks. The first is that it is clearly dangerous, in a serious way, particularly where it may cause physical harm to others. The second is it is unambiguously over-the-line.......not fuzzy; and in general,on a first offense, people ought to be given the opportunity to retract their statement rather than face charges. Third, the statement must be public (as opposed to private speech) and must have sufficient reach to be likely to be dangerous.

I get that its a slippery slope, but most things are.

3) On @goreckm 's take. I've offered mine above already; but would add, Canada has anti-hate laws for more than a generation now. Only a handful of people have ever been prosecuted, and I don't think most Canadians would feel free speech has been unduly restricted or abridged by the laws as they are today.

I like Hitchens btw.

 

[picard102]

I was never a fan of the guy, nor do I really care about the motivations and theories being spread. He was father of a 3yo and 1yo, who will never know their dad nor have him around. As a father of 4 and 2 yos, this makes me really sad.

I wonder if people and the media in the 1940's lamented over the Nazi leaders killed? Surely they had families, a wife, children. Was the public saddened by Goebbels suicide and the death of his family?

 

[Mrgeosim]

But in Mr.Kirk's case, to take but one example, he explicitly endorsed the stoning of gay people to death. You sure you want to protect that speech @gabe ?

I looked into this and that is an egregious misrepresentation of what Charlie said, clearly done in bad faith to score political points. If you want to see the video that everyone is pointing to, you can check it out here. In the video, he is responding to a religious question about the meaning of loving your neighbour and where it appears in the Old Testament. He quotes the passage about stoning gay people, not to make a point about public policy, but to refute the person's religious argument about the meaning of love.

I am honestly so sickened by how low the bar is for journalism and for what passes as "news". If lies like this were spread about the man, I am not surprised that someone teetering on the edge would go out and kill him.

 

[Mrgeosim]

I wonder if people and the media in the 1940's lamented over the Nazi leaders killed? Surely they had families, a wife, children. Was the public saddened by Goebbels suicide and the death of his family?

You are why democracy is going to die this century.

 

[picard102]

You are why democracy is going to die this century.

Nah, that's going to be conservatives who are orchestrating it and the progressives who do nothing but tut tut while it happens.

You're pathetic.

Maybe instead of the sanctimony, you could provide articles from the 40's that show others felt the same.

 

[Northern Light]

I looked into this and that is an egregious misrepresentation of what Charlie said, clearly done in bad faith to score political points. If you want to see the video that everyone is pointing to, you can check it out here. In the video, he is responding to a religious question about the meaning of loving your neighbour and where it appears in the Old Testament. He quotes the passage about stoning gay people, not to make a point about public policy, but to refute the person's argument about the meaning of love.

I disagree completely. I watched the video, in full, twice, to carefully consider the context in which the words are said.

I don't find any ambiguity or room for misinterpretation in his closing.
Referring to Leviticus the book containing the reference to gay sex being an abomination.......... Kirk clearly says

" “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

I am honestly so sickened by how low the bar is for journalism and for what passes as "news". If lies like this were spread about the man, I am not surprised that someone teetering on the edge would go out and kill him.

I don't condone his assassination in anyway, shape or form.

However, the man himself was detestable. That's simply insufficient to merit his assassination.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You are why democracy is going to die this century.

Well, he didn't storm the Capitol.

AoD

 

[Mrgeosim]

I disagree completely. I watched the video, in full, twice, to carefully consider the context in which the words are said.

I don't find any ambiguity or room for misinterpretation in his closing.
Referring to Leviticus the book containing the reference to gay sex being an abomination.......... Kirk clearly says

" “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”



I don't condone his assassination in anyway, shape or form.

However, the man himself was detestable. That's simply insufficient to merit his assassination.

That is his belief as a Christian, coming from his holy text, believed by billions of people, being referenced in a religious conversation. He did not use it as a basis for public policy, and it is his right to believe that both in America and in Canada. This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement about his religious beliefs regarding sexuality. He was not calling for the execution of gay people but news outlets picked it up, disseminated it, and now people are all over social media saying that he deserved to die because of a lie that was spun by unscrupulous news outlets.

 

[goreckm]

Hate speech is not and should not be protected. I have a pretty high tolerance for what I accept. But hate crosses that line.

While I agree in theory, it gives a tool for someone who may have a completely different interpretation of what hate is. Look at the Republicans redefining what refugees are worthy (white south africans) of entrance. Imagine this being extended to hate speech, where the government can say talking about domestic abuse is hate speech toward men, or talking about how divorce is actually violence against the family unit. They don't have to believe it, just want to use the power of the state to silence others. I would rather things like that be handled by society and public opinion.

 

[picard102]

That is his belief as a Christian, coming from his holy text, believed by billions of people, being referenced in a religious conversation. He did not use it as a basis for public policy, and it is his right to believe that both in America and in Canada. This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement about his religious beliefs regarding sexuality. He was not calling for the execution of gay people but news outlets picked it up, disseminated it, and now people are all over social media saying that he deserved to die because of a lie that was spun by unscrupulous news outlets.

Weird then that you missed him saying at a Trump rally in Georgia last fall that Democrats “stand for everything God hates” and “This is a Christian state. I’d like to see it stay that way.”

I wonder how you will twist "this is a christian state" to not mean he's advocating for policies based on warped christian ideology.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

While I agree in theory, it gives a tool for someone who may have a completely different interpretation of what hate is. Look at the Republicans redefining what refugees are worthy (white south africans) of entrance. Imagine this being extended to hate speech, where the government can say talking about domestic abuse is hate speech toward men, or talking about how divorce is actually violence against the family unit. They don't have to believe it, just want to use the power of the state to silence others. I would rather things like that be handled by society and public opinion.

You aren't wrong, but the very fact that freedom of speech -hard-baked into the US Constitution to a far higher degree, with less reservations than in Canada still didn't prevent what's happening in the US is plenty telling. What is more important is institutional resilience and moderation in leadership, not absolutes printed on a piece of paper that meant nothing the moment it became convenient.

AoD

 

[Mrgeosim]

Weird then that you missed him saying at a Trump rally in Georgia last fall that Democrats “stand for everything God hates” and “This is a Christian state. I’d like to see it stay that way.”

I wonder how you will twist "this is a christian state" to not mean he's advocating for policies based on warped christian ideology.

Considering that pretty much every Christian denomination believes that the Old Testament civil laws aren't binding today, I have an idea of what Charlie would believe, but we'll never know now because we live in the era where people get gunned down for beliefs they don't bother to actually investigate.