You must log in or # to comment.
Play stupid games…
It’s a concession that spree killings will happen.
It’s 0.5% of the argument, and it’s just debating honestly.
And you justify his murder over that?
Lol k
What is the rest of his argument?
Fair enough - you can see a clip of him bringing out a common part of it here in a YouTube Short.
And thisis the most important part- basically, as it stands we are already sacrificing human lives for human liberty. He uses car crashes in the above clip - 55,000+ Americans die per year in car accidents, yet nobody says we should ban private car ownership because we understand that the inconveniences caused is through the roof. We also would diffuse the blame for these accidents to specific individuals who are guilty of specific acts - we can actually create a system of accountability…
The same can be said of alcohol: 13,000+ deaths of drunk driving in 2024 in the US alone, yet there is no prohibitionist movement in the US that is remotely serious.
Point being: Charlie Kirk supports keeping firearms legally ownable to private citizens because it serves the purpose of defending us from the government and also from criminals…
… And ina much longer format, he would trundle out all the old arguments about guns and crime prevention, and he would even talk about how certain jurisdictions with very high rates of gun ownership experience homicide rates very similar to very safe European states…
Ironically… Look it up…Provo, UTAH,where Charlie died, is one of those places where about half the people own guns and they tend to have 1-2 murders per year in an area with a pop of just over 100k, so they get very European homicide ratenumbers.
Fun fact: there were no murders there for six years between 1999 and 2005.
And thisis the most important part- basically, as it stands we are already sacrificing human lives for human liberty. He uses car crashes in the above clip - 55,000+ Americans die per year in car accidents, yet nobody says we should ban private car ownership because we understand that the inconveniences caused is through the roof. We also would diffuse the blame for these accidents to specific individuals who are guilty of specific acts - we can actually create a system of accountability…
Sounds like a self-made problem that could easily be fixable with proper investment. The Netherlands was much more car-centric last century, until a spate of child deaths lead to protests and a dramatic reversal of car culture. So I don’t find this argument very convincing, and in fact, I find it very barbaric. 55000 families destroyed every year over money.
If someone wants to sit down and argue that we need to optimize road traffic, minimize the amount of people driving, etc. and also to illegalize alcohol and other dangerous substances, I can oppose that, but my arguments will shift dramatically, right, because it’s hard to anticipate somebody is going to go all in on minimizing human liberty to maximize security like that.
Per capita car ownership has been growing in NL since at least 1990 and road deaths have been declining in that time per your link https://english.kimnet.nl/documents/2022/02/22/the-widespread-car-ownership-in-the-netherlands
Yup, you’re not wrong. The key difference is how transit is organized here. NL follows a really good traffic separation policy on their traffic design. Their roads here are buttery smooth and they do heavy investment in them. You can very clearly tell the difference when crossing the border into Belgium, for example. And what goes along with that is a nation-wide cycle path infrastructure, separate from the roads, that is also well maintained. I, literally, have crossed the country diagonally using only the cycle infra. The public transit is also amazing, with passenger trains criss-crossing the whole country such that I can go from any of the larger cities to another trivially, and many, many smaller villages. Regional buses, city buses, trams, metros/subways-- they have it all to the point where I mostly don’t need to check the schedule. I can just show up and step on. And they don’t overlap or share the same space. The buses, trams, trains, and cycle paths don’t compete for road space with cars. It is so much safer and better that way for everyone, even the car drivers.
And it wasn’t always this good. The difference between 1960s/70s Amsterdam and today is night and day with many roads now “fietsstraat” (bikes have priority and cars are a guest) with more planned. Other cities like Utrecht had filled in a canal to make a road, and completely reversed that decision and put the canal back. In most cities, the speed limits for cars is set very low (30kph). Some villages are designed without any through-traffic roads as well.
With carefully thought out plans and designs, NL is able to safely accommodate all travelers, including those taking public transit. If you would like more information, please checkout Not Just Bikes, Build the Lanes, and of course, for better urban design, Strong Towns.
American exceptionalism really falls flat in the face of such overwhelming evidence of a better way to do things.
EDIT: One small brag. I’ve not owned a car in 15 years and haven’t needed one. It’s amazing to not have that stress and cost.
The population density of the Netherlands - it’s the most densely populated state in Europe that isn’t a microstate. In fact, it’s more densely populated than some island nations like Puerto Rico and what is commonly considered a microstate, Luxembourg.
Your entire argument is based on a strawman.
I do not think it’s a strawman - I think most people agree that alcohol and private car ownership shouldn’t be banned, so it’s fair to bring this out as a preemptive argument.
It’s an honest mistake if someone responds in some unexpected way.
Like if I brought up the Holocaust in an argument and suddenly someone said
The Holocaust Never Happened
I wasn’t strawmanning them, lol. I was making the rational assumption that I am not talking to a Holocaust denier.
Those other things should go away as well.
Fair enough - like I have said elsewhere, this would jus mean that the whole argument has to shift.
