The part of the textbook right before the section called "The Years of Blood"

[dorchadas]

Charlie Kirk shot in Utah, died.

It's easy to look at this and say, oh look, the dude who spent his whole life sowing the wind has reaped the whirlwind. And you're honestly not wrong to say that, but the kind of country where people get shot at during a speaking event at a university campus is not really a good country to live in, it's the kind of country we have historically issued travel advisories about. I think it'll be more useful to look at the reaction to this vs. the reaction to the Michigan state reps who were assassinated in their homes, because I suspect it will be very different.

Also, as the reaction to the Minneapolis school shooter (and basically every shooting back to and including Sandy Hook) shows, literally nothing can happen that will make the right engage in a good-faith argument about gun violence, so this won't either.

America thinks of a civil war as two sides in different uniforms lining up and shooting each other, because that's what our civil war is like, but that's not what most civil wars are. I expect our civil war to be more like the Troubles--constantly low grade violence to the point that you never feel entirely safe. There are no frontlines, the battlefield sudden appears in ordinary neighborhoods and bars and train stations and then vanishes as the ambulance siren gets closer.

Also, on a personal note, Kirk had a three-year-old daughter and a one-year-old son. They don't deserve life without a father.

Comments

[matsushima]

There is an element of "fuck around and find out" in Kirk's death and I won't mourn him but you're right that this isn't the kind of country we want to be. Saying the next (current?) American civil war will be more like the Troubles than the Civil War is a good point but I don't even know if either side has as clearly defined goals and objectives? Not that it makes it OK but the Good Friday Agreement was possible; I don't know if there's anything that would stop a civil war fought through stochastic terrorism and nihilistic accelerationist violence.

[theradicalchild]

The Troubles is a good analogy.

But the thing is, take away guns, people will just find other ways to kill, like knives (and you can beat someone to death with a cane, among other things), and I believe self-defense is a human right. I'll probably never own a gun myself (though I do keep a switchblade when going out), but I would like the choice. I think people *not* taking advantage of their gun rights could be a cause of crime, and big cities in America that have stricter gun laws have higher crime. And things like families defending their homes against criminals with guns never make newspaper headlines, maybe police blotter.

In many European countries, self-defense is actually a punishable offense. There was a story from the last decade of a girl in Denmark defending herself against a migrant criminal with pepper spray only to be told that she would be the one to be prosecuted.

And in nations like Germany you can't defend yourself against criminals with weapons by "greater means"--I saw videos of German self-defense, and it's an absolute joke: people whipping criminals with knives with shirts and towels. Yeah, not gonna work.

That all and I believe gun rights are an ultimate check against authoritarian government, yet most who complain about authoritarian government are the ones who want to take away firearms oddly.

And to me, taking away responsible, law-abiding citizens' guns because criminals have them is like sterilizing them if their neighbors have tons of children, I saw a humorous analogy.

[omnipotent]

You know, people keep coming back to the "this isn't who we are" and "this isn't the kind of country we want to be" . . .

I'm here to tell you right now, this is who we are and who we have always been. I am sorry that people have to get their wake-up call in this manner, but I guess it's better to get the wake-up call than not at all.

As far as warfare, Americans have not lived through a war on American soil. Those with two brain cells to rub together realize that war has come a long way from shooting people in rows. I think it is hard to prepare for what type of violence may be to come because we can't anticipate what form it will come in. Tanks? Guns? Planes? Howitzers? Conventional bombs? Nuclear bombs (I do not put it past the Great Value Führer)? Mines (much of Bosnia-Herzegovina is still heavily mined)? Drones? All of the aforementioned? Who can you trust?

As for Kirk, he himself said empathy is a sin, and he would have been gleeful to see me swinging from a tree, so I won't waste any more keystrokes on him.

[dorchadas]

I've already seen people refer to him as "Charlie Kirk יש״ו" (Charlie Kirk, may his name and memory be erased).

[dorchadas]

Yeah--in a lot of ways this is basically an apocalyptic religious conflict in the minds of quite a few people. The stakes are for the entire future of the country, the other side hates all that is good and pure and ceaselessly tries to destroy everything worthwhile, etc. Compromise would be admitting that maybe the devil has some good points. It's going to be very hard to come back from that.

[dorchadas]

It is true that, absent guns, anyone determined enough will use other available weapons, but it's also true that guns are generally better at killing than the other available weapons (crashing cars, knives, whatever), and someone determined to just cause mayhem will cause more with a gun than they would with another available weapon.

That said, there's obviously something specifically wrong with Americans when you compare to countries like e.g. Switzerland (which also has high levels of gun ownership and much lower levels of gun violence).