Monday, December 24, 2012


Having the Requested Gun Control Conversation

So much for the new civility the left made such a big deal about when a complete nut case shot Rep. Gifford and others nearly two years ago. The horror of the mass school shooting in Connecticut a little over a week ago caused a lot of people, mainly politicians and journalists, to demand that we have a new conversation about gun control. OK with me. But when anyone talks about gun control and does not toe the Democratic party line (ban mean looking guns and high capacity box magazines, for a start), the Democrats instantly resort to ad hominim attacks, calling the pro gun rights crowd supporters of murderers, crazy, liars, idiots, etc. Is that sort of name-calling conducive to a rational discussion of what we can and should do to keep our school children safe from crazy people with guns? Because it tends to make many people not want to offer their opinion. Maybe that's what the Democrats actually wanted: Let us talk about doing something completely counterproductive while emotions run high and you gun nuts just shut up.

Here is an example of the discourse in the press regarding the supposedly desired discussion. I pick it almost at random but I believe it is representative. It's sports writer Mike Lupica's contribution on the subject. The headline (which I realize Mr. Lupica may not have written) is:

'Crazy' Wayne LaPierre or NRA continues push for guns with lies

So it starts off calling the head of the National Rifle Association both crazy and a liar. Good neutral beginning there. I was interested in hearing what Mike Lupica thought were Mr. LaPierre's lies. Alas, I couldn't find any valid allegations of lying in the body of the opinion piece.

So now Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, who attacks the mental health system in this country even as he sounds like he needs to be in it, goes on “Meet the Press” and continues to double down on his notion that the only way to keep our schools safe is to put armed guards at the front door and the side door and in every home room in America and maybe on every school bus, too.
See, crazy to put forth an idea for school safety different from what non-gun enthusiasts want. But Lupica resorts to a different fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, by mis-stating what was said. An armed guard or guards at a school was proposed, not at every door, nor in every classroom. And not at the front door either. Does Lupica not know about YouTube? We can listen to what Wayne LaPierre actually said. Second paragraph:
The other day there was a terrific Daily News front page calling LaPierre, the NRA’s executive director, the “craziest man on Earth,” and he was clearly referencing that Sunday morning, even as he continued to sound like just one more coward made brave and tough by a gun.
So, again he's crazy to say these things which might seem fairly common sense to us Neanderthal knuckle- draggers who haven't reached the height of enlightenment the left has. Then there is more name-calling. LaPierre is coward. Oh, that's helpful. Am I being too sensitive to think that Lupica thinks everyone who likes guns is a coward too? I don't think I am. Next:
“If it’s crazy to call for putting police in and securing our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,” LaPierre said. “I think the American people think it’s crazy not to do it. It’s the one thing that would keep people safe.”
Of course, that is a lie from LaPierre, who also lies when he says any new gun control measures in this country are some anti-American attack on the Second Amendment, as if any parent or politician now calling for more gun control is going after the Second Amendment with the kind of assault weapon that Adam Lanza used to shoot up a principal and teachers and 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
I'm wondering how thinking an armed guard might be helpful against a crazy guy with guns is a known falsehood? Most people would believe that. We surround people whom we believe are important, like the President, with lots of guards with guns. We protect banks and bank personnel with armed guards, because we think money is worth guarding. Why not guard our innocent children in school who are incapable of fighting back against an armed crazy person? I don't think it's any crazier than having armed guards check for guns at almost every government building. What's so precious there? The statement that armed guards could help keep our children safe is not a lie. It is an opinion about future action. Mr. LaPierre does not think it is false. I'm going to need more evidence that it's wrong even to think that armed guards might help secure something precious, when we use armed guards to protect things all the time. Lupica doesn't even try to support his name-calling. And yes, banning guns is necessarily an assault on the Second Amendment. The government does not get to chose what weapons I keep and bear. I choose. Just so the government does not get to chose what I believe about God. I choose that too. So it's not a lie to mention the Second Amendment when the Democrats are talking about banning or confiscating mean looking weapons and tall magazines. Next:
But then LaPierre is the type who lies to stay in practice, as he continues to pass himself off as the front man for responsible gun owners when he actually is a front for their lunatic fringe. To say that the NRA represents mainstream thinking for gun owners is the same as saying that the Tea Party represents mainstream thinking in the Republican Party.
LaPierre also spoke Sunday about Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California who helped write the 1994 assault weapons ban for semiautomatic weapons that would expire 10 years later. Now Feinstein is talking about introducing a similar bill for weapons like Lanza’s AR-15, a gun LaPierre seems to think every law-abiding citizen needs, perhaps because of the catastrophic damage one of its bullets does once inside the human body, including the bodies of 6- and 7-year-old children.
The NRA has long been an advocate for responsible gun ownership. To Lupica, anyone who likes guns is on the lunatic fringe. So with nearly 100 Million American gun owners (and another million every month or so) that's quite a fringe. I think the Tea Party is the mainstream of the Republican party, but to lefty Lupica and his ilk, they are a dangerous, lunatic fringe.

Then the ignorance starts. The 1994 assault weapon ban did not ban semiautomatic guns, just prevented new sales of a very small subset of them, the mean looking ones. It did nothing to prevent school shootings, as Mr. LaPierre has pointed out. And as I have tried to point out repeatedly, the .223 Remington is a relatively wimpy round which does not cause catastrophic damage like the former US military rounds (.45 APC, 30.06 and .50 BMG) actually cause. Next:

LaPierre calls Feinstein’s proposed bill a “phony piece of legislation . . . built on lies.”

The phony is LaPierre, who chooses this moment in American history — one that should change the country and will change the country — to push his own agenda and his association’s agenda and expects people to believe that it is all about our children.

“The NRA is not going to let people lose the Second Amendment in this country,” LaPierre said Sunday, and at that point he does sound like an expert on what he calls the “cracked” mental health system, because that system is clearly doing nothing as he goes from his press conference Friday to national television sounding like a slobbering idiot.
Banning the new purchase of guns because they look mean is phony. It did not do any good when tried 1994 -2004, and it won't do any good if tried again. There are too many guns that look mean out there and no matter what the laws say, people can get banned objects if they want to (like alcohol during Prohibition, drugs now, guns in cities that banned their possession). Lupica again goes to name-calling ("slobbering idiot") rather than explain, as I'm trying to do with Lupica, logically, where Mr. La Pierre goes wrong. I guess it's easier for someone to resort to name calling when he has neither the knowledge nor the rhetorical skills to make a cogent argument.
Then it really gets nasty. For brevity, I'll paraphrase:  It is the teacher and the principal who tried to defend the children and were shot dead who are the heroes here, not any nasty, brutish, crazy, cowardly, fringe gun carrier.

Ok, but the unarmed, brave teacher and principal, as much as they deserve praise for their bravery and sacrifice, were totally ineffectual in preventing the death of even a single child. It was the arrival of the armed police that put an end to the slaughter.
And notice the phrasing:
Wayne LaPierre thinks a retired cop would have changed everything, as if a retired cop in front of Sandy Hook Elementary wouldn’t have been the first to go, Adam Lanza having a gun that sure does hit whom it aims at.
OK, don't put the armed guard at the front door (just as bank guards are not at the banks' front doors).
And "a gun that sure does hit whom it aims at." The gun doesn't aim itself. The crazy shooter of children aimed the gun. Lefty writers often use the passive when talking about items they don't like (SUVs, guns) and attribute to them action which only the person using them could have supplied. It's part, I think, of the magical thinking of the left, that the mere existence of guns has a deleterious effect on those near them (which seems the reason for not wanting armed guards at schools) and further, if only the guns were regulated, no small amount of criminal activity would cease. The results of gun banning has just the opposite effect. In normally very law abiding England and Wales, in a decade, gun related offenses nearly doubled and this was after a near complete ban on gun ownership was put in place. It is very difficult to own a gun in Chicago, for example, (and until the McDonald Supreme Court case, handgun ownership was banned) but the murder rate there of teenagers or younger, by handguns, is such that the sad toll at the Sandy Hook school was equaled every 7 weeks this year, and it was worse last year.

The real problem with Lupica's reasoning here, if I can call it reasoning is that he completely replaces logical relations with rampant emotion. Just as he praises the very brave behavior of the adults killed at Sandy Hook defending the children, even though their sacrifice did the children no good at all, he also praises the feel good legislation he wants, banning mean looking guns, as the right thing to do, even though it will do no good to prevent future gun violence. And he's so sure in his ignorance that he is right, anyone who thinks differently is a cowardly, lying, slobbering idiot.

And, as I said at the beginning, this faux argument is representative of the extreme fringe on the left who wish to ignore reason, the real world and the Constitution because they don't like guns.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?