Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Bombastic Pomposity

We all know and accept that Dan Rodricks cannot put a logical argument together if he saved his life. But please read his column on gun violence today and try to make some sense of his idiotic conclusions regarding how gun control impacts law abiding citizens.

"REALITY killed the gun control debate," Volensky, the e-mailer from Alabama, went on. "People are finally realizing how foolish 'gun control' is and that they have a RIGHT if not a duty to take responsibility for their own safety. They are finally realizing that criminals are criminals and are not going to obey the laws that hack politicians put in place to appease people such as yourself. They are finally realizing that the only people affected by gun control laws are the law abiding."

There's some truth to that, Bruce.

I'm sure the 13 people who were shot to death at the immigration center in Binghamton were law-abiding, maybe even perfectly peaceful, people. I'm sure the children of Christopher Wood, the Middletown dad who apparently shot them before killing himself, respected the laws, as much as they even had an awareness of them.

Indeed, law-abiding people are profoundly affected by our gun-control laws - the lack of them.

So to recap Rodricks point, the lack of gun control laws are responsibile for senseless killings. The lack of gun control laws, not law-breaking murderers, are responsible for their deaths. And that additional gun control laws would have stopped the Binghamton shootings, shootings that took place in a state with some of the most draconian gun control laws already on the books.

It's not that Rodricks support for gun control offends me so much as his complete lack of logic and a basic understanding of human reasoning. Clearly, in Rodricks elementary view, America needs more of whatever is not working. But taking what isn't working and doing more of it, it will solve the problem.

Riiiiiight.

Then, let's move on to this nugget:
We can keep arguing about this - that it's people, not guns, that cause all the violence. But guns make it easier for disturbed people to kill their spouses or children. Guns are behind most of the gang terror in America, and guns make the mass killings possible.
The following items also make it easier for disturbed people to kill their spouses or children
  • Cars
  • Knives
  • Rope
  • Chains
  • Cords for Window Blinds
  • Icepicks
  • Hammers
  • Screwdrivers
  • Gasoline
  • Box Cutters
This would probably be a good time to also point out that the largest mass murders in American history took place because terrorists used boxcutters to hijack planes. The second largest required a nut job who bought fertilizer and rented a truck. Good times Should we have draconian, unconstitutional on all of those items. Of course not, because that would be idiotic. Just like Rodricks suggestion about guns.

Maybe this would be a good time for Rodricks to actually read something other than the Journolist talking points.....such as yesterday's decision on the right to bear arms from the Ninth Circuit!(!) upholding gun ownership as an individual right, and maybe that will educate him a bit as to why we aren't trying to hinder the basic constitutional rights of Americans.

(Crossposted)

1 comment:

Daniel said...

Actually, Rodricks would do one better if he looked at the percentage of police against the local population.

Considering the police just cannot be everywhere at once, it is ludicrous to expect one to come to your aid in the nick of time.

What's that old saying?

When seconds count, and the police will take minutes (or longer) to get there - just what can you do to protect yourself?

And what tool(s) do you have at your disposal to guarantee, or even the odds, your survival?

Not last, but certainly first - we need such tools to keep in check runaway government/police from becoming tyrannical overlords.

Now ask yourself the likelihood of THAT.

Mr Rodricks, I do not want my ability to defend myself dependent upon your opinion when the 2nd Amendment has already been answered in the Heller case.

ShareThis