Thursday, June 3, 2010

Digby on Glenn Reynolds

Digby at Hullabaloo picked up on the ridiculous remarks of Glenn Reynolds about the recent Chicago gun violence.

Old Glenn said, "SO HOW’S THAT CHICAGO GUN CONTROL LAW WORKING?"

Now, where have we heard that one before?

Digby said:

Certainly Glenn Reynolds believes that gun control doesn't solve the problem of gun crime, but from the snotty tone, it also appears that he holds gun control advocates responsible for the deaths themselves. I guess he really believes that if everybody were armed nobody would ever fire their weapons. Why these guys think that I will never understand. It's as if they actually think that violence is always a rational act. Maybe in Libertarian Disneyland that's true, but here on planet earth, people's passions often get the best of them and when that happens, if guns are present, some people are likely to get shot.

What's your opinion? Who sounds more sensible to you Glenn or Digby?

Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. An 80 year veteran disobeyed Chicago's gun control laws, stopped a crime, and quite possibly saved his own life.

    So while arming everybody may not reduce crime, arming the right people definitely can.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are people who will point to a snowfall and claim it disproves global warming.

    Even by Tennessee's remarkably low standards, InstaCracker's comments are ludicrous. Had he looked in his own backyard, he'd know it is more dangerous--in terms of violent crime and murder--to live in Nashville or Memphis than in Chicago.

    How are those lax TN gun laws working out for ya, InstaCracker?

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  3. he'd know it is more dangerous--in terms of violent crime and murder--to live in Nashville or Memphis than in Chicago.

    Facts please. Actual hard data.

    Back your shit up or shut up and leave.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike W. is quite the little fascist, isn't he?

    Apparently, it's not enough for him to create rules on his blog--he also feels the need to come to the blogs of others and levy all kinds of demands.

    Normally, I'd ignore our little Mussolini but what the heck:

    http://nashville.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Nashville&s1=TN&c2=chicago&s2=IL

    http://nashville.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=memphis&s1=TN&c2=Chicago&s2=IL

    http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/03/23/daily5.html

    How're those lax gun laws working out for ya, InstaCracker??

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Instacracker?" Classy. Very classy.
    If Glenn were black, do ya think JG would've called him "Instacoon?" The terms are equivalent.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike W. is quite the little fascist, isn't he?

    Says the guy whose goal in life is the eradication of privately held arms.

    Who's the fascist?

    I'd say the guy who goes around attacking people and "outing" everyone who dares disagree with him has some serious authoritarian issues.

    It must have REALLY gotten to you when Sebastian hit back hard after you outed him. How'd it feel to have your own vile tactics used against you?

    I'm glad he did it, because now everyone will always know exactly how you operate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TB: I use the sobriquet "InstaCracker" with good reason.

    Several years ago, the DC Government was having some pretty significant budget problems. Nevermind the fact that, at that time, the local DC Government had very little influence on their own budget as it was largely controlled by the US Congress.

    Instacracker was all over DC, saying that it wasn't ready for self-Government. (imagine a law professor saying a part of the US shouldn't have a local Govt.) That it should be a colony.

    Of course, this was about the same time a very rich, a very conservative, a very white Orange County CA went bankrupt in the middle of an economic boom. InstaCracker didn't demand Orange County be colonized.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  8. Individual gun rights are not supposed to protect society as a whole. The value comes in for the individual should the need arise. Now the collective militia could provide that group protection if the gun owners in Memphis need to band together to subsidize the police. But that is not what is happening, and I am sure the gun control side would object if it were.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You know what I've been wondering? When someone says, "How are those strict gun laws working for ya?" are they saying the laws are actually causing the problems or they're just not working.

    I've heard pro-gun guys actually say that gun control causes more problems, it's related to John Lott's famous theory. But when Glenn Reynolds makes this wise crack, couldn't he simply be saying the gun control laws are ineffective?

    ReplyDelete
  10. mikeb: "I've heard pro-gun guys actually say that gun control causes more problems...But when Glenn Reynolds makes this wise crack, couldn't he simply be saying the gun control laws are ineffective?"

    I think that you are right about Reynolds, although many gunowner advocates believe that to the extent that harsh gun control prevents gun ownership by good guys and fails to prevent gun ownership by bad guys, that's a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  11. mikeb: "I've heard pro-gun guys actually say that gun control causes more problems"

    Here's an interesting theory:

    Somone has cancer, and wishing to avoid the difficulties of radiation and chemo, he visits Madame Thibodeaux's House of Voodoo. Madame Thibodeaux puts a curse on the cancer, but it gets worse. Did Madame Thibodeaux make the cancer worse?

    Likewise, gun control may not make crime and violence worse. But if there is a crime and violence problem and gun control is tried as the answer, it may be likely that crime and violence will worsen because it was believed that gun control would work and as a result things that might REALLY work were not implemented.

    ReplyDelete