But some arguments are so foolish they should be beneath the public discourse. For example, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) told The Washington Post: "Gun laws were not the reason that a socially isolated individual, an anarchist, chose to open fire on an elected official, her constituents and a federal judge." That is attacking a straw man. No one has argued that gun laws were the reason Loughner carried out his attack. What they suggest is that someone who wants to carry out an attack might be less able to do so without legal access to automatic weapons. You can debate that notion, but you ought not to pervert your opponent's argument into a self-evidently nonsensical one as Ensign does.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
In News That Isn't News
Conservatives make bogus arguments against gun control:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"What they suggest is that someone who wants to carry out an attack might be less able to do so without legal access to automatic weapons."
ReplyDeleteThe pistol he used was a semi-auto. I don't believe he used an AK-47.
It is pretty laughable to see an article with “inaccurate arguments” in the title as they call Loughner’s Glock an automatic weapon. Funnier still is that Jade selected that text as a highlight. You couldn’t find anything better? Usually I have to click the link to find gems like that.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you keep looking for "gems like that," TS? Why is it so important to you guys that some people who favor gun control don't know or don't care about the difference?
ReplyDeleteDoes it make you feel superior by putting down the opposition? Are you trying to paint us all with that broad brush that you object to when we use it?
What's the deal, man?
"Why is it so important to you guys that some people who favor gun control don't know or don't care about the difference?"
ReplyDeleteBecause they are blindly attacking something they know nothing about. They presume to tell us that "you don't need that" without knowing anything about the item they wish to ban. They have a knee-jerk emotional lynch mob mentality.
Case in point is their queen, Carolyn McCarthy. She doesn't know what a barrel shroud is but by golly we have to ban it. Sheet metal will be the death of us all I guess.
MikeB: “Why do you keep looking for "gems like that," TS?”
ReplyDeleteSorry Mike, but your side can expect to be corrected every time you call a semi-auto an “automatic weapon”. Most of them know damn well what they are saying. Others are deceiving those people who favor gun control and don't know or don't care about the difference in an effort to gain support. We won’t let them perpetuate that, you know this.
The “gems like that” line is a nod to examples like Jade’s “Follow the Money” post. When you click on the link he provided, it turns out it is not at all what he is making it out to be. It is not like I am digging that hard, I am just clicking on the links provided, rather than accepting Jade’s summary.
TS can't argue the issues so he's reduced to the equivalent of a spelling flame.
ReplyDeleteYeah, and Sarah Palin didn’t use inciting rhetoric- it was a spelling error.
ReplyDeleteTS and FWM, I don't agree that these people don't know what they're talking about. They may not know the difference between fully- and semi-automatic weapons, but they know guns are bad news. They might not know a revolver from a semi-auto 9mm, but they know that gun availability is a big problem.
ReplyDeleteYou keep pointing out these mistakes as a way of discrediting their argument, but it doesn't.
MikeB: “You keep pointing out these mistakes as a way of discrediting their argument, but it doesn't.”
ReplyDeleteIt does discredit them if they are calling for bans on functionality that they can’t even distinguish (as opposed to just general gun availability). Your point is valid only if they want to ban all guns- which of course we know is not in anyone’s agenda.