Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Pro-gun Superiority

One of the latter entries in a fascinating comment thread on my Facebook page.

Gary Wilson also commented on Mikeb302000's Wall post.

Gary wrote: "inferior? I'm inferior because I don't live in fear? Because i live in peace with my neighbors? Because I don't live in a crime ridden ghetto infested with ghouls? I'd be embarrassed to admit I had a gun in each room. And if I lived in such squaller that I needed a gun in each room, I'd move. I go away for the day and don't even lock my door. No, not a gated community.

Seriously, a gun in each room? You poor pathetic paranoid sample of humanity. How terrible it must be to live in paralyzing fear. How many do you carry with you to church? Just protection? From what? You need serious help! You seem to be exactly the type of person that should not be allowed to have a firearm. I wish you knew the peace I know."


  1. Notice how those who are against guns can't speak rationally so often. Notice how dismissive they typically are. How they think that they understand our motivations. Also, notice how unrealistic their view of the world is.

    1. That was in response to one who really was dismissive.

    2. My comment is based on my own experience. I find that those who are in favor of gun ownership and carry tend to be open to all comments. They will challenge things that they disagree with, but they typically allow such comments to appear. By contrast, gun control advocates are much less willing to engage in open conversation.

      This is anecdotal, of course, so I'm willing to see evidence to the contrary.

    3. Greg, don't ask me to produce evidence for something that's plain for all to see. I wouldn't waste my time. And I never get into the tit-for-tat bickering that your request for evidence would result in.

      I know ten pro-gun sites who have banned me for nothing worse than disagreeing. They all have lengthy explanations as to why, but that's the real reason.

      There are too few gun control blogs to draw percentages anyway. Each one that disallows comments weighs too heavily on the overall.

    4. Mikeb, all I can say is that you're welcome to comment on my blog, and your comments will appear the moment that they emerge from the system. The only comments that I block are obvious spam, and I even let through some things that the spam filter catches on the off chance that the comment was actually genuine.

    5. Mike, I don’t find these moderation policy comparisons to be very relevant either, and I agree that your side doesn’t have enough bloggers to make fair comparisons on percentages. That said, the difference to which Greg was referring is tipped off in your comment. You said you were “banned” from ten sites. Is the implication that you had discourse with them which eventually led to your banishment? Or were you never able to make a pro-gun control comment in the first place? I think the general complaint of gun control sites is that they either don’t allow any comments, auto-moderate comments, or in the case of Facebook- delete them as soon as they are read. For what it is worth, I can’t think of a pro-gun site that deletes every single comment in opposition. Maybe the official NRA facebook page? Have you tried liking them and making a post to see if it sticks?

    6. TS, There were a group of pro-gun guys who used to comment here, Weer'd Beard, Bob S., Mike W. and several others. Eventually they got tired of not winning the argument and began to get nasty. They either stopped coming around or got so nasty that their comments began getting deleted. I honestly reserved that privilege for the worst of the worst. I never used the delete button as a weapon.

      After they left, not one of them was banned by the way, Weer'd I think it was came up with the brainstorm to boycott my site and ban me from theirs. It got quite a bit of play. One guy, Sean Sorrentino of the NC gun blog or something like that banned me before I ever went to his site. I swear to god, I went there to comment and saw his commenting policy naming me as not welcome.

      So, anyway, I forget what the point is. Are we really going on and on about who's worse the pro gun blogs or the gun control blogs. How did I get sucked into this?

    7. You got sucked into this because once again Greg made an unsupported and factually inaccurate statement that pro-gunners were also pro free speech and would never interefere with you expressing your position.

      Clearly, they attempt, in a vaiety of ways, to do so quite often. They are only interested in their rights at the expense of others and the rights of others.

    8. Mike: “Are we really going on and on about who's worse the pro gun blogs or the gun control blogs.”

      Not at all. I thought my first line made that pretty clear. Also, you don’t need to defend your policies to me. I think you are by far the most open discussion gun control blog, and I wasn’t questioning that. The only reason why I jumped in here was to clarify a point that I thought was being overlooked- that is criticizing forums that don’t allow dissenting opinions from the beginning. Whatever happened between you and Weer’d/Bob/MikeW got personal. The fact that it got personal is evidence that the discussion was happening. There wouldn’t even be a discussion if all opposing comments were blocked in the first place. Sean’s site is more evidence along those lines. The fact that he names you by name is indication that he allows dissenting comments, just not from you. I bet you $10,000 of Mitt’s money that I could go there now and post something about needing “common sense reform”.

      Anyway, I don’t think it is all that important. I’d much rather criticize your side for their gun policies vs. their commenting policies. I could go on about how someone who doesn’t allow comments is all about “control”, but I think the main reason is the commentators are overwhelmingly pro-gun. If it were the other way around, maybe things would be different.

    9. Unsupported? I told you in my comment that in my experience, gun rights blogs are more open than gun control blogs. I said that this was anecdotal. Just how was my comment unsupported and factually inaccurate?

    10. TS, I meant to get back to this thread to say thanks for your thoughtful and accurate comment.

  2. Greg Camp, YOU don't speak or writ ratioally, or honestly, and are unable to string together a cogent argument.

    YOU are the same person who so inconsistently tells us how good humanity is and that we should trust (without verification) but who insists on being armed to the teeth at all possible times so you can blow someone away who isn't your idea of good.

    WE have normal amygdalas, WE are rational, not directed and motivated by fear as you are. You don't apparently understand the meaning of the word rational.

    That you are allowed to teach children explains a lot about why it is that the southern states so consistently have done poorly in education, and continue to do so. You wouldn't recognize reality if it bit you in the backside. There is a reason that the states in the U.S. in which Laci has lived have far higher education scores, as does Minnesota where I live, compared to Arkansas which has frequently been near the bottom of achievers. I believe even the right winger groups, like ALEC, rated Arkansas at 45th out of 50 states in low achievement.

    They need to meet higher standards, and so do you.

    I would point out to you that Laci and I appear to have traveled this country and the wider world outside the U.S. borders rather more extensively than you have seen of it. Therefore I argue to you that our world view, which is actually based on a greater direct experience of that world, is more realistic than your world view.

    We are dissmisive of YOU because usually your thoughts are deserving of dismissal for being shallow, poorly reasoned, and not factually very well informed.

    1. I write a lot. Feel free to make comments on my blog to any article that you wish to critique.

  3. Perhaps we need to revise our dictionaries and change our spelling of the word inferior to in-fear-ior.

  4. And yet, Dog Gone, all you're able to do is claim that I have poor reasoning. You don't offer support for that claim; we're just supposed to believe you.

    You claim, for example, that we live in fear. (It's cute how you keep mentioning the amygdala as if we don't know what that is.) Where's your proof? I'm not fearful. I don't hide in a bunker because of the dangers of the world. At the same time, I'm not so afraid of other people that I want to control them.

    Note how you and Laci and Democommie respond to anyone who disagrees with you. None of you can refrain from foul language or insults. If that's the method of arguing that you were taught, you should look to the quality of your own schooling.

    But with regard to the education that my students get, you are speaking without evidence. You should at least get some data that you can twist into your favor, but instead, you seem to think that I'm somehow responsible for the test scores of every student in Arkansas, a state that I've lived in only for a few years. If you seriously believe that an unqualified person could teach in college for over a decade, even in southern states, then your prejudices are clogging your brain.

  5. I note, Dog Gone, that you've never told us what you do for a living. You go on at length about your extensive education and wide experience, but what exactly do YOU do?

  6. Of course, we are dismissive. We have good reason to be dismissive,greg.

    You are obviously a fool, as are your ideological cronies, you are blindy by your ideology to reality.

  7. Both of you are intellectually lazy. You dismiss anything that disagrees with you without addressing its main points. You call an argument an example of poor reasoning, but you can't state in detail what's wrong with it. You are also arrogant in your belief that only your position is the right one.

    Just how am I blinded by ideology? I've said before, and I'm sure I'll have occasion to say again, we're all aware of the facts. What side we choose is determined by what we value. You value safety over freedom. You argue that freedom cannot exist without safety. I disagree. To me, without risk, there is no freedom, and freedom is essential to a just society.

    So where in that am I blind?

    1. You know Greg, we have been VERY clear, and very specific about where your arguments fail. We do NOT do what you claim, which is just pure poorly educated bullshit on your part. Perhaps you are too stupid or ill-educated to understand it when your failures in reasoning are pointed out to you - but they have been itemized and outlined IN DETAIL, REPEATEDLY.

      Let me give you just one recent example. You tried to assert that it was the prohibition of loaded guns that was responsible for the idiot who shot himself in the leg with his new fetish object, after reloading outside a gun show. It is NOT the prohibition against a loaded gun that is the causation of that idiot shooting himself, it is his incompetence at basic firearms safety. THAT is the reason - that there are so damned many unsafe and incompetent gun buyers - that the gun shows HAVE that rule. It is incompetence that resulted in the idiot shooting himself - and not the first case like it we have reported here. YOU not only incorrectly identify what the cause of the injury and shooting was, excuse any responsibility from where it properly belongs (the guy who shot himself).

      THAT is being stupid, incapable of critical reasoning and argument, and blind ideology. Do you need me to outline it to you in words of one syllable? Maybe a stick figure drawing? Do pictures help you think when you have trouble grasping the most simple relatinships? Or are you just hopeless?

      You argue we should trust you. I don't trust idiots - which includes YOU. You argue you are safe and competent - clearly at least some of you are not. You argue that people are good - when clealry many of them are not, and all of us are a mix of good and bad, and too often with guns it is the bad which pardon the expression 'calls the shots'.

      We argue about facts, not what you try to slide by as values in place of facts.

      Your rights cannot exceed the rights of others, and the problem is - the REALITY is - that your guns (that's the plural form in case you are too willfully stupid to figure that out) and the bullets in them take away the rights of other peopl to live their lives without interference or danger.

      There is always risk, but there is mangeable risk and there is unavoidable risk. You only want the risk to others, you want a right at THEIR expense. That is not a valid right. What you sepouse is NOT a just society, not a free society, and never was posited as such by the founding fathers.

    2. I should have done spell check before hitting publish on that last - but you Greg are an ass, and a dumbass at that.

    3. Dog Gone,

      1. You can't tell the difference between a measure of sarcasm and a serious position. But you should also know that firearms teachers recommend handling a gun in public as little as possible. Banning concealed carry means that those of us who do carry will have to disarm and rearm. You would tell us not to carry, but that's not an option.

      2. I argue that we can't determine who is good or bad in advance. I argue that taking away a right on the speculation that someone could be bad in the future is exactly what leads to tyranny. I argue that we must have high hurdles to get over before we take away anything for citizens. You want someone to have to fight to be allowed to own or carry a gun, while I want the government to have to work hard to take away those rights and to be barred from doing so on most occasions.

      3. You claim that I am a menace to society, but you have yet to show me how I threaten anyone. You refuse to address the evidence that I give you repeatedly that the vast majority of gun owners and handgun carriers hurt no one. You obsess about the actions of a few and refuse to consider alternatives that do not involve punishing the many.

      4. You cannot speak to me with resorting to vulgar language, despite your claims to culture and education, and at times, you don't even allow my comments to appear.

      And still you make the claims about me that you do.

    4. 1. I have never advocated for banning concealed carry, only limiting it to those who have a legitimate purpose to serve in doing so rather than people like you who just need your fetish object like some metal version of a security blanket. So when you say that you not carrying is not an option - it very much IS an option, and one that Heller allows for occurring.

      2. When other people are affected by the decision to carry you provide all the reason that any government needs or ever has had to restrict a right or privilege. We already have justification for that acion and SCOTUS approval for it.

      3. You are a menace to society because a)you have demonstrated poor judgment in transfer of ownership of a weapon; b) you poorly secure your weapon when you are not conscious and in control of it; c) you have demonstrated poor judgment of when use is justified; d) you have proven you have poor critical thinking skills here, repeaedly.

      4. I do on many occasions speak to you without resorting to vulgar language; when I use vulgar language it is warranted. It is not intended for you to like it; quite the opposite, it is intended to offend you because you merit being insulted. As to what I edit or my colleagues edit, that is our perogative. You don't wish to infringe on our rights do you? Oh, wait -- of course you do.

      A polite society is not ever an armed society. Guns are properly reserved for working situations, which I would extend to people like Texas Colt 45 working on a ranch.

    5. Second try:

      1. You claim repeatedly that we who own and carry guns act out of fear, but you have no evidence for that assertion. You claim that we treat guns as fetish objects, but again, where's your proof?

      Heller and McDonald may allow some measure of regulation--it remains to be seen whether the snivelling attempts of D.C. and Chicago to continue their bans will last--but neither ruling requires any new regulations. Forty states are either shall issue or constitutional carry states, and the Supreme Court didn't tell them to change.

      2. How have I ever endangered anyone by carrying a firearm? No one, other than close friends, has seen me doing so, and no one has been shot. This is true about 99% of carry license holders. You want to punish the many for the bad actions of a tiny few.

      3. I traded a rifle with a couple. TRADED. Neither party had more or fewer guns after the transaction. How could the danger to society increase when no increase in guns owned by anyone occurred?

      You have not explained how anyone is in danger from the handgun on my nightstand while I sleep. How will it get into the hands of an unauthorized person? On the other hand, how could it be of use to me if it were locked up at a time when someone breaks in?

      My judgement of when it is appropriate to use a firearm in self defense agrees with the police in the self defense shootings cited here. The authors here say that a man should allow himself to be knocked off a bicycle and beaten, rather than shoot to defend himself, for example. That's not my position.

      What you regard as critical thinking skills have nothing to do with getting through a day appropriately. Besides, you make vague claims about my errors without demonstrating them in detail. You quote voluminously from irrelevant sources, while ignoring the main point of a comment. You fail to recognize that people can know the same facts, but hold different values.

      4. I have no desire to take away your rights. I do ask that you engage in an open and polite discussion. I note that blogs that advocate for gun rights generally have no moderation, while gun control blogs limit discussion. Why is this? Why is it that you and others on your side refuse to answer direct questions? Why do you and others on your side fall into foul language so often?

      The Internet is an unarmed society. There are few, if any, consequences for anything said on-line. Look at what a vulgar place it frequently becomes.

  8. I'm new here but I must say; Dog Gone, I find your tendency to resort so readily to ad hominem attacks and deflection to wholly discredit any causes you claim to espouse.

  9. Stick around, you'll see that the criticisms and insults are more than justified.

    There is a stratagem used too often of simply repeating a disproven point, or an answered question, in an attempt to wear someone down. That doesn't change the fact that a point has been disproven, it doesn't require a new answer to an already answered question.

    It is done on the same premise that if you repeat a lie long enough it will be believed, or that if you wear down someone with questions, they will be quiet. It is not a valid and honest part of discourse, and it should be condemned, and the person who does it should be condemned for using it.

    So, you are welcome to stick around and see why an insult was warranted. Or, if you don't like it so much you can't wait to see if it is or not, then .........don't stick around.

    Your choice. I am not going to apologize for either criticism or well-deserved insult where it has been provoked.