Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Robert Farago Debates Jon Rosenthal

TTAG Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

Naturally the sycophants who comment over there thought Robert did really well. I didn't.

For one thing, he too quickly resorted to the "2nd Amendment - it's our right" defense. Saying that gun rights cannot be infringed because it says so in the Constitution is pretty weak, as Rosenthal pointed out.

The other major weakness in Farago's comments was all that emphasis on how criminals will always get guns. I covered this bogus pro-gun argument at length in this post. To back up his position Robert says because we have "150 million guns out there in circulation" there's no way we can stop the bad guys from getting them.

Well, for one thing, those guns are not out there in circulation.  They are, every single one of them, the lawful property of someone. The major ways that guns slip from lawful gun owners to criminals can be addressed through proper gun control laws. This is what Robert conveniently skips over. And this is why we need those laws.

I'm afraid Robert Farago didn't do so well in this little debate.  At first I was surprised he even posted it on his site, but then when I read the comments I remembered with his following there was nothing to lose.

What did you think about it?  I'd like to hear.

12 comments:

  1. Take away rights, and good people have no reason not to be criminals. You refuse to understand that, Mikeb, but when rights are taken away, society loses its primary justification.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a reason:

      http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/media-detail.aspx?mediaID=8061

      The effects of Potassium Chloride upon entry to one's arteries is quite painful (it slowly devolves the veins while achieving cardiac arrest). Even though your State no longer fully utilizes Old Sparky (substituting instead the aforementioned chemical), legal means have been implemented to convince sociopaths (such as yourself) to keep their guns holstered.

      Delete
    2. All you have is the comment that despots can use force?

      Delete
  2. One has to understand Farago is a grifter--always has been, always will be. He really doesn't believe 95% of what he peddles but if there's a buck to be made he'll go through the motions. That's why he did so poorly in the debate; it's hard to defend what you yourself know isn't true.

    The 150M guns out there and we can't stop bad guys from getting them is a poor argument. After all, gunloons want more guns out there--thus conceding the fact they actually want to make it easier to for bad guys to get them. It's like finding toxic waste in your backyard--the solution isn't to add more toxic waste.

    As for Farago's 2A interpretation--I'm afraid even Fat Tony Scalia disagrees with him. Fat Tony has made it clear it'd be perfectly constitutional to have registration and ban certain guns and certain people from owning firearms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Farago erred in one respect--there are closer to 300,000,000 guns in this country. While Scalia said that some restrictions may be constitutional, he didn't say that any were required. Your toxic waste analogy is false. Toxic waste serves no useful or legitimate purpose.

      But one thing you should understand well is being a con artist, Goldilocks.

      Delete
    2. Jadegold,

      Please show me an instance where toxic waste protected someone from harm. As soon as you do that, you might begin to have a working analogy.

      And I still love the 'adding more guns to the mix wouldn't help' line of crap after a shooting. Because that's what we are talking about, just dropping guns from the sky in the middle of the scene and stirring them up together.

      Delete
    3. Toxic waste does not present the poetical to be used to overthrow one's rulers. Therefore small arms are of more immediate consequence, and ought to be controlled in a manner more stringent than pertains to the disposal and storage of such waste.

      Delete
  3. Greggy, "thinking" isn't your thing. I'm always surprised at how many gunloons think they know everyting about Heller but, apparently, haven't read the majority opinion.

    My sage analogy is apt. If you're arguing that the prevalence of guns in a society makes it highly likely bad guys are going to get them---does it make sense to add more guns? Of course not.

    Utility has nothing to do with it--after all, toxic waste is usually a byproduct of something society wants or needs such as power or a manufactured good or food. In fact, if one does a C/B analysis, it would show toxic waste is less of net negative externality than guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goldilocks, which would you rather live next to--a gun store or a toxic waste dump? Actually, don't answer that. The gun store wouldn't appreciate your presence, and the dump wouldn't take you.

      Delete
  4. Did you see the Colin Goddard quote?

    “If more guns would lead to less crime, then why is America not the safest place in the world, with 300 million guns?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the same logic, the proliferation of nuclear weapons creates a safer world community.

      There are safer alternatives to lethal deterrence meted out by individual entities.

      Delete
    2. You posted that. Did you see my response?

      Delete