« PawPaw nails it to the wall... | Main | Letter to the Editor »

January 19, 2013

Comments

Rivrsis

Get this: Liberals aren't violent. The shooters were violent. Furthermore, no one can know what their political positions were *at the time of the shootings*. Many people, including nonviolent ones of both major parties, change their minds. Saying "liberals are violent" is like saying "guns are the real killers" instead of the people who wield them. Furthermore, you don't know that they were "progressive liberal democrats". Maybe they were Blue Dogs! I'm not violent and I'm a liberal, bro, and you know it!

EDITOR'S NOTE:

I was hoping you'd take the bait, and you did. You are correct, I made several inferential leaps, didn't I?

Those are the same sort of leaps of illogic we see ALL THE TIME from the (gun) Control crowd, aren't they? Logic says that if you castigate MY inferential leaps, you also have to castigate theirs.

To help you get started, here's a partial guide to (gun) Control inferential leaps:

1. Background checks are good, so let's do more of them. Except they don't stop armed criminals often. Armed criminals are stopped by police and mostly, armed citizens.

2. Fewer guns are always better for us. Except when they're not, such as when an armed bad guy needs to be stopped by a good citizen. Twenty-six died at Sandy Hook proving THAT truth, but now we must double down on THAT stupidity.

3. If we must have guns, let's force people to shoot fewer bullets from them at a slower rate. That will at least slow down those "bullet hoses", won't it? Uuuh, NO IT WON'T! Rule One again: criminals who "hose those bullets" don't obey the rules, so they will load as many bullets as they want and fire them as fast as they want. This only makes defending against criminals even harder, and the criminals bolder in their attacks.

Do you need more examples?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad