[lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control

  • From: "Lawrence Helm"<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:11:13 +0000

Do you have any specifics?  I hear a lot of generalities.  People who know 
what's wrong with the world usually present a series of abstractions with an 
anecdote thrown in here and there.  We have a couple of incidents.  In one a 
person reliably reported to be psychotic kills a number of people in Virginia 
Tech.  This incident launched a great number of anti-gun comments.  Why?  Would 
the passage of some particular law have prevented the incident?  The 
anti-gunners aren't really interested in discussing this incident per se.  Like 
Simon they feel offended when someone asks them to relate their theories and 
assertions to the incident that began the discussions.  As it turns out there 
are laws in place that had they been adhered to would have prevented Cho from 
legally obtaining a gun, but does that shut up the people who crawled out from 
this particular political rock incensed against Cho's guns?  Not at all, they 
inveigh with one unsupported generality after another against American's second 
amendment and the right we enjoy here to protect ourselves.  Cho is forgotten.  
When I try to get them to connect their arguments to Cho, they become angrier 
and angrier, vaguer and vaguer, frothier and frothier. 

And when I posted a note about an old lady who fends off some robbers with her 
pistol, did the Liberals, pacifists, and Leftists who like to claim the high 
ground when it comes to victims and the oppressed, side with the 84 year old 
lady and her walker?  Not at all. Her having a gun apparently trumps her being 
84 years old, on a walker and an intended victim.  She should have done 
something else.  She shouldn't have tined to protect her property.  Perhaps she 
should have put her walker under one of her arms and run for the house. She 
shouldn't have shot out the tires of the predators car.  The Leftist/pacifists 
come up with every assertion they can think of against her.  One person even 
thought his idea that 84 year old ladies on walkers ought not to be trusted to 
shoot out tires trumped the fact that this particular old lady did precisely 

The male buffalos in Yellowstone butted heads, never having been 
Convinced by Obama, bam, bam, bam, until one of them was driven off.   
The little old lady did shoot the tires out whether she was to be trusted to do 
so or not.  
Do we live in a society where a dictator can confiscate our means of defense?
Shell we become defenseless victims so that the wild eyed illogical 
Butter-brained leftist pacifists can force their unproved idealism on a society
That up until now has worked better than any other in the entire world?

If it ain't broke then don't . . . 
Well, you might say that 
Unless your a stutter-brained
Wacko Pacifist Leftist
Who is quite sure the world
Especially the United States
Would be much better off
If "We just learned to get along," 
And would like as a token
Of our sincerity to give up
Our means of self-defense. 
Then surely, they assure 
Each other, and us, we shall
All be much safer . . .
There you go again, saying "all."
You really mean the predators, 
the Rapist, the murderers, the
Robbers, the thieves, now don't 
You?  They shall definitely be
Much better off . . .

If you could convince a people
Whose second amendment 
Guaranteed them the right 
to Bear arms to give up that
Right . . . Well, can you, punk?


------------Original Message------------
From: "Paul Stone" <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, Apr-23-2007 8:43 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control

On 4/23/07, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We do disagree here, Paul.  I think a group of robbers who broke into the 
property of an 84 year old woman who has to use a walker to get around on, and 
then decides to approach her; which they apparently had the wisdom not to do, 
ought to be shot.  The law allows for that.  If they were to run away, she 
wouldn't legally be allowed to shoot them.  But if they come after her, then 
she is permitted to shoot them -- and ought to. 

And... that's what wrong. Firstly, picking up on what Phil said about what I 
said... I once found some teenagers rooting around in my backyard. I went out 
there, completely unarmed and shouted "hey, what do you think you're doing?" 
They ran. In the morning I found they had merely rooted through tools and 
caused me perhaps 30 minutes of wasted day putting my stuff away. See the thing 
is... I KNEW they wouldn't have guns so I didn't need one. That's not the case 
in our little old lady from Pasadena. And that's the real pity. How fucked up 
is a place that makes people think they NEED a gun to protect themselves and 
even more pitifully, their property? from intruders? Because they KNOW there is 
a good chance that those intruders are armed, and as such, pose a mortal threat 
to their person? Like I've said, there's a huge problem because there are soo 
many guns. there are sooo many people willing to use them and there are sooo 
many other people giving them a "reason" to use em. 


Other related posts: