[lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:51:49 +0100
Here's Lawrence, master of logic:
"When I took Simon to task for ignoring the import of my note; which had a
point diametrically opposed to Simon's, he blithely said he ignored the post
and merely used Cho as a springboard for saying something he was more
interested in."
Here's me, imbecile:
"My reply had nothing whatsoever to do with any article you may have linked to.
Yours was simply a handy thread in which to post."
So now, according to Lawrence (Master of Logic), a thread title is exactly
equivalent to Cho, madman with a couple of handguns. Astounding.
But note also that Lawrence has nothing at all to say about the subject at
hand, nothing at all to say about whether gun ownership tends to increase the
number of gun-related homicides or whether it tends to reduce them. I'm up for
that kind of discussion. Paul Stone's up for it as well. But Lawrence seems
only capable of making disparaging remarks about another poster (or Obama).
Is the following statement logical? The more guns there are in a society the
more likely it is that people will be shot.
Simon
Illogician
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control
I fully expected this bizarre response from Simon. Since he is an imbecile
when it comes to Logic, it was utterly impossible for him to understand my
criticism of his earlier note when he did what Steyn accuses Obama of doing.
When I took Simon to task for ignoring the import of my note; which had a point
diametrically opposed to Simon's, he blithely said he ignored the post and
merely used Cho as a springboard for saying something he was more interested
in. Mike did something similar later on. Neither one of them sees anything
wrong in this. They can shake their heads and assert that what they say is
true, and so ask what's the problem? The problem is that one thing does not
logically follow from the other. The problem is that you can't develop a
logically coherent argument that supports your point of view. A few sneers, a
few one liners, and a few insults is all your good for.
I always end up laughing at Simon's notes. He is so outrageously silly up on
his high horse supporting an utterly illogical position -- and proud of it.
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, Apr-23-2007 12:35 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control
Lawrence surpasses himself by trying to pretend that it is only those in
favour of gun ownership that are seeking to score political points. And in
doing so he ignores totally the obvious fact that Cho, as depicted by himself
on his suicide videos, was every inch the epitomy of gun fanticism. Take away
what he did and show the images in isolation and we'd have had Lawrence
cheering him on, one more example of how to defend yourself in these violent
times, nobody would mess with him on campus, you wouldn't have any massacres if
he was around...
Indeed. Because anybody, with a gun or without a gun, is but a few shades
away from being a madman. An example.
Somebody I know is going through a very difficult time in their marriage. Her
husband, ordinarily a quiet, softly spoken man, every now and again seems to
tilt over the edge at which time he becomes violent. The wife, and also the
daughter, are on the receiving end at these times. What would happen, I wonder,
if they had a gun in the house?
Yet this is just a single example of a situation. In the US, so the
statistics say, there are upwards of 80 gun-related homicides every day.
And here's Lawrence, watching with the rest of us as 32 young people are
murdered by a madman with a gun, and he seriously thinks it proof that society
is better off with gun ownership. He really does believe that...
Amazing.
Simon
Still bemused
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: Lit-Ideas
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:11 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Mark Steyn on Gun Control
This was sent to me by a blogger interested in our arguments about Gun and
Nutcase control. It is from a blog called "Power Line":
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017407.php . Steyn's entire Sun-Times
Column is at http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/351710,CST-EDT-STEYN22.article
. Gun Control people trying to make hay over Cho's massacre are in a ludicrous
position. There were alreadly laws in place that would have prevented Cho from
legally getting a gun, and the place were Cho perfored his massacere, Virginia
Tech College was a "gun free" zone. You could almost laugh at this if so many
people didn't have to die to expose this nonsense for what it is. What Mike
and Simon both did in the wake of Cho was something like Obama did:
'I've had some mail in recent days from people who claimed I'd insulted the
dead of Virginia Tech. Obviously, I regret I didn't show the exquisite taste
and sensitivity of Sen. Obama and compare getting shot in the head to an Imus
one-liner. Does he mean it? I doubt whether even he knows. When something
savage and unexpected happens, it's easiest to retreat to our tropes and
bugbears or, in the senator's case, a speech on the previous week's "big news."'
Lawrence
April 22, 2007
The claims of reality
Mark Steyn devotes his weekly Sun-Times column to the political and
cultural infantilization of American society manifested in events related to
the Virginia Tech massacre. He urges us to get "realistic about reality." He
doens't miss the unreal contribution of Barack Obama last week. He notes that
at Yale, the students cannot even pretend to be realistic about reality:
[A]t Yale, the dean of student affairs, Betty Trachtenberg, reacted to
the Virginia Tech murders by taking decisive action: She banned all stage
weapons from plays performed on campus. After protests from the drama
department, she modified her decisive action to "permit the use of obviously
fake weapons" such as plastic swords.
Unfortunately, Steyn's not done with the Ivy League:
A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont
town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to
Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away,
knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their
story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they
concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental
survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of
environmentalists and chased 'em away. Eventually they figured they could spend
months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing
for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the
screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place
around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types
who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they
drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a
couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing
stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely
the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as
a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department
policy, it signals to everyone that you're not in the real world.
Yale, however, isn't even in the play real world. That has to be some kind
of a new low in the avoidance of reality. And the aphorism of the Roman poet
Horace applies to "reality" as well as "nature": "Though you drive nature out
with a pitchfork, she will still find her way back."
Footnote: See also Jack Kelly's column on NBC's irresonsibility in
contributing to "the next public mass killing in America."
Other related posts:
