May 10, 2018

Fishwrap

My local paper has an Op-Ed piece on their website, which you can read here.

Short version: Ban "assault guns" and blah blah blah.

I replied:



Truly impressive. I've not seen so many factual, logical, and rhetorical errors in one piece as I have in this:


"Hear them say, for instance, that the “AR” in AR-15 is misrepresented as standing for “assault rifle” when in fact the “A” stands for “ArmaLite,” after the arms maker."

That the AR stands for Armalite Rifle is a verifiable fact. When one wishes to enact a ban on what a free citizen can do, perhaps being factually accurate is a good place to start?

"An assault rifle is what we decide it is."

Well, so much for basing decisions on facts.

"Klarevas writes that while the law was in place, the number of mass murders (six or more dead) dropped a “staggering” 37 percent."

And yet the FBI and Department of Justice determined that it had no statistically significant impact on total firearm deaths during the 1994 AWB:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Further, if you bother to read Klarevas' study, you'd know that Klarevas concedes in a footnote that of the 12 shootings in his dataset, only three actually involved assault weapons. But again, we're talking facts. It would appear those are not important here.

"The NRA opposes gun control? Why did it not allow guns into the auditorium in Dallas the other day when Donald Trump pandered to the (defenseless) crowd?"

That decision was made by the United States Secret Service, not the NRA. Carrying of firearms was permitted in all other areas at all other times. You'd know this if you had bothered to check some basic facts, or talk to anyone who has attended an NRA meeting.

"You may say people are certain to violate this law (buying their weapons outside Boulder), and that will apply to bad guys.

Yes, and the same could apply to speed limits, laws against rape, bribery and anything else."

Using your (poor) analogy: The town speed limit is 45 mph. Some reckless kids come tearing through at 90. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 35.

Brilliant.

"So let’s not have any laws?"

A first year law student can explain the difference between Malum in se and Malum prohibitum. Things like rape, bribery, etc are In Se laws, because the very nature of the act is abhorrent to the general nature of man. Your desire to ban the possession of a thing just because you don't like it is an example of Malum prohibitum. You want to control people, not allow them to live free. You want to make the mere possession of an object against the law. Didn't we try that with alcohol? Didn't we try that with marijuana? Haven't we learned our lesson?

Some of us have.

"The gun lobby shouldn’t write out gun laws. We should."

You're OK with us doing that to the press too, right? Letting we, the people, decide what is and what is not journalism?

You, sir, should be ashamed to have put your name to this.



I'm done with the Coloradoan.  Subscription canceled.  

2 comments:

PJ Geraghty said...

FTA: "Then again, communities and states only have a vague idea of what speed limit would best save lives, and they make decisions as to what those are."

A broad group of traffic engineers would like to discuss this with you further, sir. They actually use science to determine speed limits, rather than using irrational opinions from uninformed blowhards like yourself.

Old NFO said...

WOw... That is one 'impressive' piece of fishwrap... sigh...