It comes as no surprise that lefties have the answer to gun violence that entails the tried and tested solution of chipping away at freedom. Liberty is always the acceptable casualty when it comes to our deep thinking friends, they know how to live and we must follow along or else.
Using reason, it isn’t difficult to refute the arguments for banning guns. Reason and liberty seem to go hand in hand when it comes to obstacles that stand in the liberal way. For one thing, how is it that a gun law is going to stop a murderer if the ban on murder itself is nothing to them? Well, they may respond, if we ban guns, they’ll disappear. Oh, really? You mean like cocaine and Roman Polanski?
Well that was easy. I don’t expect my usual interlocutors taking on these objections. I do though expect tantrum-like anger as in “you’re a right-wing nut and you watch Fox News” or “what hogwash propaganda for corporations and the NRA. I hate you Mr. Talleos and I don’t care how good looking you are, creep!”
English gentlemen Piers Morgan, if you never heard of him, has his own show on CNN and the ratings stink; gives a liberal intellectualism-esque response to a guest on his program who countered Mr. Morgan’s anti-gun argument. After doing so Mr. Morgan shot back with “you’re an unbelievably stupid man”. After the show 90,000 Americans petitioned the White House to have Mr. Morgan deported mostly because we expect proper Englishmen to have good manners, heck, they invented the word.
Morgan wrote an article for the Daily Mirror– a fine British paper that provides up to the minute updates on Kim Kardashians new bikini picks and the last place Justin Bieber threw up–on his anti-gun musings here in America and all the trouble it got him. In the article Morgan wants to demonstrate that he isn’t a stupid man himself and that he is actually very Englishly smart:
I have fired guns only once in my life, on a stag party to the Czech capital Prague a few years ago when part of the itinerary included a trip to an indoor shooting range. For three hours, our group were let loose on everything from Magnum 45 handguns and Glock pistols, to high-powered ‘sniper’ rifles and pump-action shotguns.
It was controlled, legal, safe and undeniably exciting. But it also showed me, quite demonstrably, that guns are killing machines.
Because for the life of him he didn’t quite know what guns were used for before the party.
The article gives all the right statistics and studies because these are the tools of the trade when it comes to refuting common sense. Speaking of which, Morgan employs his own brand of “sense” which is not only uncommon but, to use a British word, dafy:
The gun-lobby logic dictates that the only way to defend against gun criminals is for everyone else to have a gun, too. Teachers, nurses, clergymen, shop assistants, cinema usherettes – everyone must be armed.
To me, this is a warped, twisted logic that bears no statistical analysis and makes no sense. Do you fight drug addiction with more cocaine? Alcoholism with more Jack Daniel’s? Of course not.
Right! Statistical analysis, there is none, so there. Where are the numbers that show legal gun owners protecting themselves and others when faced with a crazed maniac? We can’t logically conclude for ourselves that this is indeed likely to happen so we deny common sense and appeal to the higher authority of “statistical analysis”. Let’s wait for someone to do a study before we think for ourselves, shall we?
Morgan also attempts to refute the notion that fighting something with something else is “twisted logic” and uses an absurdity to prove it, as in fighting cocaine with cocaine or alcoholism with Jack Daniels. Good show old boy! How about if we shut down fire departments because fighting fire with water is equally twisted for the same reason? Two can play the logical ad absurdum game too.
Two days after the Newtown shooting a gunman shot his girlfriend in a restaurant and chased the fleeting customers into a theater to shoot them too. He didn’t get far because he was shot himself by a person who was legally carrying a gun. If only that happened more often perhaps Piers Morgan would have the statistical proof he’s looking for.