House of Eratosthenes

Via Six Meat Buffet, a fascinating glimpse into the liberal mind. The occasion is the attempted mugging of Brian Beutler, a Washington, DC resident and prominent “progressive” blogger. The confrontation culminated in three bullets entering Beutler’s body.

Looks like he’s going to be okay.

The real meat of the story, though, is this big huge pile o’comments entered on the Talking Points Memo. Apparently, there was something mentioned regarding Beutler’s wish that his misfortune not be used to argue one side or the other of the gun control issue or any other political issue, and both sides dutifully…did not comply.

Naturally as you might expect, the pro-gun-control (now anti-Constitution! Ah, feels good to say that!) side is pure fantasy. Fantasize that the pro-gun-rights commenter is “angry” just because he exposed the logical flaws in your argument. Fantasize that if people use guns to defend themselves, it just sets off a big nuclear-fission-like chain reaction. Fantasize that if violence is simply outlawed, it magically goes away and everyone thinks happy-thoughts.

I think it’s a distinct possibility that because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, more muggers (who moonlight as honest citizens) will have greater availability to handguns, which are always illegal during the commission of a crime.

…even gunslingers end up being on the bad end of the drop.

I’m sure the trolls imagine themselves whipping out a gun (while strolling arm and arm with a significant other) and blasting dude away – even though dude has the drop on them.

dude~ by a factor of like 10 to 1 a gun in the home is more likely to be used in a crime of passion or rage, or accidentally used to injure or kill a member of the household before it will ever be used to defend the household against some intruder. So do the math ….. if everyone had loaded guns in the house like the old fat nazi Scalia imagines ….. we would have deaths and injury by the truckload and very fucking few John Wayne shootout victories.

If every citizen was armed, I fear the amateur who has seen too many movies who will pull his gun in a situation and wind up killing innocent bystanders or getting killed himself. It requires very little training to have a concealed permit in most states.

And the grand slam…one Mike Powe…

So your argument is that Beutler should have whipped out his Colt and started banging away? Yeah, let’s all be violent and indifferent to the taking of human life … just like the criminals.

Good idea!

“We have met the enemy, and he is us.” — Pogo

“Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars… Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” — ML King

Yeah, much easier to simply kill people, maybe nail an innocent bystander or two, than to actually solve the problems that lead to the violence.

This is what you need to do to make a left-wing idea look good. Any problem the feeble liberal mind manages to dig up against the conservative viewpoint, no matter how half-baked and nonsensical it is, has to be awarded instant overwhelming cosmetic merit. It is like a needle against a balloon. And as far as the weaknesses in those questions, or in the original liberal argument, these are not to be inspected.

Nowhere does this inequity cause greater damage, than in this amusing show of analyzing tactics. The notion that a gun can be used to prevent a crime is held up to ridicule, in spite of the statistics that show yes, it does happen…and much of the time, the defensive weapon isn’t even discharged.

Meanwhile, love is supposed to be the answer. How that works is left unclear, but it’s got something to do with “solv[ing] the problems that lead to the violence.” And don’t you dare question that!

This intellectual insincerity is serviced by means of a heavy bias in shaping which role with which the audience should feel the greater sympathy, between the robber and the victim. You’re supposed to imagine yourself as the victim, and to be intimidated from taking any steps to defend yourself. You aren’t supposed to relate to the mugger that way, of course; that would be a short conversation indeed. “You’re looking for someone to rob in a ‘shall issue’ jurisdiction that permits concealed-carry. Do you go through with it?” “Hell no!”

No, there’s a different, passive flavoring of sympathy set aside for the perpetrator of the crime. There are “economic circumstances” of some kind. We aren’t supposed to think about the economic circumstances of the victim, of course. So all the personal “Put Yourself Here” sympathy is set aside for the victim, and all the economic sympathy is directed toward the perpetrator.

That’s the trouble with letting emotions decide these things. He who thinks with his feelings, is left with the impression that he’s in command of the thought process but he’s really outsourced it to the charlatan who’s trying to sell him on something. You’re supposed to feel this way about this guy; you’re supposed to feel that way about that guy. Now with those rules in place how do you feel about my gun control ideas?

But of course, there isn’t any solid evidence anywhere that gun control reduces crime (I should say “reduced,” back in those olden days when it was supposedly-constitutional. Yipee!)

There isn’t even any evidence anywhere that gun-grabbers or other left-wingers are even very nice people. They talk about “love” and wanting to end “violence,” but when someone simply questions them about how things work they get indescribably nasty.

Get well, dude. Sorry if you were really trying to avoid a gun control debate out of this incident. I can see why. Oh well, I didn’t start it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Good Luck, BeutlerThursday, July 3rd, 2008

Good Luck, Beutler
Thursday, July 3rd, 2008