Emotion, not logic….

When did we become a society that can’t use logic to argue a point?

I for one am tired of Virginia Tech being held up as an example of why more gun laws are needed, and how to do it.  Obviously, some laws were broken at VT:  murder, brandishing, discharging a weapon, assault, to name a few.  And, oh, by the way, an administrative policy too:  Students, faculty, and staff aren’t permitted to have weapons on campus.

I’m also tired of assertions that the NRA pays massive sums of money, which it earns from lots of middle-aged white men, and thus can “mobilize” people’s opinion.  The antis can’t do so because they don’t have the money or the organization.  Of course, they have the Brady Bunch and Jesse Jackson behind them, but there is one thing right – they don’t have the organization.  Because having organization comes from having people in agreement, and willing to work to the cause.

The Valley Advocate writes in this article

But here’s a news flash: marches may generate publicity, but don’t influence decision makers. If we are going to keep pistols and assault rifles away from playlots, shopping malls and colleges and universities, progressives must “bare” their arms.

NB: This is one of many recent articles, from many places, arguing that women don’t want guns around, because they’re “progressive” (meaning liberal, meaning, as near as I can tell, in today’s lexicon, state-run).  I’m offended the article says sororities should be targeted to come to the rallying call of the anti – I would certainly hope my sorority doesn’t get caught up in this politically motivated move/

But back to logic.  Please, someone, tell me why we would want to keep pistols and “assault rifles” (bet the authors couldn’t define that term on a bet) away from playlots, shopping malls, colleges, and universities? Aren’t people in danger there?  Aren’t people in danger at malls?  We know there is a danger in schools, colleges, and universities. West Nickel Mines School is an example.  VT is an example.  Trolley Square Mall is an example.  So why wouldn’t I want to have my firearm there for self-defense?

You see, the point is they want to keep dangerous items away from people who shouldn’t have them.  To do this, “progressives” are willing to hamstring all, and let Daddy Government take care of us.

No, thank you.

I’m not willing to give up my liberty and my means of self-defense in hopes someone else (read: police) will come solve the crime.  And I’m not willing to keep guns, of any reasonable kind, away from people who choose to carry them.  (Yes, I said “reasonable kind” because I can’t necessarily see the need for a howitzer in a mall, for example.  Not because I think a “semi-automatic handgun” is “ooohhhh, my” bad.  I wouldn’t keep the howitzer away from a person, just from an inappropriate place.  And since I think legislating those circumstances is impossible, I won’t consent to a half measure).

Logic doesn’t indicate that keeping guns from those who are willing to use them properly, or keeping them away from certain places, has any effect on crime rates.  So why must gun haters appeal only to emotion?  Simple.  They don’t have an argument; they’re just afraid of something and want to make it go away.

That works with monsters in closets, and with bogeymen, but not with people.

Advertisements
Published in: on October 31, 2007 at 7:48 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://amcit.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/emotion-not-logic/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: