While We’re On The Subject of Ad Hominem Attacks and Ridicule…

… I give you this snippet from a comment thread on Kevin, MD.

Molly RN: The weapon of the day when the 2'nd ammendment was written was the single shot musket. I believe in the right to bear a single shot musket and that is the only weapon allowed under the 2'nd ammendment, if you want to be a strict constructionist like the Scalia. Actually if the Founding Fathers weren't talking about a militia having the right to bear arms, then why in hell do they put well trained militia so prominent in the sentence?

Ambulance Driver: The communication tools of the day when the First Amendment was written were oral speeches, quill pens, and the printing press. Yet here you are exercising your right of free speech on the Internet.

Your argument is invalid.

Molly RN: What a sad person you are to prefer guns to children's lives.

Ambulance Driver: And what a sad and contemptible person you are, that you cannot see the logical fallacy in your own argument, and instead resort to making baseless assumptions and ad hominem attacks.

You behave like a child.

Molly RN: Your argument is invalid.

Ambulance Driver: You state that the founding fathers did not envision anything beyond muskets when they wrote the Second Amendment, and when I point out that they couldn't have possibly envisioned the medium you're using to express your First Amendment rights, either, your reply is that I value assault rifles more than the lives of children.

No statement I have made in this thread gives you reason to assume such a thing.

So yes, you are behaving like a petulant child.

What's your next tactic, "I'm rubber, you're glue?"

Molly RN: You can continue to attack me, but I am finished as I truly feel sorry for you and your intense hate.

Ambulance Driver: Again, where do you get hatred from? I don't even know you, and I certainly don't hate you.

Do you always accuse people who disagree with you of hating you or being sociopaths?

People can't argue without hating each other?

I don't hate you, but I'll certainly agree that debating you is pointless. You're all emotion, no reason.

 

This is the level of discourse of people we have to contend with.

And they vote.

[shudder]

 

 

  • mpatk

    The stupid, it burns…

    I don’t know what is scarier, the fact that she can vote, or the fact that she is an RN who can push potentially lethal medications.

    I am impressed at your restraint. I know I wouldn’t have been as civil in my replies.

  • GrayHatter

    The stupid, it burns…

    I don’t know what is scarier, the fact that she can vote, or the fact that she is an RN who can push potentially lethal medications.

    QFE

  • http://twitter.com/tazmed911 Chris Johnson

    I’m waiting for the neener neener neener…

  • Eck!

    AD,

    Indeed. I’ve been polling the antigun sites for about three maybe more years
    and the problem is one of faith in the belief they are correct even with the
    information is inaccurate to failing the first scratch test.

    I have labeled that as cognitive dissonance or simple denial. Either way
    a dialog was/is not possible as their expectation was “their side” is
    completely right and if you fail to see that your part of a long list
    blatant insults.

    Then I wonder why there is so much violence?

    Eck!

  • StevieY43

    Unfortunate, but not surprising. This is what happens when the uninformed “debate” the highly informed. And it is truly unfortunate when low-information people exercise their right to stay uninformed and vote (on all issues, not just gun rights).

    What’s truly scary though, judging from the number of (D) senators just now realizing what they signed in the affordable care act (for example), is that many of our elected representatives are also low-information voters.

    We need to do everything we can to inform them

  • StevieY43

    Yes, it’s unfortunate when the uninformed try to “debate” the well-informed. And it’s also unfortunate when the exercise their right to stay uninformed and go vote (on all issues, not just gun rights).

    What’s truly scary though, judging by how many (D) senators are just now realizing what they signed in the affordable care act (for example), is that many of our legislators are also low information voters.

    We need to do everything we can to inform them.

    • StevieY43

      Sorry, didn’t mean to double post. This disqus thing seems to be confusing me…

  • Doug

    I hate to tell Molly, Whoppi Goldberg & the rest of the”muskets only” crowd this
    but, when the constitution was written muskets were the “assault rifles” of the founding fathers. They were the primary tool of the men & women who sacrificed and pledged their sacred honor to establish this great country & give us ALL the freedoms we enjoy today. If the 2nd amendment disappears, the 1st becomes automatically endangered.

  • DinoDocLucy

    “Logic”, “fallacy”, “uninformed”; I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

    • Ambulance_Driver

      And your saying so doesn’t make you correct, especially given the degree of vitriol and ignorance you’ve displayed in the debate.

      Do you have anything meaningful to add, or have you come to hurl more insults?

      • DinoDocLucy

        I’m almost afraid to hope for any meaningful discussion, despite your lofty rhetoric, because it appears that your (plural) definition of “rational” appears to be “those who agree with us.”

        Here’s the thing: I HAVE listened to you, and read what you and your commenters had to say for several years now. I’ve listened, and considered, and thought about your point of view. But:

        In the last decade, the number of guns in this country has increased exponentially. By your logic, we should be that much safer. Instead, the rate of occurrence of mass shootings has increased, as has the total number of deaths.

        I find the logic of this piece more compelling: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/.

        No insults. No ad hominems. No emotion, even. I just find the other side’s logic more compelling.

  • Too Old To Work

    I’d posit that if the Founding Fathers had access to M16s or AR15s, they’d have used those MoFo’s in a heart beat. I’ll go even further than that and say that if the British had rifled muskets such as the Enfield 1853 during the Revolutionary War, they’d have drilled the colonials from stand off distances and we’d all be speaking English with funny accents.

    The point being, that the state of the art advances. Certainly the Framers of the Constitution and Bil of Rights understood progress. Molly RN, not so much.

  • Ambulance_Driver

    No, you started with the ad hominems and insults in your first post on the subject.

    In your second post on the subject, not only did you not retract the statement, you doubled down. You went on to state that anyone who disagreed in whole or in part with your three conditions you set were exactly as you described: terrorists, and people who value an assault rifle over the life of a child.

    If that is your definition of “rational debate,” as opposed to my own, then we have nothing to discuss, Lucy.

    As to your assertions that the rate and severity of mass shootings has increased, you are incorrect.

    http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html

    As far as homicide rates in the United States are concerned, they peaked in 1980 at 10.2 per 100k. It fell sharply until 1991, where it spiked to 9.8 per 100k. It declined sharply from 1991 to 2000, and has remained relatively stable ever since.

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

    Coinciding with that sharp decline followed by static homicide rates has been that exponential proliferation of guns you hate so much, and the relaxation of restrictions on guns in most states.

    From 1994 to 2004, we had an assault weapons ban in place. Since 2004 and the expiration of that ban, semiautomatic AR15 pattern rifle sales have skyrocketed, making them the most popular sporting arm in the
    country. There are an estimated 3 million AR15 rifles in the United States.

    Yet simultaneously, homicide rates went down.

    Long guns only comprise about 3% of all gun crimes, and semi-automatic rifles are only a small percentage of that number.

    Yet you would have me believe that banning the sale and production of a weapon that involved in a statistically insignificant number of crimes is going to help matters?

    Sorry, if that’s your idea of compelling logic, I’ll file that right next to your statement that fully automatic weapons were still legal to own and commonplace on the streets.

    It’s in the library, under “fiction.”

    I find your logic wholly uncompelling, particularly when it’s being spouted by a woman who called me a terrorist and a sociopath.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=527203890 Maureen Williams

    From the article……We have to do something about the speech. When our founding fathers ensured our right to free speech, I really don’t think they had the internet in mind. There is just no reason for any civilian to have access to the internet designed for maximum information distribution. All internet access should be hard to get–and we need to take real responsibility for knowing and controlling who has access to it.
    I know “they” call that a straw man, but when the substitution works so well, I just can’t resist getting my “Patrick from Popehat” on.

  • Oat

    Another problem with your opinion is the belief that all firearms entering the market are going to new owners.

  • An Advocate

    I figured I’d share this link as to why someone would own a high capacity rifle, with a selected excerpt:

    http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

    “Korean
    shopkeepers were specifically targeted by black rioters. But the
    Koreans owned guns and heroically defended their property and lives
    through force of arms, frequently using M16s against heavily-armed
    looters. So anyone who tells you that private citizens don’t need
    assault weapons are just plain ignorant. Besides, it is the Bill of
    Rights, not the Bill of Needs.”

  • Too Old To Work

    Actually the rate of all homicides has decreased steadily up until a year or so ago. That trend started in the mid 1980s when Florida became the first state to loosen their concealed carry laws.

    One characteristic that just about every mass shooting has had is that they took place in so called “Gun free zones”. Which more accurately should be called “Helpless victim assembly points”.

    Another characteristic is that in almost every case the shooter killed himself or surrendered when confronted by an armed person. It didn’t matter if that person was a police officer or an armed citizen.

  • Scott Kenny

    As I said on another forum in response to the question “what would our founding fathers say if they saw what weapons we had now?”

    “How many months’ pay do I need to spend to get one of those?”

    Then again, Homeland Security already thinks I’m a turrist… I’m a veteran.

  • http://www.facebook.com/BangBangMedic James Kelly

    I would have directed her to read the Heller decision, which explicitly states that these rifles are protected, and also break down quite clearly the purpose of the “Well regulated militia” wordin

    • Ambulance_Driver

      Someone like that cannot be reasoned with. She’d gave just called 5 Supreme Court justices hate-filled idiots, too.

  • Eck!

    Dino,

    Yes, simple things that sound good are compelling. That they are inaccurate or based on belief have no relevance or in the case of the quoted opinion article makes it all the worse. Thats following an I follow him without knowing where he is really going. Seem wise?

    I think Larry Correia offers an equally good opinion.

    http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

    Do I agree, not wholly, but I find the logic complete and informed.
    That to me is the essence of debate and rational argument.

    Eck!

    • Ambulance_Driver

      Approve.

  • Old_NFO

    And even worse, they breed… sigh

  • Mulligan

    I could be wrong, but I tend to think the drafters of the constitution were smart guys & had they meant ‘muskets only’ one of those fellows would have likely suggested using the word ‘musket’ in the actual text. Logically, since they elected to use a different term, it follows they in fact did not mean muskets only.

  • ab9302

    not only do they vote, but they are intensely politically active….

  • Anon

    Why do you love gun control more than the lives of a mom and her kids who were raped, tortured and murdered by home invaders because she couldn’t own a gun to defend herself?

background image Blogger Img

Kelly Grayson

Recent Posts

  • For You EMS Types
  • New Podcast!
  • Fool Me Once, Shame On You…
  • Job Satisfaction Is Where You Find It
  • For You EMS Types…

Categories

The Weight Loss Challenge

The Book

The Id of EMS

Old Stuff

Recent Comments