Who is exhibiting “rage, hysteria and denial”?

Hinderaker deconstructs a gun control rant and concludes

“The factual propositions asserted by the New Yorker are not “inarguable.” On the contrary, they are argued all the time. But to participate in the argument, you have to know some facts. And note that, despite the final reference to “legislation,” no such proposed legislation has been articulated. From context, I think we can infer that the author wants to ban semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. But that, in essence, was the ill-fated “assault weapon” ban of the 1990s. All observers agree that the previous “assault weapon” ban had zero effect on homicide or crime rates. But that’s contemporary liberalism–all bullying, no argument. The thing you always need to keep in mind is: liberals are not as smart as you are.”

Perhaps one of the first fallacies is that the gun control ‘debate’ is partisan. That whitewashing tries to cover up the fundamental issue in many modern arguments. That issue is one of intellectual integrity. Unless and until honesty with reality and integrity in logic become fundamental, there will be no progress made in evaluating opinions and viewpoints. Hinderaker’s deconstruction is telling in that his exposition of the dishonesty is not exceptional but rather typical. You can see the same behaviors on display in many issues promulgated by the left.

Trying to create a constructive dialog with someone who doesn’t have his feet on the ground is as productive as talking sense to a confirmed alcoholic or a dedicated terrorist. Fruitless. and that is what is dangerous.

Comments are closed.