More PSH in the news

From the Salt Lake Tribune.

Nothing really out of the ordinary: “Assault weapon” traces are up blah blah blah…cops are out gunned blah blah blah…machine gun battles in the streets are imminent blah blah blah…our cities are turning into Baghdad blah blah blah…these high velocity, super sniper, ultra accurate, armor piercing, teflon coated, explosive tipped, heat seeking, anti-aircraft, preferred weapons of gang members and pre-pubescent children must be banned! (Ok, maybe I exaggerated a little with that last one).

The thing I really wanted to point out is the article rating and the comments.

The article had, at the time of this writing, 57 votes with a rating of -33

Now the comments: of the 47 comments at the time of this writing, 33 of them were pro-gun, 11 were anti-gun and 3 were neutral.

We’re winning.

And here’s why:

In the first two pages of comments until the contributions of “samwise001”, the anti gun arguments were composed completely of what we have come to expect: hyperbole, straw men and ad hominems:

To the three posters above, where do we draw the line? Grenade launchers, flame throwers, machine guns, attack helicopters, enriched uranium? Is there any limit to the right to bear arms? Or is anything you can buy legal? All of the aforementioned products are available if you have enough money. I do not consider myself in the gun control camp, but certainly there are reasonable limits to arms possesion, just as there are reasonable limits to the free speech rights guaranteed by the constitution. –rolandkayser

“god given right” to self defense by military weaponry?
using one fantasy to support another doesn’t fly too well (usually, but this is about some guys needs for bigger, well, guns)

keep your fear, your god, and your guns to yourself please

anyone who claims to “need” an assault rifle is paranoid, delusional, or otherwise dangerous (I can’t even imagine a reasonable scenario, besides an attack by someone else with one of these…and “god” knows how you’d precipitate such a thing)….what kind of world have you placed yourself in that you think such a weapon is justified–or needed–for civilians anyway?….these tools are an affront to civilized society and should be kept (if at all) exclusively in the hands of trained, DISCIPLINED, military service-members.

you want to defend yourself? get rid of the fear mongering, partisan, radical rightwingers, and get rid of crime by sharing the riches of our world with everyone.

–moab mike


However, along comes samwise001. Someone who was arguing for an “assault weapons” ban, but was able to discuss it rationally and without the histrionics. He made calm, rational statements and conducted himself well. The TRUE definition of “reasoned discourse.”

And how did the pro-gunners react?

Why, with civility, rational arguments, facts and logic, of course. No name-calling, no penis references, no irrational rants. Just refuted his assertions with facts and dissected his conclusions with logic.

This statement by Samwise struck me immediately:

So, in the end, I agree that we could do more to address the root causes of crime and violence – poverty, education, and economic opportunity chief among them. (And as a proud, bleeding-heart liberal – I’ll call myself the names so others don’t have to – [emphasis added]

But…No one did. Not one time did anyone level an ad hominem attack against him or his positions.

And that, my friends, is WHY we’re winning.

Keep it up, fellow travelers.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.