Catherine responds

February 17, 2009 by
Filed under: Activism, Gun Rights 

Catherine has responded to my post “Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis”

While the original post was indeed inspired partially by Catherine, it is part of a much larger trend.  the same pattern repeats itself over and over again in the blogoshpere.  But Catherine was kind enough to reply, so allow me to retort.

You are wrong on many accounts:

1. I was not spouting. I have an opinion and I am entitled to it.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. The point of my post, as I believe the points of my confederates, was to point out that your opinion was based on ignorance.  Your augment is literally of the variety “The sky is green.  It’s my opinion and I am entitled to it.”  Certainly, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.  If you disagree with our facts, then refute them with your own.

2. I have suggested that the approach be far different. If you want a discourse on the topic and really want to educate as you say you do, I think it would be better to do it in a manner that actually indicates that you would like a discourse rather than lecturing and indicating that you think someone who wants gun control is just dumb. That goes nowhere.

I have never called you dumb, Catherine.  And I will state again, now, for the record:  I do not think you are dumb.  I think your arguments are ill-informed and made from ignorance.  And I think your case is weak.  I have historical precedent, statistics, and yes, a bit of snark to support my case.  You have feelings and your opinion.   I believe my case is stronger.

3. Statistics can be skewed either way.

Really? The CDC and the FBI skew their own statistics?  My numbers come from the source.  I don’t filter; I don’t have to.  If you disagree with my interpretation, then by all means let’s discuss it.

4. I was not arguing.  It was my opinion.  The pr-gum(sic) bloggers went on my blog and argued.  I only questioned and refuted some of the arguments that did not seem well supported.  Others were never backed up with anything.

Horsepucky.  You made a political statement in a public forum stating that you believed that MY civil rights should be abrogated.  That’s a mighty serious thing.  Understand, it is the semantic equivalent to standing on a street corner and saying “I don’t think women should have the right to vote because some of them vote for stupid things.”  Then, when you are understandably challenged, you respond with “Well, that’s just my opinion.”  It may be your opinion, but it is an ignorant, bigoted opinion, and I am going to call you out on it.

If you feel that any of my assertions, or those of my fellow bloggers are incorrect or poorly supported, I would welcome the opportunity to debate you on the merits of the argument.

5.  There is no “appeal to emotion.”  It was my opinion and how I feel about the topic.  My blog is a forum for expressing my opinions.

From your blog:

When you watch this video think about those who needlessly died yet again because of America’s obsession with guns.  Seven people wounded, two dead.  The largest mass shooting in the history of Miami.  The National Rifle Association (NRA) should be so proud today.  More dead and they and their members are to blame.

The bloodbath in Liberty City was the result of an assault rifle-wielding murderer who unleashed a spree of bullets on people playing an exceedingly dangerous game of street dice.

Yep, no appeal to emotion there. Catherine, words and phrases like “bloodbath” and “obsession with guns” tend to…um…appeal to emotion.  Q.E.D.  (A little lawyer lingo, there.)
And, while we are on the topic, American’s “obsession with guns” didn’t kill anyone. A maniac with a rifle did. Punish him, not me.

6. You are definitely wrong on this one. If you look at the sequence, I never called Rustmeister a name. One day after our conversation was over i received a pingback from his blog. On his blog he said in essence that I was stupid, crazy and delusional. So who called who a name?
After that, I wrote a post calling it the way that i see it. He’s an NRA shill as I see it based on the badges on his blogs. I also personally think he’s a right wingnut since I do not believe that the Second Amendment stands for the proposition that you need guns to overthrow the government, as gun bloggers were saying on my blog.

*Sigh*….where to begin here?  First, I have gone through the tracks, and I can’t find any place where Rustmeister called you a name.  I disagree with your characterization that he said that you are stupid, crazy, and delusional.  I did note that one commenter called you delusional.  I certainly have never called you a name.  I have characterized your arguments as weak and being made from ignorance.

As far as the “propaganda corps” badges…you can read the origin here.  I’ll summarize:  We are all the unorganized milita.  You are an attorney…look up the original citation.  Not in any way related to the NRA.  Rust may, in fact, be a shill for the NRA.  But the propaganda corps doesn’t prove that.  And calling him a wingnut is an ad-hominem.

7.  I received threatening emails and some very not nice comments from people.  I decided to shut down comments and delete because I felt that it was harassment.  That’s my choice.  When I am getting threatened, I choose to shut down and not post anymore comments form anyone and to delete comments.  I reserve that right.  It was also based on advice from the authorities.

You may or may not have received threatening emails, I have no way to know that.  You are certainly entitled to shut down comments on your blog.  I certainly have never threatened anyone, and that hasn’t been the behavior that I have exhibited from the vast and overwhelming majority of the pro-gun folks that I know.

If you felt the need to contact the authorities, perhaps you wouldn’t mind posting a copy of the complaint?

The bottom line is that i may not agree with your arguments, mostly because they are obviously canned,

See, here we go again with the ad-hominems.  In what way are they obviously canned?  If you disagree with my facts, then produce some of your own.  If you disagree with my reasoning, then attack that.

but you can score a lot of points with people by first asking them why they favor gun control and then not making fun of them because they place human life over an assault weapon.

Believe it or not, Catherine, I place much, much more value on human life than an assault weapon. If we could save a single human life by banning all guns, I would be the first one in line to turn them in. But the sad reality (not opinion, fact) is that is has never happened in the history of the world. Ever. This is the spirit embodied in Joe Huffman’s Just One Question. If you (or anyone, for that matter) can answer it, then I will be convinced.

I never want all guns banned.  My father and brother own / have owned guns. I would never want them taken away from them or anyone else, but I do not see the point of having assault weapons.

So you don’t want theirs taken away, but you want mine taken away? Am I missing something?

Catherine, you have sated many times that you have an opinion, and are entitled to it.  And I agree, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.  But, when you present an opinion based on emotion rather than reason, delete comments of people who disagree with you, and ignore facts that don’t fit your world view, you make your opinions look silly and bigoted.

Tags:

Comments

2 Comments on Catherine responds

  1. Thirdpower on Thu, 19th Feb 2009 10:36 am

    2. She doesn’t really care about details or specifics. If one is in any way associated w/ firearm advocacy, then one is an “NRA shill” in her mind.

  2. Claude on Thu, 19th Feb 2009 3:47 pm

    3. God bless you for taking the time to try to have a civilized conversation with people who don’t care about facts, tradition or history. I don’t have that much patience.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!