I haven't kept up on blogs. I'll make a token effort to read back a few days on my regular reads, but probably not everything.
All that said, BobS has a thought-provoking post up. Hie thee forth, read, and respond if you can.
Hint: Weer'd knocks it out of the park in comments. A fragment:
Bigotry and hatred not only need no rational[e], but they also don’t hold up well to questioning.
Back to regular blogging in the next day or three.
3 comments:
Eh. I have no problem with BobS or other lawful gun owners carrying firearms, and his question is valid, but the comments on his post show as much of the dismissive bigotry and hatred of "the antis" as the commenters perceive leveled against them. The failure to consider "The other person might have a valid point of view" is as galling on each side of this argument.
MHA - over and over, across countless forums and media, "the antis" have been offered the opportunity to state their views, arguments, and reasons.
I have yet to find a single one who has convinced me that their individual fears somehow provide them the privilege of restricting my rights. There are multiple instances of "the antis" abandoning dispassionate reason and resorting to mockery and ad hominems - to the point that is has become their own stereotype.
I have no problem with someone who says, "I don't like guns because ____." What I do have a problem with is someone whose statement is amended to include, "and therefore you shouldn't have them either."
If someone invites me over but prefers to keep a gun-free home, I have two choices: decline the invite, or disarm while I visit. (How well I know the person and value them as a friend will decide that outcome.) Outside their home, their rights end where mine begin - and they have no right to "not be uncomfortable". Besides - concealed means concealed. ;-)
There are multiple anecdotes of those on the fence, or even anti-gun, who have been taken to the range by a friendly shooter and found that, indeed, guns are not objects of great mystery and power. In fact, one of those surfaced this weekend - and a rather high-profile one at that.
Much of the argument provided by the anti-gun groups is based on emotion and misinformation - not outright lies, but half-truths, misrepresentative statistics, and carefully-worded statements. When confronted with cold hard facts, forums suddenly become moderated and locked, and comments disappear from blogs. (This is what has become sarcastically known among the gunbloggers as "reasoned discourse".) Aside from blatant troll comments, I have yet to find examples of such behavior among the gun-bloggers...
I'll freely admit to bias; I'm unashamedly pro-gun and pro-carry. I won't force my opinions on anyone, and aside from discussing hunting, I expect that my friends in day-to-day life don't notice much in the way of gun conversation from me that was not initiated by them. Being biased doesn't mean I won't listen to a calm argument, or even that I'm unwilling to change my opinions - only that I require a preponderance of evidence to do so.
That's just it. I don't think anything you've just said is wrong, but even if I did, you've said it in a reasoned, respectful way. None of the dismissive "precious snowflake" bullshit. Talk about mockery and ad hominems. That commenter lost their argument before they began, on attitude alone.
Post a Comment