Watch the clip and share your thoughts.
This is why the Right/Faux News/Republican party is seen as being devoid of all intellect.
Spanish it is quite obvious that you have an extremely inflated estimation of your own intellect. There frequently is a leitmotif that is observable in your post whenever you’re not in agreement with with whomever you respond to. Invariably you take the opportunity to point out their intellectual nescience. Is it not possible that the opponent could have a different point of view and not necessarily be unintelligent?
With that said, could you please explain to me as another member of the unwashed what is so unintellectual about Coulter’s hypothesis? For anyone who might believe that blacks are vulnerable to racially biased murders what is so innane about a suggestion that they might arm themselves in order to protect themselves?
You might disagree with the premise that we are vulnerable because we’re black or you might simply believe that individuals don’t have a right to defend themselves. But for whatever reason that you might disagree, does your disagreement make the Right/Faux News/Republican party devoid of intellect?
S.I., you’re slipping. You are–quite frankly– one of the more passionate and substantive voices on this blog from the left. This time however, you opted for “passion” and completely skipped “substance”. HOW is what Coulter said “devoid of intellect”? what SPECIFIC statement(s) did she make which cause us to question her intellect? If blacks feel threatened, they should arm themselves in accordance with their 2nd Amendment rights. Her take on history is spot on; blacks were disarmed by racist whites to keep them under control. You dispute that? Although sexual orientation and race are not interchangeable, let me point out that there is a group called “pink pistols” that has the motto “Armed gays don’t get bashed”. You think that’s a coincidence? Or maybe they are “devoid of intellect” as well. If you believe that blacks are threatened, and they are vulnerable, why doesn’t it make sense for them to arm themselves? I’d appreciate your response, and this time bring your “A” game.
Sorry, I don’t think the answer to the highest percentage of death by guns of any first world country is to add more guns. Stop gun violence by arming everyone? Fuckin’ brilliant (he said sarcastically) No, I think that’s a moronic answer to a serious problem, and indicates a serious lack of brain cells.You want to bet that both O’Reilly and Coulter are card carry members of the NRA? which is in the pocket itself of the gun manufacturers?
C’mon, even someone with two small brain cells to rub together can come up with a better answer than that. If you think I’m slipping because that was my response, well, you’re entitled to your opinion. 😉
SI, thank you for another display of your self perceived intellectual superiority. Disagree with SI and your position is moronic and less compelling than that of a dual brained cell subhuman organism.
How about proffering some facts to support your position for a change. Instead of providing your opinion about the impact of guns in the hands of citizens, provide some hard data to the morons. Show us how the restriction of guns from the hands of law biding citizens has reduced violent crime. If you have interest in some actual hard data supporting the assertion that concealed weapons possession reduces violent crime, the link from a landmark study by Professor John Lott from the University of Chicago is below. If you have something to support your premise that restricting gun ownership reduces violent crime, I’d love to see it.
I’m sorry, why do I have to prove anything? Joni’s post asked us to “share your thoughts” That’s what I did. I “think” that adding more guns to the mix of gun violence is like adding gasoline to a fire. The cult of gun worship in this country is out of hand. It has been for a long time, and frankly, the horse is out of the barn, out of the corral and out of the county and into the next, with the barn door closed firmly behind him. If you feel safer with a gun, by all means buy one, conceal it, and blithely use it the next time you feel you need to “stand your ground”. Maybe you’ll even get to be the next George Zimmerman. Have fun with that.
If you want convince me that arming black teenagers with guns is a good idea, though, you’ll have to do a lot better than pointing to a conversation between idiots like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. The burden of proving that it’s a good idea is on the proponent, you, Bill, because you seem to think it’s a good idea. The affirmative proposition is “Should we arm black teenagers with handguns to defend themselves?” . Now YOU go find the facts and figures that support it. I’m not going to even attempt to defend or prove a negative. That’s lousy argumentation, in any school of logic.
In any event, the Lott report is controversial at best, certainly not definitive.
We conclude that, in light of (a) the sensitivity of the empirical results to seemingly minor changes in model specification, (b) a lack of robustness of the results to the inclusion of more recent years of data (during which there are many more law changes than in the earlier period), and (c) the imprecision of some results, it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws.
Lott is well known as a proponent of guns, and is often favorably cited by the NRA, so maybe I’m biased, but that alone makes me suspicious.
SI I agree with you, you don’t have to prove anything. If hurling invectives and name calling is the best that you can do in sharing your thoughts, I’d say your thought process is consistent with your behavorial display. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt by holding out for the possibility that making no case to support your position might have been an oversight. Obviously not.
“Should we arm black teenagers to defend themselves?” is a straw man and certainly not an assertion that I made. Implicit in any argument for citizens to “legally” carry concealed firearm is that said owners must be of legal age to do so which age twenty one.
Asking you to provide data to support your position is hardly asking you to prove a negative. Surely you understand that would be asking you to prove something which has not happened. The fact is there are several examples of case around the world where the citizenry previously was permitted to own firearms and subsequently had them confiscated. Show me some evidence of a reduction of crime in any of those cases. That would at least suggest there is a relationship between gun ownership and increased crime even as a reciprocal.
Lott’s work supports his premise that gun ownership reduces violent crime and he is pro gun; shocking huh? There are those who don’t let reason based on facts become victimized by emotions.
Isn’t that what Marissa Alexander did? Where did it land her?
We know that it didn’t land her in the cemetary which is the objective of one defending his or her own life. I subscribe to the doctrine that it is better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 489 other followers