Yup, I get it. People in England (and, for that matter, Australia, New Zealand, Ukraine . . . […]
These shouldn’t be objectionable to anyone. For those who might not know, DV stands for Domestic Violence. The […]
I wasn’t going to add my thoughts, but I came across a few more comments, so, against my […]
I’ve been silent on many important news stories mainly because I’m tired of debating sound bites and the […]
Many of today’s bitter arguments, nee discussions, are on issues that allow — no, demand — only binary answers: Yes, No, Right, Wrong, True, False.
“Isn’t it true that surgeons cut patients and sometimes cause patients to die?”
“NO BUTS! Surgeons are awful people!”
Everyone recognizes the weakness of the argument. It may well be surgeons are awful people, but for reasons completely independent from them cutting into and mucking about in people’s insides.
That extreme example exemplifies the level of debate for many contentious issues.
Abortion and guns are two issues that come to mind; issues framed as being binary but aren’t.
This is a short post with some links and it’s prompted by the unprecedented run on guns and […]
This is a very short post with a link to a lot of information. Whether you are pro-gun, […]
Not always, but when there’s a shooting I often get a few emails asking what we should do about mass shootings (or school shootings, or any shooting).
In modern vernacular, this would labeled as micro-aggression because I know 1) no one expects me to provide an answer and, 2) it’s just a way to remind me that — by virtue of liking guns — I’m at fault.
The more charitable (if annoying) interpretation is they want to enjoy my reaction.
My immediate answer is “I don’t know” but that’s not the whole of it. I think we should discuss and make realistic proposals. I think discussion is the only chance we have at doing something about any problem we face, including gun violence.
Unfortunately, most discussions start like this: we should ban guns and if you don’t agree, let the blood of innocent victims be on your head.
Call me ignorant but that’s not what I would classify as a good start to a discussion. Especially since “ban guns” is the totality of what they propose. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but that suggestion shows a level of ignorance about the topic of gun control that I can only understand (and partially excuse) in the context of emotion-fueled thinking devoid of any actual thinking.
I’ve dropped blogs for unreasonableness on matters of not only guns, but also health care, climate, religion and/or other supernatural beliefs. I define unreasonableness as holding absolute positions with no room for differing opinions or willingness to compromise. Lost me some friends, too, but I’m sure they were glad to see me go.
THIS is a link to most of what I wrote about gun control. If one is interested in engaging me in a discussion, I think people should read all the posts (including the comments) but I want to highlight three posts (for them who only have time for three posts) that encapsulate where I stand on the issue and, again, the comments sections of these posts are worth reading.
Some general thoughts on guns and stuff; thinking about the kind of stuff that gets thrown around with […]
. . . but I’m going to stop here, with this post. It’s pretty clear to me — […]
There is a lot of breath being expended on guns, gun control, and all associated issues, and all […]
You can easily find my opinions on guns, gun violence, gun control, and violence in general. As a rule, […]
Originally posted on tacticalprofessor:
A friend posted a comment on his Facebook page about police response policies and times today.…
Sam Harris . . . I am indebted to the man because I will no longer engage in […]
(2,344 words) Introduction Some might know of my resolve to avoid certain on-line conversations. It’s difficult. I come […]