Here I go again, trying to teach a pig to sing.
It all started with this lovely little piece of 100% factual objective reporting.
It was posted with the comment:
I responded in usual fashion.
I have to agree with the author of the piece to a large extent. I can't believe we actually let people do things like this legally.
The article immediately begins with an appeal to emotion, a sort of "plain folks" argument if you will. Many of us have an older relative with medical problems who we cherish dearly, and he is using this classical propaganda element to appeal to our feelings.
Recently, I had to rush my elderly mother to emergency at William Beaumont Hospital early one Sunday morning.
And right away, he assumes that the rent a cop represents some kind of divine authority from on high, a fleeting appeal to authority.
I dropped her off and scuttled off to park. When I returned, I was promptly stopped by a beefy security guard.
He wanted to know if I was packing a weapon.
I gave him a look. I was wearing my usual baggy gray suit and was obviously about as paramilitary as an eggplant. He apologized, but said he had to ask, thanks to Michigan’s spiffy new concealed weapon law.
Also, inherent in this argument is the implication that anyone who would carry a concealed weapon must have some kind of wanna be military mindset.
He is quite correct in that appearance is meaningless in considering who may or may not be armed, but what he is actually trying to point out here is that in his mind, this means everyone walking down the street is a personal threat to him simply by virtue of the fact they might be armed and they might do this that or the other.
Is it healthy, or even logical, to spend one's energies worried about that people might do? I read into this the author has some sort of paranoia delusion in his mind that every other person on earth is out to get him because they might be carrying a weapon and they might do this that or the other.
This quite frankly scares me. All he can think of to do with a gun is kill an innocent person. Let's keep him away from sharp objects for heaven's sake!
Naturally, I blew him away.
"Comrades"? Is this Stalin-esque reference some kind of 1950s style jab at those who might practice the carrying of a concealed weapon, or is it him showing his true colors about where he stands on the nature of government? Either way I don't appreciate it.
Just kidding, comrades, but I didn’t blame him for asking.
Once again, we see that all the author can think of is how he wants to use a handgun to commit murder. Let's add baseball bats to the list of objects we need to keep away from him. On top of that he is making a sweeping generalization that everyone will carry a concealed gun and that everyone is so fixated on this idea of killing someone like him.
Eventually, some hothead ticked off about his hernia may damn well do just that, now that we all can legally dress up like Chicago gangsters all the time.
Two classic proganda elements here: Our benevolent and all knowing author can tell us the whole story because he says he can, and our elected/appointed officials have screwed up again because after all, everything the government does has always been 100% wrong every time ever.
Now, as devoted readers of this column know, I always try hard to see all sides to every issue, and there is, indeed, something good about the new concealed weapons law Michigan’s Supreme Court forced on us in January.
Now I am even more deeply disturbed, as not only is he fixated on committing murder and projecting that desire onto everyone, he seems to think we have surplus population that doesn't deserve to live.
It will certainly work toward keeping down the surplus population by contributing to the death rate.
Nice use of quotes and language (homicide) to imply that 193 people who were actually murderers somehow got off scot free.
And to be sure, somewhere along the line, somebody will use his or her concealed weapon to stop a bad guy about to commit an awful crime. Why, across the nation, there were 193 of these so-called “justifiable handgun homicides” in 1997 alone.
To be sure it is also a wonderful use of a single statistic to give an incomplete and innaccurate picture of how often a handgun is used to protect and save lives, many times even without so much as a shot fired.
I wonder if our all knowing author is aware of all the university research that went into compiling this list of statistics.
And hey you know what? I have presented a handgun once in my own defense. It does happen all the time.
I too can rattle off all the statistics I need to prove my point, but more important than that, I can provide their origins. But to be brutally honest, I don't need a stastistic to understand that I am safer armed.
Oh now this is classy. I will remind the reader to check the statistics I myself just provided, which once again have sources credited to them while these do not.
That’s more than reason enough to OK a concealed piece for everybody except John Hinckley, isn’t it? Unfortunately, there were also 8,503 nonjustifiable handgun homicides … and something like 11,000 handgun suicides, but hey. As Timmy McVeigh used to say after he blew up the day care center, if you want freedom, you gotta expect a little collateral damage, like a lot of dead children.
Tim McVeigh has so much to do with second amendment issues. This is an utterly tasteless and irrelevent reference meant to appeal to your sense of outrage.
If the article had been published a month later he could just as easily have made some kind of 9/11 quip, and it would have been just as tasteless and nonsensical.
Subtle. Really. I am glad this brilliant man is here to call people names. This is very clever and I've never seen anyone use the very idea of calling a group they were opposed to Nazis.
Naturally, we’ve been down this road before. Despite the lies from the enormously well-funded Nazi — oops — National Rifle Association,
P.S. Look up the history of Nazism and you'll find little gems like this. The author of this piece clearly doesn't know who his friends are. Oops did I just make an illogical implication of my own? You be the judge.
polls always show huge majorities for tax cuts
polls always show huge majorities for gun control.
polls always show huge majorities for term limits
polls always show huge majorities for giving me a million dollars
I can do it too when I don't have to cite sources either. Note the use of "always".
Like the Nazis right? Back that statement up.
Almost always, however, the will of the people is thwarted, mainly because the NRA has bought so many congressmen.
Once again, every politician to ever exist is always and completely wrong and incompetent. This is an emotional appeal to your sense of frustration with the government.
But what happened in Michigan this summer takes things to a new level of obscenity. The Michigan Supreme Court, long mostly a holding tank for hack politicians, intervened to prevent the people from even voting on the outrageous concealed weapons law a lame-duck Legislature crammed down our throats late last year.
There is hope, however; People Who Care is mounting another effort to get another kind of vote on the November 2002 ballot. They need 242,169 valid signatures before February, and you can bet the merchants of death will do all they can to challenge every last one, so they need even more signatures, just in case. To his credit, Wayne County Prosecutor Mike Duggan is on the side of the angels this time. For years, Marj Levin, a classy former Free Press reporter, has waged a fairly lonely battle as president of Michigan Citizens for Handgun Control (MCHC).
The fact is that these "corrupt" officials were voted into office. Notice that the non elected special interest group is the good guy here, because they're not Nazis like the NRA.
I love how he wavers between implying that the officials who put this into law are simultaneously malevolent and benevolent. The people who oppose it are principled, those who do not are growling monsters with green skin and long pointy teeth.
Notice how the appeals of special interest groups the author agrees with are legitimized, how politicians he agrees with are begrudgingly given the nod to, and how all the other forces at work are "shoving the law down our throats".
Read it very carefully paying attention to the connotation of the words he chooses, and note that many of them are misused to create hyperboles when synonyms of the same word could probably be used more appropriately. For instance see where he uses the words and phrases like "obscenity", "merchants of death", "lonely", "crammed", "angels", need I go on?
A ridiculous claim which is not verified to credited sources, and even if were true, it would mean nothing. Would it be preferable children be killed by poison? The implication here is than a specific inanimate object produces an undesirable behavior. Does your toaster cause you to start fires?
“Of all the children killed by firearms in the world, 86 percent take place in the United States,” Levin told me, presenting an impressive battery of statistics to back up her claim.
Sources man, where are the sources of this information?
What is clear is that anyone who allows a gun, especially a handgun, in their home is an unfit parent. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. A person living in a home with a gun is three times as likely to be shot to death (142 of them being children under 14 in one recent year) and five times more likely to commit suicide with that gun.
My parents must be unfit then. I'm so sad that those bad old guns in the house are going to force me to shoot someone or be shot or commit suicide. I'm also sad my bar of soap is going to force me to shower, clean my hands, or create soap scum.
Most of those kid victims met their death at the muzzle of a handgun. Indeed, handguns cause the vast majority of firearm deaths in the United States — and that doesn’t even consider the billions of dollars spent on medical care for those only maimed.
Finally! The source of all this wonderful information, a special interest group which unlike the NRA are not associated with the Nazi party.
For the full story, go to the Violence Policy Center’s Web site (www.vpc.org
) and read their highly researched “Unsafe In Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns.” That’s not likely to happen for a while. But I can’t imagine a goal more worth fighting for in George Bush’s half-asleep, illegitimate era.
Wait, what policy was that the historical Nazi party favored?
Well never mind that. Thank goodness we have this impartial, objective association of plain folks to set us all straight.
And we conclude with a touch of humor, wherein it its once again reinforced that the government is evil when it doesn't agree with him, the author is all knowing and impartial, and that the author is fixated on the idea that if he could but obtain a handgun he would commit murder.
First things first, however. If you think we should have the right to decide whether everyone needs a killing machine secretly tucked into their underwear, contact MCHC at 801 S. Adams, Birmingham 48009 (248-540-6868). Ol’ Charlatan Heston won’t like that, but hey. As Ben Hur knew, Rome didn’t fall in a day.
Thankfully we called the Violence Prevention Center and had this man arrested and detained, because there are handguns in every police officer's duty belt, and he had seen one he might have accidentally touched it, setting off a wave of murders. THAT is Violence Prevention because after all he might have done something violent.
I will conclude by encouraging the reader to visit this website or one like it:
Pay special attention to the Name-calling, Glittering generalities, Euphemisms, False connections, Transfer, Testimonial, Special Appeals, Plain Folks, Bandwagon, and Fear sections.
Hey didn't the Nazis use a lot of propaganda?
I've yet to receive any response...