“Oh, Noes! That Awkward Moment When It’s Explained To You That Not Only Isn’t “Snark” “Reporting”, But That Sometimes You Can Get A Subordinate Fact Wrong But Still Have The Right Argument! Awkwaaard!

The other day, I was talking with Sheila Rae Thorvaldssen, a woman from Dilworth Minnesota who writes the liberal-leaning blog Oh Noes, Wingnutz Are Blooming Like Loosestrife On My Lawn.  It is one of the leading blogs, left or right, from outstate Minnesota.

The conversation went something like this:

THORVALDSSEN:  Har har, Merg!  You gunny wingnuts have been pwn3ed again!  Tony Cornish said stuff that wasn’t true!

ME: Yeah, that’s the problem with being a pro-Second Amendment activist.  If you’re a gun controller, all you have to do is keep repeating the same lines over and over again.  On our side, you have to keep up with current events.  Israel “toughened” up their gun laws in the last decade or so!

THORVALDSSEN:  It must be awkward to realize you were wrong on all the facts!

ME: Well, it sucks bobbling facts, and we all try not to.  But here’s the rub;  you’ve heard that old saying, “the British lose all the battles but win the wars?”

THORVALDSSEN:  No.  Did Conan O’Brien say it?

ME: Nope.  Anyway – it’s a little like that when you’re a 2nd Amendment activist.  Every once in a while you may bobble a fact, or factoid, that’s part of the larger discussion – but we’re still right on the actual conclusions.

THORVALDSSEN:  Oh, riiiiiight.

ME: Well, wrapped around that factoid about the Israelis “toughening” their gun laws are two facts that everyone, like you, that jumps up and down about Rep. Cornish – and me! – bobbling the fact is the inconvenient truth that that factoid reinforces two conclusions that we’ve always made.

THORVALDSSEN:  That’s just crazy talk.

ME: Well, yeah, but not in the way you think.  For starters, the “tightening” of gun laws – on the law-abiding – in Israel cut the number of legal firearms in half – but more than doubled the number of illegal ones, and reinforced the black market.  Which is exactly what happens whenever gun control is tried, whether in Tel Aviv or Chicago.

THORVALDSSEN:  Hah hah!  You said there were two conclusions, but you only gave one!  You are a liar!

ME: Well, the other one is this;  whatever happened in Israel in the past decade or so, and whatever they do now, it is a historical fact that in the seventies, there were several attacks on Israeli schools and school children –  the 1970 Avivim Massacre which killed 12 kids, the Kiryat Shmona massacre (which began as an attempt to kill the children at a kibbutz school and evolved from there, ending in 18 dead, eight of them children), and the Ma’alot Massacre (terrorists killed 22 children and five adults).  That’s 42 dead children among three incidents, in a population about the size of Minnesota’s.  Can you imagine almost five Red Lake massacres in four years, the affect that’d have here?  Anyway – at the time, one of Israel’s responses – one of many – was to allow teachers in high risk areas along the borders to carry legally-permitted guns.

THORVALDSSEN:  So?

ME: So the attacks on children stopped.  They found softer targets – actually, they largely switched to bombs and rockets.

THORVALDSSEN:  But Cornish got current Israeli law wrong.  So your entire point is invalid!  Hah!  Bow down before my superior reasoning, bitchez!

ME:  Not if your point is “there are some ideas out there to stop school violence”.  The point being, once schools became harder targets – in this case, harder because teachers in vulnerable areas were armed – school shooting stopped.

People like Cornish – and me, by the way – say that that just might be a better than the “gun-free school zones” that we’ve been trying for the past 25 years or so.

THORVALDSSEN:  But you forgot the ultimate argument against arming teachers.

ME: What’s that.

THORVALDSSEN: It won’t work.  Period.

ME: What makes that the ultimate argument?

THORVALDSSEN:  I said “Period” at the end.

ME: Hm.

THORVALDSSEN:  That means you’ve been pwn3d.

ME: Huh.

THORVALDSSEN:  Do you feel awkward yet?

ME: Sure, why not?

And SCENE.

11 thoughts on ““Oh, Noes! That Awkward Moment When It’s Explained To You That Not Only Isn’t “Snark” “Reporting”, But That Sometimes You Can Get A Subordinate Fact Wrong But Still Have The Right Argument! Awkwaaard!

  1. You need to get the teacher’s union on board. Tell MEA there will be two “Trusted Teacher” positions created and those selected will furnish their own arms and training but receive extra pay equal to the coaching stipend paid to the Girls Basketball Coach and reserved parking spaces by the door. Then tell them selection will be merit-based instead of seniority – and watch the fur fly. In the end, they’ll insist on six positions, armed and funded by the District, filled by seniority. It’ll be in the next contract negotiations. At that point, you’ve won the argument but for the details.

  2. You do us a disservice with these “discussions” with moonbats Mitch.

    A) You can’t win an argument using logic against kool-aid guzzling, vacuum skulled dimwits.

    B) By agreeing to discuss gun control, you cede the high ground.

    The issue isn’t gun control, who has the strictest or how it doesn’t work to contain violence. Drop it.

    The issue is mental health.

    Leftists are OUTRAGED that the media has begun to focus, however slightly, upon the underlying cause that ties every one of these bloodbaths together.

    Case in point; there was a piece that has gone viral on the interwebs of late, a piece called “I am Adam Lanza’s mother” written by Liza Long. If you haven’t read it, do so before continuing:

    http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

    This heartwrenching plea for help has unleashed the most vitriolic avalanche of leftist hatred I have ever witnessed. I’m talking real, white hot hate, not K-Mart blue light special hate.

    Observe a few samples:

    http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/16/want-the-truth-behind-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-read-her-blog/

    “Long has written a series of vindictive and cruel posts about her children in which she fantasizes about beating them, locking them up and giving them away. In most posts, her allegedly insane and violent son is portrayed as a normal boy who incites her wrath by being messy, buying too many Apple products and supporting Obama.”
    ———————

    Check this jewel out:

    “Liza Long, blogger and single mother of four who wrote the incredible post “I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother,” which was reprinted by Gawker and Huffington Post this weekend and viewed by millions. Long is of course not Adam Lanza’s mother. She is the mother of 13-year-old “Michael” (whose name she changed but so what, since her own name is public), who she describes as belligerent and mentally ill, so much so that “he terrifies me.”

    In case you missed it, this bitch has taken it upon herself to name the kid: “(whose name she changed but so what, since her own name is public)”

    And check out the *incredible* self-serving hypocrisy of the paragraph that follows:

    “We have of course gotten used to mommy bloggers embarrassing their children, saying which child they like best or how much they drink while stuck at home doing art projects. Louis C.K. regularly embarrasses his kids and surely one day they will get their revenge. These are humiliations that might require a kid to get therapy later, but they are not on the same order as what Long did.”

    Where can one find this insanity? Slate, ‘natch..

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/12/17/i_am_adam_lanza_s_mother_liza_lang_essay_libels_her_son.html

    But for pure, unvarnished hate we know where to go….take a moment to check the comments on HuffPo:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

    The mental health issue, besides being the one that offers the true path to slowing down the slaughter, may be the single best opportunity to utterly destroy the lefty blogoshere. It offers them the opportunity to do what they do best; hang themselves upon their own fetid petards.

    If you cannot see the correct path Mitch, I can’t help you.

  3. Wayne LaPierre knew he was in for a high-tech crucifixion when he faced the press the other day. Whatever he said was going to be used as fodder for their disinformation campaign. So, he spoke the truth: (paraphrasing), “if you want to stop bad guys with guns, you need good guys with guns.”

    They can’t stop driving the nails in deep enough.

  4. I remain in the dark on the mental heath issue as related to the shooter. Has this been investigated, verified, and released to the public? In short do we actually know that he had some type of real, verified diagnosis? If not, why are we already trying to change current practices as related to this incident?

    Last friday some type of memorial service was held for the victims, during which a church bell was rang 26 times, once for each victim.

    The 27th victim, the killer’s murdered mother, was ignored. Like the religion of peace, the side in this issue which allegedly stands for love, peace, and justice has condemned this woman out of hand without anything other than that she legally owned a common firarm that was misused by another. And was murdered by her own child in the process. Tolerance? Can gun owners expect better?

    Discussions and arguements with these people are futile. They have diagnosed the problem without even identifying it. The facts will be tailored as needed.

    So will the law; coincidentally, the shop that sold the rifle used by the killer was just raided by the ATF and local LEOs. Not for the killings, but for some alleged procedural error. For that matter, consider the guy who produced the anti-muslim movie that was said to have provoked the incident in Libya. He’s now in jail. Not for the movie, but for some kind of parole violation.

    The message is clear – we will get you if you do not agree with us.

    However, any silence when dealing with these people will automatically be defined as agreement. You are wise to stand up to these people, even if it’s like arguing with a parakeet. Thank you.

  5. “I remain in the dark on the mental heath issue as related to the shooter.”

    Shot 22 children under the age of 10 to pieces. Really, Joe?

  6. “The message is clear – we will get you if you do not agree with us.”

    There lies the reason for the BOR!!

  7. Thank you Nate. I will check it out immediately. Unlike some, I am unable to accurately determine mental illness using third+ – hand information in the media and only seeing the aftermath of his rampage.

    Like physical illness, mental illness comes in a variety of flavors and many share symptoms and behaviors. Even at that, diagnosis is difficult and frequently inaccurate. A broken leg or heart attack are visible. Hearing voices, etc. can come from a variety of sources.

    So, to say that we must solve “the mental illness problem” we need to try to know what version the killer had, what was and wasn’t done to treat it, and a number of other factors that aren’t obvious by just the end result of his last act.

    While it’s hard for our society to admit it, we also cannot rule out the possibility that the kid was just plain evil. Look at the carnage and worse left behind by drug cartels. No one seems interested in siccing Dr. Phil on them.

    Some choose external factors the evil gun, careless parenting, mental illness, or anything else that differentiates the evil doer from themselves. Or when the object of blame will further an agenda.

  8. Statistically the momentum have been moving in the other direction. The law at the national level has been drifting away from stricter gun laws, I’d say, since the early 1990s. The high water point for gun control supporters was certainly the Brady Law in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994. Since that time, federal law has both Congress enacted law and court decisions have shifted in the other direction of fewer restrictions. That process has been more dramatic at the state level, where we’ve seen the rapid spread of for example liberalized concealed carry laws.

    In the late 80′s, there were about 18 states that had state laws that made it pretty easy for civilians to carry concealed hand guns around in society. By now, that number is up to 39 or 40 states having liberalized laws, depending on how you count it, and the NRA has worked very diligently and other gun rights groups, at the state level, to win political victories there. And they’ve really been quite successful.

  9. Joe, none of us pretend to be experts in mental health or statistical analysis. But we don’t need to be experts to notice the formula for trouble is 20-something Weird White Male + firearms + defenseless victims = tragedy.

    If we took the firearm out of the formula, we could save lives. But can we? A gun ban is words on paper which the mentally ill ignore. We’ll need to take physical possession of the weapons. So what then, troops go door-to-door searching attics and gardens to seize everything that could be used as a weapon? Might as well go whole hog and get them brown shirts. And then the entire population is defenseless against your ordinary garden-variety criminal, so is that really an improvement?

  10. Statistically the momentum have been moving in the other direction. The law at the national level has been drifting away from stricter gun laws…That process has been more dramatic at the state level, where we’ve seen the rapid spread of for example liberalized concealed carry laws.

    And my goal is to keep things moving in that direction.

    I’ll submit an amendment:

    Since that time, federal law has both Congress enacted law and court decisions have shifted in the other direction of fewer restrictions.

    That should be “fewer stupid, pointless, niggling restrictions that do nothing to stem crime“.

    And now you’re onto something.

Leave a Reply