another anti-rights blog, another case of reasoned discourse

A few days ago, yet another anti-rights cultist made some bleating tweet about how Americans needed to have a "conversation" about "gun violence" and "gun deaths". Obviously, we have already had this conversation (hint: the anti-rights cultists lost, and rightfully so), but this "conversation" schtick is the current "gun control" talking point, so all of the useful idiots are out in droves harping on it as hard as they can.

Anywise, I pointed out that no one wanted to rehash the same old fail all over again, and otherwise ignored the tweet, but Sean had to not only respond to it, he had to try to actually have the supposedly-desired conversation with the moron on the other end of the intertubes.

Silly Sean.

The predictable thing happened – Sean’s comment was in "moderation" forever, then got posted briefly, then got yanked as soon as the author of "Atticus Uncensored" (the anti-rights weblog in question) realized s/he could provide no useful counterargument. In the interim, I made the mistake of actually reading Sean’s comment (silly me), which included a quote from "gun control" extremist who initiated all of these fun and games, to whit, "Why are American humans incapable of having a serious chat about the correlation of increased firearms and more gun deaths?"

Oh good Lord. Well, I could not exactly let a stupid-assed question like that (see, they do exist!) stand, so I went and wrote this comment as a response:

Why are American humans incapable of having a serious chat about the correlation of increased firearms and more gun deaths?

Sure, let us talk about that correlation. Oh, wait, I already did:

The raw number of firearms in America correlated to the raw number of firearm-related fatalities with a coefficient of -0.41741, which is a little stronger than before including the firearm importation numbers.

The rate of firearm ownership in America correlated to the rate of firearm-related fatalities with a coefficient of -0.80373, which is significantly stronger than before.

In other words, what I said before only continues to hold true: the hypothesis "more guns = more deaths" cannot be true in the fame of reference of American society over the past almost-three decades.

Take a look at those correlation coefficient numbers again – they are negative, which means as the number of firearms in America increase, the number of firearm-related fatalities have decreased, and the same for firearm ownership rates and firearm-related fatality rates.

I showed my work; how about you show yours to back up your claim of "increased firearms and more gun deaths". I shall not hold my breath…

Atticus Uncensored engages in censorship

I even took a screen capture of it, just in case.

Which, as you are probably either guessing or already know by following that link, was just as well – my comment lasted about twelve hours, and then was nuked off the face of the intertubes. Why? Well, Sean asked that question; Atticus’ response was:

I welcome discussion, yet any comments which are in any way meant to be intimidating or aggressive, will be removed.

Apparently, amongst his/her other talents, Atticus is a mind-reader, and just knows that I "meant" my comment to be "intimidating or aggressive". Hookay then. I certainly will not deny that my comment was confrontational, but "intimidating or aggressive" is just downright nonsense. I tried reposting the comment with an before- and after-word asking what about it was so troubling, but the comment did not post, I did not get a moderation warning, and when I tried to re-repost the comment, I got a "duplicate comment" warning; in other words, Atticus functionally banned me from his/her site on the basis of a single comment. Cute.

And here we are, with yet another "gun control" extremist who not only cannot substantiate their own arguments, but who says they welcome discussion but acts in a fashion that says something else entirely. Yeah, I know, nothing new there, but it is worth noting that these folks are still employing the same tactics that have resulted in so very much fail over the past few decades; in the end, "gun control" boils down to the idiocy of "do it again, only HARDER", and its supporters seem hamstrung by the same mentality throughout all facets of their lives.

I can only assume the title of the weblog – "Atticus Uncensored" – is meant to be somehow ironic, given how enthusiastically Atticus has been censoring anything that might dare threaten his/her precious bubble of delusion.

Update:  Miguel has alerted me that Atticus has Memory Hole’d the entire post, in the ultimate display of Reasoned Discourse. What a spineless coward.

12 thoughts on “another anti-rights blog, another case of reasoned discourse”

  1. “Where is the discussion?”

    Any discussion that starts out with one side wanting to restrict or ban the rights of another is not a conversation. It is an argument for tyranny.

  2. Atticus Uncensored removed the post altogether. Sean’s reply was there plus I added mine but it seems it was too much for the person wanting to “have a conversation.”

  3. Miguel wrote:

    Atticus Uncensored removed the post altogether. Sean’s reply was there plus I added mine but it seems it was too much for the person wanting to “have a conversation.”

    Yikes! You mean someone might actually read the crap I post on the internet and disagree with me? Undo! Undo! Undo!!

  4. So the people that bleat about the need for a “conversation” scream and memory-hole when faced with people conversing with them.


    Seems their idea of a conversation is where the proles shut up and listen.

    It’s not just Gun Control they’re after.

  5. Miguel wrote:

    @ Tom:
    So much for “Let’s have a conversation,” huh?

    As long as the conversation ends up as:

    Anti rights cultist: “So, we agree that you’ll hand over all your guns and ammo tomorrow morning, and we’ll ban sales and distribution of the same. Great!”

    Gun right advocate: “Oh, yes, I have finally come to see the errors of my ways through your persuasive logic and common sense. Thank you.”

    As Sean pointed out in his response to Atticus, and Linoge et al. have been doing for so long, this national “conversation” that the anti rights cultists want has been going on at the ballot box for the past 20 years. Guns are mainstream, and the antis can not stand it. They can’t win on statistical, historical or political logic. So, they resort to the ad hominem attack the main thrust of which is that we, the advocates of expansion of all rights, are not smart enough to understand why they’re right. We, the slack-jawed, grammar school drop out gun owners only have the statistics, history and politics on our side. And, it would seem from reading the antis’ blogs, the brains.

    I will now turn on the bright lights so I can see the parts of the Daniel Defense lpk I just got in the mail on Friday and start to put them into the Noveske Gen II stripped lower I was fortunate to find. Actual guns are way more fun than arguing with the antis.

  6. @ Chris: As I like to say, should a woman have a “discussion/conversation” with the scumbag trying to rape her? Then why should I have a conversation with someone trying to destroy my rights?

    @ ProdigalSon: As I also like to say, I am sorry his/her beliefs were so weak that they could not withstand mine being expressed.

    @ rickn8or: Nope, even that does not hold – the writer went and nuked the entire post. Rather sad, that.

    @ Miguel: It is always a strange sensation to watch a person prove themselves a liar.

    @ Tom: One need only look at Joan Peterson’s weblog (if you can stand to do so) to see the kind of “conversation” these deranged whackjobs want – one where law-abiding citizens peacefully exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights are demeaned, demonized, attacked, persecuted, insulted, ridiculed, mischaracterized, and lied about with an astonishingly flagrant disregard for reality and basic facts.

    I think I will pass on that. Thanks.

    @ The Jack: By “conversation” they mean “dictation”, in both senses of the word.

    @ mike w.: Indeed.

    @ Sean D Sorrentino: Yuppers; it got nuked from orbit. Apparently that was the only way Atticus could be sure s/he could control the conversation.

Comments are closed.