Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gun Control Makes Sense to Sheep

🦫

Although not particularly a Crenshaw fanboi, when one is spot on, I give kudos........

An excellent response by Crenshaw and a good article in AT

an excerpt......

Dana Bash’s Logical Incoherence on School Shootings
By Richard McDonough

Upon receiving the news of the horrific killing of six people, including three nine-year old children, by a deranged and troubled shooter in Nashville, the Democrats and their stenographers in what passes as our “news” media immediately began their cultish ritual: knee-jerk calls for stricter gun control. In a revealing exchange between CNN’s Dana Bash and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Bash accused House Republicans of loving guns more than children. She asked:

Are you…telling the American people that mass shootings, including of young children, is just something that’s going to happen and you’re not going to make any moves, at this point to try to stop it?

The accusation, repeating the familiar liberal-media trope, is, of course, that Republicans do not care enough about the lives of our children to do anything that might weaken the Second Amendment.

In response, Crenshaw proposed a foolproof solution to end school shootings: station at least two armed guards in every school in the United States. Bash replied, sarcastically, with a generality: “So the answer is more guns?”

It is not clear why Bash thinks this question is legitimate. When one has a problem one often uses empiricism to resolve it — it is not a witticism contest.

Here’s an analogous hypothetical: if firefighters propose igniting backfires in an area between a housing complex and a massive forest fire, a cocky reporter with a Bachelor’s degree in Narcissism Studies and knows nothing about fire-fighting but has a flair for the appeal to emotion fallacies so popular within her profession, might sarcastically ask, “So the answer is more fire?” The answer would be… “Yes.” (Sometimes it is necessary to burn out an area in the path of the fire because this destroys the fuel for the fire in a controlled way to prevent a firestorm that would burn everything, including any animals and people unable to be removed.)

Similarly, when a doctor tells a patient he needs to vaccinate her with a live virus (cowpox) in order to prevent a virulent natural virus (smallpox) the patient might ask, incredulously, “So the answer to my virus infection is more virus?” However, the correct answer, by people outside of newsrooms who actually know something, might well say, “Yes, just as one can only fight fire with fire, sometimes one can only fight a virus with a virus.”

One could add numerous additional examples but the point should now be clear enough that even a liberal “journalist” can understand it.



Crenshaw responds to her question slightly differently though:

No, the answer is armed guards. The answer is armed guards, right? Yes, more guns – the kind of guns that protect the President, that protect you all at CNN.

Is it easy to get into your headquarters at CNN? Absolutely not. There’s armed guards there. There’s single points of entry. I think we should look at our schools as a place that is precious and have the same kind of security that your corporate offices do, that we do in Congress. You know if we consider a place to be important where our children go to learn every day, it should have the same level of security as every other place, whether it’s a shopping mall or a corporate office that’s hard to get into..........

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...cal_incoherence_on_school_shootings.html


ya!

GWB