Saturday, October 5

Liberal Logic: An Oxymoron if There Ever Was One

Source: The Washington Post


Familiar questions after shooting near Capitol

By Petula Dvorak, Published: October 3 E-mail the writers

It’s getting too familiar.
Gunfire. Sirens. Tweets. “Are you okay?” calls. “We’re all okay” updates.

The most “familiar question” of all to me is:
How come people like Petula Dvorak (whose twisted logic prevents them from having any common sense), are making the big bucks doing essentially the same thing as I do here for free?  Maybe it’s because that for some reason, I feel that I am bound by the burden of facts and rational reasoning, whereas liberals like Petula, respond to everything, the only way they know how; by suggesting increased government spending and infringing upon individual rights.

This blogging thing would be a lot easier for me if I could just make stuff up, like Petula does. She claims that our nation's capitol building is one of the biggest terrorists targets in the free world. Try telling that to the people of Israel, or any other country that is not separated by two oceans from the breeding ground of jihadists.  I’m sure that it would be too painful for most of you to endure reading what she has written, so bear with me as I use her for an example of why liberals so seldom come up correct conclusions.

First of all, she compares the sound of gun shots to that of a jet engine (which makes one wonder if anyone using such an analogy has ever heard much of either), but then she does something much more outrageous.  She uses a story of police responding accordingly to a perceived terrorist act, as a lead in to her support of gun control.  

She attempts to tie everything together by bringing up the issue of mental health, and at the end of her piece, she alludes to her contention that maybe we should be spending more tax dollars in that area in order to prevent such things from happening.

I guess that I gotta hand it to her for being able use two unrelated stories to promote the two unrelated issues of gun control and Obamacare, but of course this would be next to impossible if one were tied to the constraints of rational thought and had a real world understanding of cause and effect.

She first reports that someone hell bent on causing destruction of property and physical harm to people was stopped by police gunfire, and then goes on to suggest that the world would be safer place with more gun control.  To suggest that only the police should be able to counter murderous actions with firearms, is like saying only paramedics should be allowed to provide first aid.

By definition, bystanders are always the ones who have the opportunity to be the “first responders” and making it illegal for citizens to use their own guns to thwart the actions of psychos is like having it unlawful for bystanders to provide CPR.  By the time the police cars, or rescue squads show up, it’s often too late.  The shootings at the Navy Yard and the others she mentioned, would have certainly never have taken the tolls they did, if armed citizens had been nearby.

Petula’s conflicted reasoning doesn’t end there though.  In the beginning of her piece, she mentions how she bravely ran toward the gunshots, but only a few paragraphs later, she considers the cowardly way of ensuring her personal safety, by running away.  Using isolated incidents of various shootings however, she determines that any place is just as dangerous as Washington D.C., and taking guns away from law abiding citizens and Obamacare are the only answers.  Hey Petula, have you ever considered, purchasing your own gun?

I would imagine that she would never do such a thing, and the truth is, she wouldn’t have to, if all the rest of us are allowed to choose to exercise our constitutional rights.  Just as we all benefit from the protection of our military from hostile nations, even though we don’t personally own tanks or fighter jets, unarmed individuals in a crowd will benefit from responsible armed citizens who take action against deranged mad men.

Now what about the mental health issue?  Could we reduce the number of shootings and other types of violence if we simply made health care more affordable for (read: spent more money on) everyone?  Is Obamacare the answer?  Probably Almost certainly not.  

At first glance, it might seem reasonable that if mental health care (and other types of health care) were “more affordable” we would all live in a healthier, safer country, but only if you look at it from a purely microeconomic perspective.  Even if Obamacare works as well as its supporters hope it will, it can only reduce the cost for lower income individuals. It will do nothing to reduce healthcare cost as a whole to our nation.  

Changing how you pay for something in most cases, does not change its cost.  When you buy some underwear from Walmart, the price is the same whether you use cash, check or credit card.  Obamacare changes how we will pay for healthcare, but will do little to reduce what we spend on healthcare as a whole and if anything, will increase that.  Why?

First of all it will remove the end-use consumers of healthcare, even further from the purchasing decisions, which always leads to increased overall costs.  Secondly, since Obamacare will make healthcare “more affordable” to lower income people, they will consume more of it.  Instead of telling their kid to “tough it out” when he gets the sniffles, they will be taking him to the doctor.  

Since the total amount we spend on healthcare as a nation must remain finite, the increased demand by lower income people will mean less money available for everyone else.  Since mental health issues are among the most difficult to diagnose and effectively remedy, as the inevitable financial shortfalls of government run healthcare occur, they will be the first ailments to be ignored.  This is where the government decision making (Sarah Palin’s death panels) on health care comes in.  “You’re fine.  Get over it.  We got kids with leukemia to treat.”  Obamacare will neither reduce mental illness or increase the treatment of it.

Finally, too many people confuse mental illness with stupidity.  They’re not the same thing.  If they were, there would be no mad scientists, and that would be a great loss for horror movie aficionados.  Deranged psychopathic killers are still capable of making rational judgments, like avoiding contact with hot stoves and not walking across busy highways without looking for traffic.  If it were all but a guarantee that acting out their fantasies would result in either immediately getting shot or incredibly harsh punishment, most of them would make the same type of connection.  Did Petula fail to realize that most of her shooting examples occurred in “gun free zones”?

There are three things that can reduce the amount of mass shootings; responsible, armed citizens, swift and harsh punishment for offenders, and this, and none of these involve spending more government money or infringing upon the constitutional rights of individuals.

When you start with flawed logic, you will come up with incorrect answers.  About the only value liberals provide us with are examples to be used in teachable moments.

“Dad, what does oxymoron mean?”

“Well, son... “  

No comments:

RINO Blog Watch (Blog)

RINO Forum - User Submitted News

RINO Forum - Elections

Recent Posts

Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Views (since Blogger started counting)

Blog Archives

Follow by Email - Widget 13

Click Here To Become A Conservative Blogs Central Blogger

Back to TOP