Paul Vitello: Slightly less of an idiot today
Bloggers, pundits, and letters get results. Mr. Vitello has issued some corrections to his factually inaccurate article that I addressed here. He did issue them in that smarmy, condescending way that lets you know he was beaten. Some key quotes:
“Personally, I think you are a dumb –, but as long as you are fighting against the freedoms of all Americans, I wouldn’t have you any other way.”
“I once heard that it is better to remain quiet and seem a fool than speak and remove all doubt. Never have those words been more accurate”
“When you only tell half a story it’s the same as lying
My favorite:
The letters and e-mails were angry and contemptuous and, I regret to say, too well-written for my taste.
All this could have been avoided with a modicum of research. But then again when one actually researches the gun issue, one finds that gun control doesn’t work.
So, hats off to you Mr. Vitello. Sure, you’re a smarmy, condescending prick in defeat but you admitted your errors. For that, you have my respect.
Update: Oh my! Kevin is not at all enthused and trashes Vitello some more.
March 9th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
“For good measure, throw in some improper gun terminology…just to show how little time you have spent in your life killing little leaf-eating mammals.”
As if getting the facts correct were tangential to journalism.
But of course, his heart is pure, since he wants to “protect citizens from nuts and criminals – and terrorists – who want to buy assault rifles [sic] at any sporting goods store in America.”
Should we write him and let him know he STILL doesn’t know the difference between “assault weapon” and assault rifle?
March 9th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
So then we shouldn’t be trying to prevent John Allen Mohammed or Peter Troy from buying guns?
It’s one thing to try to make all gun ownership illegal. It’s quite another to want to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill…
March 9th, 2004 at 1:41 pm
So then we shouldn’t be trying to prevent John Allen Mohammed or Peter Troy from buying guns?
Who said any thing to the contrary?
March 9th, 2004 at 2:00 pm
tgirsch:
Suppose I said, “better to let 100 guilty men go free than wrongly imprison an innocent man.” What would your response be?
March 9th, 2004 at 4:13 pm
Has anyone pointed out the the DC snipers DIDN’T buy their rifle legally? So what if they weren’t in the NCIS database, the fear that they might be was enough for Muhammad to buy his rifle from the dealer who “lost” a bushmaster to Muhammad. If Vitello is willing to lie/omit facts about the DC snipers, who is to say that he didn’t lie about any of his other examples?
March 9th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
Thibodeaux:
My response would be “You’re quoting Jefferson out of context.” (Or was it Madison? Whatever…) There’s a big difference between imprisoning someone for a crime they did not commit, and restricting purchases. If you can’t see that difference…
Uncle:
Who said any thing to the contrary?
It’s not what was specifically said. Never mind the obvious factual errors with respect to gun types. What the guy was complaining about, in part, was the flaws in the current system of gun control that allowed these people to buy guns when they should not have been allowed to do so. That, to me, is a legitimate problem in need of fixing (unless, of course, you don’t believe that those people should be forbidden from buying weapons). And you have either ignored or marginalized that aspect of his argument.
I’m generally very sympathetic to gun rights causes, as you know. But people who suggest (or imply) that all gun control laws are bad / don’t work / can’t work go way too far. Because implicit in that statement is the idea that we should do nothing in terms of gun control. I mean really, how else is someone supposed to take that?
I know that the term “common sense gun control” has been abused by some on the left, and vilified by some on the right, but if you can fight your way past the rhetoric, the underlying concept makes sense. (e.g., Gee, maybe it’s not such a good idea to let convicted violent criminals own whatever weapons they want…)
Gun control is far from perfect, and can never be 100% effective. On this much we can agree. But that doesn’t mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water. To argue that would be like me arguing that because the Bush tax cuts created huge deficits and didn’t create the jobs promised, ALL tax cuts are therefore bad.
March 9th, 2004 at 5:01 pm
ougryphon, kevin did at the link in the post.
Tom, what those laws often fail to take into account is that people predisposed to breaking laws will not follow them. A machine gun purchased by me will never be used in crime unless it is stolen.
March 9th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
There’s a big difference between imprisoning someone for a crime they did not commit, and restricting purchases. If you can’t see that difference…
If I can’t see the difference, then what?
Yes, there’s a difference, but the principle is the same. A citizen has rights, and the government may not violate them, even if that means something bad might happen. Period. End of discussion. All appeals to “common sense,” bath water, and other clichés notwithstanding.
March 9th, 2004 at 5:14 pm
Oh, one more thing: GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK. Banning guns does not keep criminals from possessing guns. The only thing they are good for is disarming the citizen, leaving him defenseless against criminals and the state (assuming there’s a discernable difference).
Gun control advocates, it seems to me, can be divided into two groups. The only question that remains is: which group are YOU a member of? The evil one, or the ignorant one?
March 9th, 2004 at 5:43 pm
That’s a little harsh. I apologize.
March 9th, 2004 at 9:37 pm
Uncle:
Tom, what those laws often fail to take into account is that people predisposed to breaking laws will not follow them. A machine gun purchased by me will never be used in crime unless it is stolen.
ALL laws have that problem, not just gun laws. But that ignores the point that these particular people, by law, should not have been sold guns and yet they were. Was this the fault of the gun dealers? Probably not, if the background check databases were faulty. Where I have a problem is with the elements of the gun lobby that work very hard to make SURE that those databases are faulty. They complain that we should simply “enforce existing gun laws” while simultaneously working very hard to make them unenforceable.
Turning around an argument I’ve had used on me in the past (not sure if you’ve ever used it): making murder illegal doesn’t stop murder — should we therefore take laws against murder off the books?
Thibodeaux:
If I can’t see the difference, then what?
Then, frankly, you’re not worth debating with. People who can’t see obvious differences or refuse to acknowledge shades of gray are rather difficult to take seriously.
Oh, one more thing: GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK. Banning guns does not keep criminals from possessing guns. The only thing they are good for is disarming the citizen, leaving him defenseless against criminals and the state (assuming there’s a discernable difference).
See above about murder. Do you have any idea how paranoid that sounds? I suppose the laws that require me to register my car and get a driver’s license have the sole effect of de-caring the citizen, leaving him without transportation. And of course, if all gun control laws were repealed tomorrow, I’m certain there would be no increase in the access that criminals have to guns.
Gun control advocates, it seems to me, can be divided into two groups. The only question that remains is: which group are YOU a member of? The evil one, or the ignorant one?
Ignoring the obvious insult, the answer is: Neither. As Uncle will tell you, my wife is a gun owner, and I have no problem at all with gun ownership. What I do have a problem with is the idiotic, childish, oversimplistic, binary view that the only two viable options are “no gun laws at all” and “disarming everyone.” That sort of foolish false dilemma poisons the well and eliminates the possibility for informed debate — and THAT is far more dangerous to democracy than any number of prohibition laws.
That’s a little harsh. I apologize.
Apology accepted. The comment had about as much basis in truth as if someone divided pro-gun people into two groups: Criminals and separatist militiamen. I’m glad you recognize that it was way over the top.
March 9th, 2004 at 9:58 pm
these particular people, by law, should not have been sold guns and yet they were
the gun was stolen. Law was broken. And your murder analogy is flawed. The question with a law is does the law prevent bad stuff from happening. So, do murder laws prevent murder, yes. I’m sure a lot less people are dead only because it’s illegal to kill them. Do gun laws prevent bad stuff? Not in any proven capacity. Why then have gun laws, if they’re not to prevent bad stuff. Those laws place a burden on people who want to obey the law.
March 9th, 2004 at 10:26 pm
tgirsch:
There’s a difference between laws against acts that violate someone’s rights (e.g., murder) and laws against things that don’t (e.g., owning a gun).
If you can’t see the difference…
March 10th, 2004 at 11:21 am
Uncle:
So, do murder laws prevent murder, yes. I’m sure a lot less people are dead only because it’s illegal to kill them. Do gun laws prevent bad stuff? Not in any proven capacity.
I very much doubt you can show that murder laws prevent murder, to anywhere near the type of burden of proof you would require to concede that gun laws reduce gun crime. The idea that someone thinks “I’d love to kill that guy, but it’s illegal, so I won’t” is absurd (someone who would have killed if it were legal, anyway).
Besides which, laws aren’t just about preventing bad things from happening. They’re about defining what the penalties are for breaking those rules.
Why then have gun laws, if they’re not to prevent bad stuff.
Again, what you imply (but don’t say) with this logic is that a criminal who wants, say, a machine gun, would have just as easy a time getting one now (with them illegal) as he would if they were on sale without restrictions at his local neighborhood Wal*Mart. Forgive me if I don’t accept that implication. If the law makes it harder for a potential criminal to get such a weapon, then the law could easily be preventing bad things from happening.
There’s a difference between laws against acts that violate someone’s rights (e.g., murder) and laws against things that don’t (e.g., owning a gun).
Whose rights does driving without a license violate?
March 10th, 2004 at 11:35 am
someone thinks “I’d love to kill that guy, but it’s illegal, so I won’t” is absurd
You have obviously never driven through Knoxville during rush hour.
And i think I should be clear: as you should note from this blog, i don’t slam all gun laws, just some. Notably the AWB, the hughes amendment and the NFA tax. The rest, i can live with.
March 10th, 2004 at 11:43 am
Whose rights does driving without a license violate?
Nobody’s. But that’s a post for another day. What is your point?
March 10th, 2004 at 12:25 pm
Uncle:
You have obviously never driven through Knoxville during rush hour.
Hee. Of course you realize, I was saying that the idea that the same guy who thinks that would actually do it if it were legal is absurd. Oh, I’m sure there are one or two out there, maybe…
And i think I should be clear: as you should note from this blog, i don’t slam all gun laws, just some.
But that’s part of my point. In your tone here, you seem to be trashing them all. You seem to vilify “gun control” as a single, evil entity, with no redeeming merits.
Thibodeaux:
What is your point?
My point is that we have lots of laws concerning who can and cannot do what, and that the purpose of those restrictions isn’t necessarily a giant conspiracy to completely take away that right piece by piece, as you assume is the case with gun control.
Now admittedly, there are some people who would like to do exactly that. But that doesn’t mean everyone who fails to condemn all gun laws (as you seem to) wants this, or that this is even the primary intent of such laws.
March 10th, 2004 at 12:30 pm
“gun control” as a single, evil entity, with no redeeming merits.
I am adopting the strategy of my foes. Seems to work for them. 🙂
March 10th, 2004 at 3:00 pm
Here’s the problem, as I see it, with the “gun laws don’t work” / “murder laws don’t work” analogy. Both laws do work in the most rudimentary sense that laws criminalizing firearm ownership result in less firearm ownership, just as laws criminalizing homicide result in fewer homicies. It is at the next stage where the analogy falls apart: what evidence is there that a lower rate of firearm ownership will result in fewer murders, robberies, etc., or produce any other net result that will benefit society as a whole? You don’t have to ask that question about murder, as we can all agree that a lower murder rate is a good thing, in and of itself.
March 10th, 2004 at 4:43 pm
Both laws do work in the most rudimentary sense that laws criminalizing firearm ownership result in less firearm ownership, just as laws criminalizing homicide result in fewer homicies.
But is the latter really demonstrably true? I don’t know that it is. It might seem like a safe assumption to make, but is it?
In a civil society we tend to put controls on things which are potentially dangerous. Cars are potentially very dangerous, and as such are required to have safety features up the ying-yang, you’re required to license and register them (or not use them), and you’re required to demonstrate proficiency (at least once) before you’re allowed to legally use one.
Guns are also potentially very dangerous (they are, after all, generally designed to kill, even if the vast majority are never used for that purpose), and it seems only reasonable that we would require similar controls on them.
Again, my position is NOT that we should outlaw guns. If your position is not that “all gun control laws are bad / ineffective,” then our quarrel exists solely in the degrees — where in the middle do we meet? However, intentionally or not, a lot of people in the “gun crowd” come across as opposing all efforts to control guns in any capacity, and that, to me at least, seems like a difficult position to defend.
March 10th, 2004 at 9:30 pm
Of course it is a safe assumption that fewer people get killed by other people than would be if it were legal to do so. It is axiomatic that any time you raise the cost of doing ANYTHING, someone will stop doing it, or at least do it less frequently than he did before. Similarly, if guns were outlawed, everyone wouldn’t turn in all of their guns, but some people would, and others would turn in some of their guns. Again, the analogy fails only because lower homicide rate is seen as an inherent good, while lower gun ownership rate is not.
My position is not that all gun laws are bad, only that they are presumptively bad. Any time anyone wants to take away any of my freedoms, the onus should be on them to show it is justified, not on me to show that I “need” more freedom. Freedom should happen by default.