Libertarian Gun Fanatics

In response to: Empty People not Loaded guns by Linda Schrock Taylor


Dear Linda:

How many people died in the attack in China?

How did having a gun at home protect Adam Lanza's mother?

How does the US rank on global per capita gun deaths?

In 1941 how many shots could the average gun fire before having to cock and/or reload?

Regards,
   David Crowe

---

Linda responded:

And your point is....  I wrote about empty,  soulless people.   And you wrote....  rhetorical questions. 

Linda Schrock Taylor

---

And then I replied:

Let me answer my own questions.

1. One person died when 22 were attacked by a madman with a knife in China versus 27 in Newtown attacked by a madman with an assault rifle.
2. Adam Lanza's mother did what many libertarians and gun fanatics recommend. She kept a gun at home and taught her children how to use it. And one of her children killed her with her own gun. So much for the safety of having more guns around.
3. The US is 10th on the list of per-capita gun deaths, behind countries like El Salvador, Mexico, Jamaica and Brazil. The death rate of about 10 per 100 000 people is more than 100 times greater than gun-phobic Japan (0.07 per 100 000).
4. The guns in 1941 could fire once or twice before being cocked and reloaded. It is hard to massacre 27 people under such circumstances.

I am sure that Japan has millions of disaffected young men who spend too much time playing violent video games. Yet there is little access to guns.

You have a theory about the cause of violence, but you provide no evidence, just your prejudices. The cause could equally be psychiatric drugs that are known to cause violent (and suicidal) behavior, or many other things. But, bizarre and violent behavior has always been with us, but the ability to carry the violence out is usually much more limited.

- David Crowe

---

And then, on Dec 21, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Linda Schrock Taylor responded again:

And I have every right to my theory.  If you don't like my gate, don't swing on it.

Read Thomas Sowell's latest on gun statitics.   

Odd that you read LRC.

---

So then, I replied again:

Linda;

If you put an article on a public website, expect people to challenge you on it, especially when you provide no data whatsoever for your hypothesizing and refuse to address the facts that I bring to your attention. 

I read Lew Rockwell because libertarians have interesting and important views on some things, such as war and our allopathic, coercive, destructive medical system ... so I get exposed to their crazy ideas about guns and the economy.

I guess it's not surprising that you'd publish on Lew Rockwell because you assumed that everyone there is a gun fanatic and you would never be called to account. That's called cowardice.

Regards,

    David Crowe

---

On Dec 21, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Linda Schrock Taylor wrote:

I have 166 articles at LRC and have written there for 10 years.  You hardly know me.  

Bye. 

Linda;

---

And, on December 26th, I replied, probably for the last time.

Dear Linda;

Ah, yes, the good old echo chamber.

I have also written a lot:

http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/index.php

but it takes me longer because my articles use facts, and I try not to write only for people who agree with me although, admittedly, it is difficult to break through the barriers of censorship etc.

You don't even try.

Regards,

     David Crowe

---

I guess it wasn't the last time because on Dec 27, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Linda Schrock Taylor wrote:

David...

Note:  Opinion pieces do not require facts and foot notes.  They are OPINIONS.

You are showing your underside... As a rude,  nasty person... And as a rude, nasty person, you will never convince anyone to see anything from your point of view.

Obviously,  you do not like my gate SO stop swinging on it!  

I have tried being nice.   I have tried being professional.  Now I will try being rude

.. Go away. 

---

I pushed my luck and tried again:

Linda;


Gun violence is too serious an issue for uninformed opinions. You have given me no facts to support your opinions, so I must assume you don't have any.

So please don't comment on things that affect people's lives if you're not willing to back up your opinions with some basic statistics, and are unwilling to either defend your opinions with facts in the face of the information I provided, or withdraw your opinions and apologize.

I don't think I have been nasty at all, but what is nasty is elevating your dogmatic opinions above the lives of past and future victims of gun violence.

And now you've pulled in Lew Rockwell as your lifeline. I would have preferred some data.

Regards,
     David Crowe

---

Finally, on Dec 27, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Linda Schrock Taylor wrote:

David, 

I DONT_HAVE_ TO GIVE YOU FACTS.   I am an OPINION writer!!!! 

I am also a Reading Specialist and it appears that you need some reading remediation in the "comprehension"  area.  You may want to check for a local tutor. 

I will now block you because you waste my time.   I have a life as well as other OPINIONS to write. 

Linda Schrock Taylor 

I guess if someone blocks me I get the last word...

---

Dear Linda;

I'm really sorry. I always thoughts that opinions were derived from considering all the facts. But you have set me straight, I now understand that baseless assertions are perfectly valid opinions.

If you ever do find any facts to support your OPINIONS on guns please let me know. Otherwise I suppose you have done me a favor by blocking me.

Regards,

    David Crowe

Most mass shootings caused by untreated mental illness?

Letter submitted to the Globe and Mail:

I challenge Andre Picard to support his claim that, "The vast majority of shooters have also suffered from untreated mental illness". This is an unbelievable remark given that it is well known that many drugs for psychological conditions (such as the SSRI antidepressants) can cause uncharacteristic outbursts of violent behaviour. See Dr. David Healy's "Let them eat Prozac", for example. Even in cases where shooters have recently stopped their medications, it does not remove responsibility from the medications since it is known that many psychological drugs have withdrawal symptoms which can exacerbate the side effects of the drugs for some time after stopping. Healy pointed out that drug companies know this and use it to their advantage since study subjects going from drug A to B will suffer less in the short term than study subjects going from drug A to placebo. Andre Picard should not be intimidated by the clout of pharmaceutical companies and should investigate how many of these shootings involve mental illness being treated, never treated or recently halted. Then we can have an adult debate over the role of both behaviour abnormalities and the drugs often recommended to treat these conditions.