The American Conservative’s Rod Dreher goes after Vox’s article on the assumed effects of mass shootings on gun enthusiasts by David Roberts. It’s no spoiler to reveal he thinks Roberts’ idea of Conservatives is laughable:
I would like liberal readers to imagine for a moment that a conservative had written a piece trying to explain deep liberal devotion to defending same-sex marriage rights by analyzing them as mental defectives who are beyond reason, and contending that conservatives need to understand that only “overwhelming political force” will be able to overcome them.
The thing is, I think there really is something to be said for how guns are embedded in the psyche of some people (I would say in the American psyche), in such a way that makes it very hard to reason with them. But that is true of all people on issues and causes that matter most to them. I realized a long time ago that reason played no role in the same-sex marriage debate, that liberals considered themselves paragons of reason on it, but when it came right down to it, they would say that marriage rights are non-negotiable. And you know, if it’s a matter ofrights, that position makes sense. Second Amendment defenders may well feel the same way: that their Second Amendment rights are not up for debate.
Read the rest here: Guns: Same Planet, Different Worlds
From The American Conservative comments section:
“I have friends who love hunting, and I’ve enjoyed the bounty of their hunt. But I don’t have a single friend whose gun stopped a crime, and I have several whose guns were used on themselves. My fear for my friends who have guns “for protection” is that no-one will protect them from themselves.”
“One other thing, which perhaps others will point out too, but in case not: Explaining liberalism and conservatism in terms of an underlying psychology of non- or sub-rational propensities is what Jonathan Haidt does as well, with this blog’s warm approval. We never hear that Haidt is accusing conservatives of “insanity” when he describes them as putting a higher value on Purity and Sanctity than liberals do; so how, then, is Roberts accusing them of insanity when he says they put a higher value on Safety and Stability, or on “tidiness, clarity, and certainty”? Besides not being some terrible accusation, is that point even false?”
“The picture you used in your article is unfair and is in no way representative of the ‘Vox view of American gun rights folks’. In fact, the article was fairly sympathetic. It reminded me of several recent articles trying to make sense of the recent research pointing to the rise in suicide/alcoholism in middle aged white males.
Besides which, you just published and endorsed a piece by a young conservative who had an unhappy time at college partly because his classmates were apparently overweight women with piercings and funny coloured hair who bonded with their wispy, effete, always-on-the-verge of tears professors. Now that’s some impressive stereotyping. Reminded me a bit of the Republican front runner getting the loudest cheers of the first debate for indirectly calling Rosie O’Donnell a fat pig, dog, slob and disgusting animal.”