Liberals Use Counter-Factual Arguments to Defend Academic Anti-Gun Mania

Posted on Comments

University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis

Glenn Reynolds notices a Salon columnist falsely accusing him of trying to get Erik Loomis fired over last year’s Newtown controversy.

Whether or not Loomis should have been fired, the fact that he made his unhinged comments while an untenured assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island certainly suggested Loomis may have doomed himself to that awful limbo of “adjunct faculty,” which would be a sad fate for America’s leading scholar of gay lumberjacks. Loomis’ progressive defenders tended to minimize his online meltdown:

As Professor Donald Douglas has explained, before Loomis deleted his Twitter account, it “was practically flooded with blood from all the violent tweets and retweets he’d been sending out.” Unless you consider Tweeting “Fuck the NRA” and re-Tweeting messages about “fuckers” deserving to be “beaten to death” to be appropriate forms of expression for an assistant professor of history, this meltdown was . . . well, arguably problematic.

Let’s re-visit just a few Loomis highlights, shall we?




The general tenor of Loomis’ Twitter discourse was not professorial, and his December 2012 eruption of obscene hatred toward the NRA was simply the tip of a large iceberg of evidence that Erik Loomis has some sort of personality disorder.

Certainly, I would not want my children exposed to the rantings of this unbalanced madman in their university classes. It was perhaps in reaction to the understandable concerns of parents and taxpayers that University of Rhode Island President Dr. David M. Dooley felt the need to repudiate Loomis’ bizarre rhetoric. Toleration of this kind of behavior in the name of “academic freedom” is what leads to situations like Hugo Schwyzer boning coeds in his “porn studies” classes. If it were up to me, a kook like Erik Loomis wouldn’t be allowed with half a mile of any university, but Glenn Reynolds never said that, and Salon’s Paul H. Rosenberg is dishonest to suggest he did. This dishonesty is Rosenberg’s way of defending University of Kansas journalism Professor David Guth.


University of Kansas Professor David Guth

Now, in point of fact, Professor Guth’s anti-NRA rant was even more misguided than Professor Loomis’ anti-NRA rant. Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis didn’t use a handgun or an “assault rifle” to commit his massacre; he used a shotgun — the kind of weapon specifically approved by Vice President Joe Biden.

So unless David Guth is an extremist who proposes banning civilian ownership of shotguns, his wishing death on the children of NRA members was not merely hateful and tasteless, but also wrong.

Liberals have never let being wrong stop them from spewing hate and, whenever anyone calls their attention to facts that contradict their warped ideology, liberals will then resort to making up new lies in an attempt to discredit the truth-tellers. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

39 comments

  1. In one sense, I think we make a mistake assuming that the Loomises of the world are part of the fringe. I’d wager, the farther left you get, the more likely it is that people secretly agree with him. His crime is/was not being indelicate. His crime was allowing the rest of us to see behind the curtain. That is, I’m sure most of the anti-gun people would like NRA members eliminated and believe the world would be a better place if they did not exist. That doesn’t mean, they’d do the dirty work themselves, but they wouldn’t shed a tear if suddenly every gun owner disappeared.

    As an example, I cite your Floyd Corkins story below.

  2. Mr. Guth is attempting to incite violence against family members of the NRA. He leaves himself some plausible deniability but he doesn’t have a problem with violence as long as the ‘right’ people are the target. And after the Benghazi massacre the left sang in harmony how horrible it would be to politicize the tragedy. Mr. Guth illustrates beyond dispute the left’s lack of ethical decorum.

  3. Our esteemed host led in:

    So unless David Guth is an extremist who proposes banning civilian ownership of shotguns,

    Fixed that for you.

    I don’t know about the Honorable Dr Guth, but there are plenty, plenty! of people out there who believe that all private ownership of firearms, of any type, ought to be banned.

  10. Some wit declared that before it’s over, Twitter will have destroyed more reputations and careers than whiskey.

Comments are closed.