In the previous blog we got a logic lesson from NBA player Stephen Curry.

Now let’s get one from CNN “Editor-at-large” Chris Cillizza.

Folliwing is an excerpt from his latest piece, titled “Here’s definitive proof that a good guy with a gun doesn’t always stop a bad guy with a gun”

When the shooting started at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last Wednesday, there was an armed deputy on duty at the school — someone tasked, specifically, with keeping the students inside safe.

He was outside when the first shots were fired. And he stayed there for four minutes as the shooter murdered 17 people.

These revelations about the actions — or, more accurately, inaction — of deputy Scot Peterson came on the same day that National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre spoke in front of the Conservative Political Action Conference, making a by now very familiar argument for guns.

“To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said to applause from the CPAC crowd on Thursday morning.

The problem for LaPierre is that this latest shooting in Parkland, Florida, isn’t an affirmation of that view. It’s a direct rebuttal.

There was a good guy with a gun just outside the school when the bad guy with a gun started murdering people. The good guy with the gun wasn’t the solution. He didn’t stop it.

What the Parkland school shooting exposes is the fallacy in LaPierre’s argument: This is not a simple problem. And it does not have a simple solution like arming more people.

In other words, Cillizza’s “logic” is that if it turns out that “the good guy with a gun” who is supposed to protect the students is too too derelict in his duties and/or too cowardly to do so, that “proves” that having armed personnel who are supposed to protect the students doesn’t work.  It’s useless.  Might as well not have them at all.

Did Cillizza feel that way about the armed security around President Obama for his eight years as President (I’m afraid to ask what he thinks about protection for President Trump)?

Does Cillizza feel that way about prison guards?  Should we just work on a prison honor system, since the deputy (actually, four deputies) at Parkland High School proved armed personnel are useless?

How about military?  If our forces are attacked, is there any purpose to the soldiers having weapons?  Hey, the Parkland massacre taught us the answer is no, didn’t it?

I’ll just bet Israel would be far safer from attacks by hamas and hezbollah if it just followed Chris Cillizza’s advice.

This is the “logic” employed by Chris Cillizza.  Are you impressed with it?  With him?  With CNN for putting him in a position of editorial responsibility?

Just when you think CNN couldn’t sink any lower……

1 Comment

  • The problem at Parkland was there was no good guy with a gun until the other police dept. showed up. No one else was killed after that and they arrested the shooter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *