The July 13 editorial page was particularly entertaining and educational. One of the writers attempted to disparage columnist Tom Eblen for his opinion on gun control, but made a bucket full of errors that could be used in classrooms to show what not to do in a debate.
He started his flawed argument by cherry-picking the definition of “prig,” and moved quickly to citing false equivalencies to defend gun violence, using familiar lame talking points and disparaging the American Medical Association for confirming what the majority of Americans already know: a study on gun violence is desperately needed. He then moved to non sequiturs, railing against gun control, calling it “snobbery,” never explaining when he thinks saving people became a snob’s purview. He ended with a non sequitur by explaining that because too many people die in hospitals, the AMA has no credibility to call for the study.
There is another definition of prig: “a person who shows great preciseness in matters of learning or morals.” Being precise in learning and morals allows one a better chance of being on the correct side of history, a concept desperately lacking in the “guns for terrorists” crowd. By providing precise information with supporting common-sense views, Eblen provides the opportunity for rethinking. That is a positive thing for our community.