This editorial was sent to me by a reader. Calling it an editorial is doing it a disservice, as it is really more of a letter to the boogieman written by a petulant man-child.

As usual whenever there is a mass shooting on the news, the ignorant come out of the woodwork to pontificate about a topic they know absolutely nothing about, setting up straw men and knocking them down, and matching wits with phantoms. This one was particularly obnoxious in its self-righteousness, but it is still fairly useful in that it demonstrates a lot of the defective logic that goes into the gun control side of things.

If you want a serious in depth discussion of pretty much every major point in the gun control debate, read this:  http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/  an article which was written based upon years of experience by a legally certified subject matter expert, which went viral, was read a million times in the first few weeks after it came out, and wound up on the national news.

(I’m going to refer to that link a lot, because it beats having to type out long responses to the same tired arguments over and over again)

Or if you prefer a bunch of emotional bullshit and logical fallacies, read Dear Gun Nuts by Matt Bors instead: https://medium.com/p/7fc34ed66268 an article which was written by a cartoonist who shot a .44 once (it was loud) and which will mostly be read because I linked to it here in order to make fun of it. Or you can save time and just read my fisking of it below.

As usual the original article is in italics. My comments are in bold. If you want to see his cartoons or graphs, they’re at the link above, but I’ll warn you that they’re about as clever as the article.

Dear Gun Nuts

 

I’d say I qualify as a Gun Nut. My full weapons/tactics/legal resume is in the first link above.

 

So, a few things.

 

After the first time I shot a gun, I couldn’t hear anything for two days. This is because it was a .44 magnum and because I was eight and not wearing any ear protection.

Speaking as a retired firearms instructor, your father is an idiot.

It’s a huge gun—the kind Dirty Harry used—and my dad had to help me hold it as I pulled the trigger.

Dirty Harry would have slapped your dad upside the head for not giving you any ear plugs.

The next day, he had to explain to my third grade teacher why the only thing I could hear was a loud ringing.

If the explanation didn’t start out with “Because I’m an idiot— ” it was insufficient.

There are right ways and wrong ways to go about your gun-having. (And your son-having.) My dad did do a good job of teaching me about gun safety once I was able to hear him speak words again. He even went and bought ear protection.

Wow. He’s father of the year. And as we’ll see as Matt’s essay goes on, he didn’t do much to teach his kids critical thinking skills either.

 Growing up around guns made me feel comfortable with them. So, gun owners, I’m not against you.

He says before he goes into an article about how gun owners evil and stupid.

For a while, the 60 percent of Americans who don’t own personal firearms had a hard time figuring out how to communicate in the jargon of gun people.

You still can’t. When you people try to speak “gun culture” you sound like a white upper class suburbanite attempting hard core gangster rap. It is just pathetic and everyone is laughing at you. You learned your jargon from MSNBC or the New York Times, sources which are about as reliable and unbiased as Anthony Weiner’s Twitter feed.

But over the course of the last few dozen national conversations after mass shootings, we’ve all become armchair experts in arsenals.

Well, armchair expert. I’m an actual expert, which is why I can say with complete certainty that everything you go on to pontificate about in this letter is either flat out wrong or hyperbolically misleading.

Was the killer using hollow points or full metal jacket rounds? Big difference.

Nominally, but I say that as a guy trained on mass shootings and wound ballistics, not as a cartoonist who pulled a couple of terms off of Google.  My first link above goes into detail about ammo types.

Is there a collapsible stock on that Bushmaster AR-15?

And, pray tell, how does a stock that is adjustable a few inches for length of pull make that gun any deadlier? And Bushmaster is one brand of AR-15 manufacturer which is almost exactly the same as the gun produced by dozens of other AR-15 manufacturers. The AR-15 is the most common rifle in America. But Bushmaster sounds scarier than Stag, Smith & Wesson, Colt, DPMS, Armalite, POF, LWRC, Ruger, or many others because a Bushmaster is a type of snake… Or something…

Oh, he used Colt pistols instead of Glocks?

Wow. You were able to name two of the most famous pistols ever made? Including one brand has been around since the 1800s and another which is the most common handgun in the world? Did you just type the word pistol into a search engine? I bow before your armchair expertise.

Weird.

No. Weird would be having a mass shooting where the perp used a M1907 Roth-Steyr.

After every mass shooting—which is essentially all the time these days—

Actually, it isn’t all the time these days at all. Mass shootings are still statistical anomalies. (see my link above where I go into this in great detail) They get reported on a lot by a breathless media in the hopes of pushing a gun control agenda, when actually you are far more likely to be a victim of a regular crime, but you know that, because you’re the armchair expert.

gun rights advocates drag out the “more guns = more safer” argument.

Yep. Again, see my link above. This has been demonstrated time and time again, but why should we go with facts, reality, and crime statistics when we could get all spun up and emotional instead?

And yet: we’re still not safe!

By that logic, because people still die in car crashes, Matt wants to ban seat belts and air bags. Using the stats provided by even the staunchest anti-gun advocates, guns are used far more often to save lives than to take them. (broken record here, but the numbers are in the top link).

Despite having almost one gun for every man, woman, and child in the nation, peak safety has yet to be reached.

Interesting… His armchair expert education must have skipped the part where 12 out of every 13 mass shootings happen in Gun Free Zones, where every man, woman, and child (except for the bad guy who doesn’t care about the law or Matt’s tender feelings) is legally disarmed. It would seem that “peak safety” is certainly not found in Gun Free Zones.  

Now. You’re allowed to oppose gun control on grounds that restricting the ability to purchase a gun violates your second amendment rights and will leave you up shit creek without a Smith & Wesson when it comes time to overthrow a tyrannical government.

That’s really nice of you to tell me what we’re allowed to oppose, Matt.  

And I agree that many proposed gun control laws won’t do anything, especially patchwork ones put forward in response to mass shootings.

Yep. This is the smartest thing you’ve said all day.

But wait… Do you have evidence that ANY gun control laws accomplish anything? Go ahead and look, because if you can find some evidence the DoJ would love to see it, because they didn’t have any luck.

Most murders are committed with handguns and banning those is not even on the table.

Except for where handguns have been banned in America, and we’ve seen how that has actually worked out, since those places are all cesspools of violent crime and high murder rates.

Don’t forget, the mass shootings that force Matt to retire to his fainting couch are statistical anomalies. Most shootings in America are gang/drug/thug events. Last time I checked, the gun culture that Matt is addressing aren’t the ones shooting hundreds of people in beautiful gun free Chicago. The Gun Culture doesn’t tend to congregate in places where we can’t own, buy, or use guns, go figure, and the liberal dominated inner cities ran us out a long time ago with their annoying regulations. Yet, those places are still where people keep on getting murdered…  

That topic gets into the whole sticky wicket of drug laws, incarceration policies, economics, culture, politics, and race baiting democrats subsidizing the self-destructive thug life, and addressing all that stuff is really HARD. On the other hand, insulting law abiding gun nuts (who aren’t named T-Bone and who won’t pop a cap in you for dissing them) is super EASY.

At least Matt is smarter than the average low information voter who thinks that “assault weapons” kill zillions, and thus need to be heavily regulated, when according to the FBI only 367 of our 12,664 murders in 2011 were committed with any rifle, which means you’re more likely to die of autoerotic asphyxiation than to get murdered with an “assault weapon”.

Some dudes wrote the Second Amendment on piece of paper a while ago and we all have to live with the result of that.

There are a couple hundred other utopias that you can move to where you don’t have to put up with that dastardly “piece of paper”. Meanwhile, most of us are rather fond of our founding documents which put limitations on the ability of our government to infringe upon our rights and liberties.

But you know what we can do in lieu of new laws?

Oh, please do share. I’m giddy with anticipation.

Change our culture so fewer people die every year.

You should share this wondrous message in beautiful gun free Chicago or Washington DC. That should knock out most of our deaths right quick. Give T-Bone a call. I’m sure he won’t curb stomp your face in or anything.  

Gun people, we need to talk about your behavior a bit.

Because obviously, 90,000,000 American gun owners haven’t done anything wrong, so it is time to get all preachy at them. Americans love that shit.

First of all, can you stop saying video games cause violence? They don’t. Countries where people play way more video games than we do have lower rates of gun deaths. The thing about violent video games is they don’t feature characters going around killing people with video games. They use guns. Or Hadoukens or Babalities or stuff.

This is a straw man. Most gun owners don’t bring up video games after a mass shooting. The NRA president brought it up during a press conference last December and it turned into a joke because newsflash, gun owners play video games too.

In fact the only thing I saw mentioning violent video games in connection to this latest mass shooter was an interview with one of his friends, who said that the guy seemed really normal, though he did enjoy violent video games. However, this is the same interview which revealed the bad guy was also a self-proclaimed liberal and big Obama supporter. So, obviously a huge member of the gun culture there!

On that note, if you want to do something really super uncomfortable, go through all the mass shooters you can find and see where they self-identified on the political spectrum…  I did this back after the media was swooning in the hopes that Gabby Giffords had been shot by the Tea Party. You’ll find that far more of them would be a lot more comfortable occupying Wall Street than hanging out at the SHOT Show.

Hey, it’s time for a chart break!

Yes. There is a chart. Because obviously the only possible comparable data point between the crime rate of the giant, ethnically, socially, and economically diverse US with the tiny, relatively homogenous Netherlands, is that we both really dig Call of Duty.

A more interesting chart would be how many of these mass shootings took place in legally mandated Gun Free Zones. I’ll save you some time. Draw a capitol L.   

Now on to my second point: guns kill people.

Oh, and what a stunning point it is!

They are not made for pressing sandwiches or sopping up grape juice spills in the kitchen.

No shit? I’ve totally been making sandwiches wrong.

Guns are specifically designed to propel bullets through a person’s body at a velocity sufficient to kill them.

Which is odd, because when Matt was out getting permanent hearing damage from his father, he never specified that they were actually shooting people.

Saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is not an argument for more people having guns. You just said, sir, that people kill people. Guns are inanimate objects full of deadly potential. How do we help them realize their destiny to be peaceful, non-lethal objects and keep them away from people?

That is some convoluted shit right there.

Here, let me help you out armchair expert. Yes, we are fully cognizant that guns are dangerous and can poke high velocity holes into people. That is sort of the idea behind having a firearm as a tool. Guns are extremely effective at what they were designed to do, which is why when you really need one (like say for example, a bad person is really intent upon causing you grievous bodily harm) you really want to have a gun.

You pick the right tool for the job. If the job is to protect myself from a perpetrator with the ability and opportunity to cause serious bodily harm, acting as an imminent threat to myself or a third person, I’m not going to reach for a sandwich maker.

Lastly: You’re carrying around an assault rifle in public because…?

Because nothing makes a real American want to do something more than having a nosy busybody tell them that that can’t. The handful of Gun Culture guys walking around with a slung rifle at a political rally are the equivalent of the feather boa and black electrical tape clad dancing dudes at a gay pride parade. Both of them are saying “We’re here. Deal with it, bitch.”

I know you are not out on a killing spree, just a nice stroll, but it’s… sort of hard to tell?

Sure, I suppose if you go through life as a gutless pussy, then it would be hard to tell. For most of us we can see the person open carrying and ascertain by their activities if they
are up to no good or not. Odds are they are completely normal. If they intend to do evil and they start shooting the place up, then you can hide under something and pray to God that somebody from the Gun Culture shows up in time to save your pathetic ass.

And when I say the Gun Culture has to come save you, I mean the responders too. Once again, read the other link. The cops that can actually shoot well? The cops that end up as the firearms instructors? Guess where they fall? Yep. Gun Culture. I spent a decade working with that crowd. I can count the number of gun grabbing statists on one hand.  

Shootings that are stopped by regular folks have a much lower body count than shootings that are stopped by cops. That’s simply a matter of response time. (the big article goes into the psychology of mass shooters and how their fantasy bubble is popped) Either way, the best thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. People like me just like to cut out the middle man and get faster service. That’s the difference between my culture and yours, Matt. We take responsibility for ourselves.

Insisting on carrying your gun in public is like asserting your free speech rights by screaming at everyone you see.

Here, let me help you out, Matt. As somebody who taught CCW classes and certified over 3,000 people to carry firearms, I’m not a proponent of open carry for purely tactical target selection reasons. However, I do understand why some people choose to open carry. It is a giant “Fuck you” to people like you, and that I can applaud.

No one is saying that isn’t “legal,” but we’re not looking at you like you’re Rosa Parks. More like a total douche.

I’m sure you know that feeling well, but luckily we live in America where you can’t simply ban people from an activity because it makes you squeamish.  

The fact that you are intentionally drawing police attention smacks of crazy privilege. The Black Panthers used to carry arms in public—usually didn’t end well for them. I’m a white guy who is not homeless and thus have a low risk of incurring police brutality, and even I know better than to involve police unless it’s utterly necessary.

Trust me. It’s mutual. The cops don’t want to deal with whiney, pathetic cowards like you either.

Boo friggin’ hoo. It was hard to read that paragraph through the salty tears of sadness. I’m sorry that people carrying firearms openly in public offends your delicate sense of white privilege.

Interestingly enough, that famous photo of the gun rights activist carrying the AR slung on his back at a Tea Party rally? You’ll note that the media always crops his head from the shot and focuses on the gun. Because he’s black. And that doesn’t fit their predetermined narrative.

Firearm technology is one of those things that really could have stayed frozen in time two hundred years ago and we’d all be doing fine right now, really.

I thought you assholes were all about Progress?

There would still have been plenty of opportunity to get our war on and defend our homes with single shot muskets you had to arduously reload by hand. The playing field would be even for criminals, do-gooders, and armies alike.

And a magic leprechaun might fly out of the sky on a unicorn and fart rainbows of world peace… However, your hypothetical bullshit goes right out the window as soon as you realize we don’t live in that world. We live in the real world, where technology advances, and things change.

We could still “get our war on” with single shot weapons, until we got invaded by a country that wasn’t stupid. Or in the words of the great philosopher Jack Handey, “I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they’d never expect it.”

Plus, it wouldn’t be fair if we were still in the days of single shot firearms, which is why criminals in those days usually worked in gangs. But you already know about the history and evolution of gun fighting, with all that armchair expert MSNBC watching you did.

And by the way, repeating firearms had already been invented at the time the Bill of Rights was written, not to mention several of the founders were inventors, warriors, and gun nuts, so none of this would have surprised them. They’d also look at your cartoons and high five each other that their 1^st Amendment still protects even the lamest forms of free speech.  

Instead, now guns are a multi-billion dollar industry and the only way to keep making money is to foster a climate of fear that drives people to purchase all sorts of tactical, military-style weapons no one could possibly need.

What a bunch of crap. This whole super evil arms industry bullshit keeps popping up as a meme. Having worked in the gun industry, they don’t have the marketing budget to “foster a climate of fear”. Gun nuts buy stuff that they think is useful, fun, or awesome. The only climate of fear part comes in when liberal politicians float new gun control proposals, backed up by ass kissing statists like Matt, and Joe Public runs out to buy stockpile guns before it is too late. There is a reason my gun shop had a picture of Obama up on the wall labeled “Salesman of the Year.”

One of the most powerful lobbying groups in America is the National Rifle Association and their name is apt: The NRA is an association representing rifles (and other guns), not you.

The NRA is a mushy lobbying organization that individuals in the Gun Culture donate money too. The main reason I’m a member is because they make a decent shield and they enrage people like Matt. If the NRA was half as badass as the media makes it out to be, I’d be far more proud to be a member.  

They’re playing you.

Thank you, Concern Troll! I keep forgetting that all liberals see the world in shades of victimhood, so if you choose to belong to the NRA because you believe in your right to keep and bear arms, then the only possible explanation is because you’ve been bamboozled by the awesome marketing powers of the evil gun industry!

The paranoia they’re pushing is designed to get you to put more of your money in their pockets.

Seriously, I laugh my ass off at this. They wouldn’t know the gun industry if it bit them in the ass. The ultra-monolithic industry exists only in the minds of the Piers Morgans of the world.

The men and women who make up the Gun Culture are the most independently minded folks you’ll find, which is why the statist ass kissers hate them so much. You know the biggest reason most of us who already have lots of guns continue to buy more? Simply because we enjoy pissing people like Matt off.

You probably don’t need to have so many weapons for self-defense. You can only really use one at a time.

Yet… if you can only use one at a time, why are you so dead set on not letting people have more? Why is there this bizarre fixation in the media whenever somebody gets arrested and they freak out about his “arsenal” (which usually consists of fewer guns than my children have) when the perp can only use one at a time?

Shouldn’t an armchair expert know that there are different types of tools for different types of jobs? And I can have various size concealed carry pistols for different modes of dress? And I can have different type guns for home defense? And I can have them in multiple locations so that I can reach them in case of emergency? (and I have an extremely large house!). And what about my wife and children? Shouldn’t they be allowed to have whatever tool fits them best as well?

Oh, but wait. It doesn’t have to make sense! This is about control and emotions! My bad. You say you’re okay with people having guns for recreation, hunting, and home defense, but that’s all a lie. You know it, and we know it.

And guns are sturdy products. They aren’t falling apart all over the place. Get rid of some of yours and go buy yourself a nice pair of boots. You’ll look great!

I have a nice pair of size 15 Danners. And I just applied one of those boots to your ass.  

Chart Break Number Two: The Dead People Meter

And here is a totally out of context apples versus oranges chart supposedly showing that more people have been “killed in domestic gun incidents since 1960” (looks like almost 1.4 million) vs. “Americans killed in all wars ever” (looks like about 1.1 million). Even if that was true, all it means is that Americans are super good at making war.

But wait… That would mean that an average of 26,000 people would have to die of gunshot wounds in the US every year, except during most of my adult life that number has been in the teens. Not to mention that I remembered that the US Civil alone was 625,000, so a cursory Wiki search gives us 1,321,612 American deaths in war. So then pulling up the crime stats, the only time our murders have gotten anywhere near that 26k was in the low 20s for a few years in the early 90s, and every other year was far lower. (and despite what the gun grabbers have been saying, has been DECLINING as more states have allowed concealed carry).

Faulty stats in a gun control essay? This is my shocked face.  But it is from PolitiFact! Which all liberals insist is totally true because it has Fact in its name!

If you take the positions of the NRA and add them up, you can see how the world would look if the gun lobby got everything it wants: Every American would have easy access to assault weapons,

First off, “assault weapon” is a made up propaganda term. See the very first link where I delve into the legal terminology in great depth. Second, other than a handful of states with democrat dominated legislatures, most of the US can have access to the scary black rifle type of gun Matt is thinking of, and we’ve got no problem with it.

And the gun that makes Matt wet the bed the moistest? The AR-15. Which is also the BEST SELLING rifle in the country. So this dreadful position has already been achieved. NOOOOOOOoooo!  

gun dealers would not be required to check the criminal record and mental health history of someone before selling them a gun,

Background checks have proven useless for stopping crime, and I’ve gone into that topic in great deal elsewhere, but hold on one second… My straw man detector is tingling… What is the NRA’s stance on guns for the mentally ill? Oh, wait a sec. That’s right. Almost all of our mass shootings have been by people who are mentally ill, and the system has dropped the ball so they wouldn’t show up on a background check anyway… But moving along our checklist of NRA sponsored evils.

the capacity of gun magazines could be near-infinite,

Except for that whole pesky physics thing, Captain Hyperbole…  But if anybody wants actual facts, read the first linked article where I delve into the tactics of magazine capacity, and how more rounds on hand is good not because you can shoot more, but because you are forced to manipulate less.  

 and it would be illegal for a city to stop people from carrying guns in public.

Because once again, Gun Free Zones are simply hunting preserves of the innocent. Criminals know this. When will you dumb shits get it through your thick skulls that bad people aren’t scared of your signs, and if they’re about to commit a couple hundred felonies including murder, they really don’t care about the additional misdemeanor gun charge.

This would be a country where you could literally buy an AR-15 at Walmart,

Hey, dumbass, I can walk into Walmart right now and buy a detachable magazine fed semi-automatic rifle.   So you already live in that country. You feel that, Matt? That’s freedom. Soak it up.

 immediately put on full tactical gear worn by SWAT teams,

And again, I’ve got a full set of Level 4 body armor and ballistic plates. Welcome to America. A country that you live in (I’m assuming).

I have SWAT armor, because I used to sell body armor to police departments, and I once had a big fellow cancel his order, and there aren’t many other 6’5” customers with a 56 inch chest, so I kept it. I love dealer cost. Most states have no law whatsoever against regular people having ballistic vests. When I taught basic pistol classes I would often wear a Level 2 concealable under my shirt just in case I ended up with an unsafe doofus like Matt’s dad at the range.

and stroll into a school for your parent-teacher conference with another fully armed adult. Practical!

This one already exists too. In my home state, concealed carry permits allow for carrying a firearm into a school. I carry a gun to parent teacher conferences, and since my kids’ teachers care about actually protecting their charges from crazy people, I can compliment her on her choice of concealed sidearm.

Yes, Matt. We have guns in schools in my state. MIND BLOWN. I’ve also gone before state legislatures and onto national news programs and talked about how and why volunteer school staff who are trained and equipped with concealed handguns are an excellent deterrent against school shootings. All it takes is a few tweaks to state law and you can have a cheap and effective speed bump against school shootings, tomorrow. And in my other article I go into exactly how this works safely, logistically, legally, and especially tactically as it directly effects the target selection and psychological response of the bad guy.

But oh no… We can’t have that. Screw effectiveness. Forget things that actually work! Because armed people make a gutless man-child like you feel icky inside. So why don’t you spew more nonsense about how nice it would be if you could magically reverse centuries of technology and human nature and other impossibilities, all why continuing to insult the character of the very people who you count on to protect you?

Shoot. All those scary things about this hypothetical NRA country, and you already live here! Tag a hit off your asthma inhaler and calm down. It is going to be okay, Matt.

You think I’m anti-gun. I’m not.

You don’t want people to have too many, and you don’t want anybody to have any that you find scary, and you don’t want people to have too big of magazines, and you don’t want them to actually take them anywhere where they might need them, and you want them kept in safes, and you don’t ever want to see them… Yeah… You’re totally not anti-gun.

 I think of guns like I do cars. Go ahead and own one. Waste your money on something fancy!

You know, the last time I pulled a gun on somebody in order to save an innocent man’s life, I came away feeling that was money well spent. Go figure. Ever since my wife pulled a pistol on a would be rapist, she’s never complained about all the money we’ve spent on guns.

On the topic of cars, since Matt is bloviating about deadly assault rifles, which are basically normal rifles that look scary, he probably thinks if you put a spoiler on a Honda Civic it transforms it into a high performance race car.

But the scenarios you are preparing for aren’t going to happen.

Says the dude writing an essay in the wake of a mass shooting…

Yeah, crazy scenarios totally never happen, until they do. I also have a fire extinguisher handy because it is the best tool for that job, even though my car is never going to catch on fire, except for that one time it did.

You aren’t going to save the day by shooting a terrorist in the grocery store.

Reductio ad absurdium. Sure, you probably won’t have a terrorist in the grocery store, but right down the road from here, we recently had a mad man slashing people with a knife at the neighborhood Smith’s grocery until he ran into a permit holder with a gun.

Remember, the big flashy mass shooting events are statistical anomalies that dominate the news, which armchair experts like Matt like to glom onto, as they go on to pick and choose what local crime events count.

 We need fewer guns so fewer people shoot their feet off, kill their girlfriends, kill themselves, and go on shooting sprees.

You know who is really super good at teaching gun safety? The NRA… Yes, that same super evil corporate mega-conspiracy of Dick Cheneyian Illuminati Bilderbergers swindling the easily bamboozled working man, is also the single best resource for teaching gun safety. In fact, that’s mostly what they do. (they certainly would have taught your father about the importance of hearing protection).  

As for fewer guns, now we’ve wandered back into happy rainbow unicorn land, where you can magically wish evil scary bad guns out of existence. We can see how well this has worked out in the various gun free paradises of the world. If you are going to use magic solutions, why don’t you just skip the part where you annoy the shit out of us, and just make all the bad people quit being bad instead?

You can have guns for hunting.

That’s mighty white of you, Matt. But let’s be honest, those scare you too. And since the only difference between a “gun for hunting” and an “ultra deadly assault rifle” is a few cosmetic features (and the fact that the hunting rifles is usually MORE powerful), we all know that you assholes will be along to regulate those as well.

And before you tell us the obligatory Nobody Wants To Take Your Guns! Here is a handy compilation of some of the many people on your side, who do in fact, want to confiscate our guns. http://coldservings.livejournal.com/51731.html

You can have them to ward off Mexican drug lords or whoever is going to storm into your house.

Wow. Terrorists at the grocery store and Los Zetas at your house? I’m glad I don’t live in Matt’s neighborhood. Of course, since he’s an armchair expert Matt is surely aware that most criminal encounters will be against run of the mill rapists, muggers, and violent assholes who just enjoy hurting people. If you carry a gun because of those regular and understandable threats then that doesn’t sound unreasonable, but people like Matt work in a world of magic and emotional exaggeration, which is why those dipshits need to spin it to sound like we’re expecting Die Hard.

Keep them there, in a locked safe.

Because when you need a gun, you need it right fucking now….

And if we by chance ever need a well-regulated militia for a revolution or zombie apocalypse, by god, we’re going to be really happy you were born with a micro-penis.

Yes, my penis has proven completely incapable of accurately launching a 230 grain lead projectile at 850 feet per second, and is thus totally inadequate for self-defense use, so I carry a .45 to compensate.  Thank you for your concern.

Nothing shows you mean serious business like closing a political argument by talking about your opponent’s dick. Quick question though, all of those hundreds of female students that I certified to carry concealed weapons, were they compensating for their tiny vaginas?

I’ve always been confused by that, but since Matt brought in the pop psychology, here is our word of the day: Hoplophobia. Meaning the irrational aversion to weapons. And to use it in a sentence: “Some may say that Matt suffers from Hoplophobia, but I think it is more likely he is simply too immature to accept responsibility for his own safety, and so projects his weakness, cowardice, and feelings of inadequacy onto others… Or he might just be a moron. Flip a coin.”

 

  

I took a break from working on Monster Hunter Nemesis to check Facebook, and of course I found a link to something so astoundingly dumb that it demanded an immediate fisking. It is such a jaw dropping level of stupid that my first thought was that it was a brilliant piece of satire by a free market libertarian who really hates collective do gooders, but the article is from Slate, and I don’t think anybody over there is clever enough to pull off something like that.

The article itself is your typical white guilt liberal pontificating on topics they don’t quite grasp and lecturing everyone about how to live in a manner that best assuages their white liberal guilt.  This article is dumb, even by Slate standards, and that is saying something, but there is some value to be taken from it as it is an excellent look into the thought process of ass kissing statists. If it was satire by somebody who has run into all of these same arguments before (I’ve seen all of these points pop up in various school choice arguments, only I’ve never seen them bundled so completely) then high five. Good work. If this author actually believes this tripe, then I’m amazed she figured out how to turn on her computer to type it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/private_school_vs_public_school_only_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html

As usual the original article is in italics. My comments are in bold.

If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person

A Manifesto

No kidding. It is actually subtitled “A Manifesto”. We’re off to a great start.

By Allison Benedikt

You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—

Wait… Are we talking actual bad murderer bad, or murderers that liberals have the hots for bad, like Che Guevara? Or murderers that liberals don’t like to own up to like Kermit Gosnell bad? Because you know, liberals are into nuance and stuff.

but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad.

So using a lot of unnecessary hyphens bad.

So, pretty bad.

Apparently. But please, Allison, educate us poor knuckle draggers why we should put the future of failing liberal institutions based on outdated philosophies dating back to the industrial revolution over the welfare of our children.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental.

Well you’re a liberal, so that goes without saying.

But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve.

And I can’t wait to hear how you figured this part out. Especially since everybody is always whining about overcrowded classrooms, so when a kid gets pulled out and sent to private school, you just freed up more public school resources, and *gasp* the parent paying for private school is still paying taxes which pay for the dumpy public school… but hey, I’m getting ahead of myself.

This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good.

Wait… Let me get this right… I need to needlessly screw up my children and grandchildren’s chances in the hope that maybe, just maybe, our shitty public schools might be decent in forty or fifty years. And this is the high note she picked to open her essay with. Holy shit.

Yes, comrades, sacrifice your offspring for the common good… Sure, that sounds bug nuts to most parents who don’t routinely put cigarette butts out on their children’s skin, but don’t worry, folks. Allison is just getting warmed up.

(Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system:

That’s correct, Allison. The reason people like me are “rich” is because we “game the system”. If by “game the system” you mean that I see to the well-being of myself and my family rather than meddling in other people’s business with utopian nonsense, then I totally agree.

That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

Well, obviously Allison is in favor of single-payer health care (in the same essay where she talks about another government run system being hopelessly broken) because this time it will totally be better.

So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple!

A magical leprechaun will ride a unicorn down a rainbow and shoot awesome free healthcare out of its ass? Oh wait, we’ve moved back to the subject of how she wants to screw over decent parents again. Sorry.

Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment.

Uh… What about all of the people who went to crappy public schools or whose kids already were in crappy public schools who fled to the private sector, or who would if they could afford to? And I can only imagine how much you despise those wretched home schoolers. Oh yeah, they’re murderer bad too, but not groovy Che murderer bad, just to be clear.

Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there?

Hell lady, I actually MOVED because of how mediocre the local schools were. I could see they were sucking the life out of my children. I’ve got brilliant, imaginative kids with genius level IQs, and they were sullenly getting terrible grades and hating education because they were trapped in a dreary prison cell of a room dominated by mentally imbalanced rage monkeys and pill popping zombies, all under the supervision of a lazy ass, phoning it in until she could retire, teacher’s union parasite who thought the best way to deal with gifted kids was to give them tons and tons of useless brain dead busy work.

And that crappy school was fantastic compared to the junior gladiatorial academy I got to attend in California.

Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract.

Liberals are totally against deploring things in the abstract! (except global warming obviously, or other people’s healthcare, or other people’s wages, or other people’s business, or other people’s choices).

Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.

Yes, because caring parents have proven so capable of taking on entrenched teacher’s unions. I forgot that to liberals, everything in the world can be solved if you just CARE HARD ENOUGH, unless of course you care against something that favors democrats, because then you can go screw yourself. 

And parents have a lot of power. In many underresourced schools, it’s the aggressive PTAs that raise the money for enrichment programs

Wait… If I’m going to have to pay for this out of my own pocket after I’ve already been taxed for it, why don’t I pay for something actually GOOD instead?

and willful parents who get in the administration’s face when a teacher is falling down on the job.

BWA HA HA HAW! Snort. Yes, folks, that’s a liberal lecturing us on how easy it is to fix union employees when they screw up. 

Everyone, all in. (By the way: Banning private schools isn’t the answer. We need a moral adjustment, not a legislative one.)

Sure… Because you meddling busybodies have such an amazing track record of never ever legislating against things based on your feelings.

There are a lot of reasons why bad people send their kids to private school. Yes, some do it for prestige or out of loyalty to a long-standing family tradition or because they want their children to eventually work at Slate.

Oh horseshit, lady. I’ve seen more profound writing on the placemats at Denny’s.

But many others go private for religious reasons, or because their kids have behavioral or learning issues, or simply because the public school in their district is not so hot.

Sounds good to me.

None of these are compelling reasons.

I missed the part of the Constitution where it said that my freedom was limited to things that brain damaged collectivists found compelling.

Or, rather, the compelling ones (behavioral or learning issues, wanting a not-subpar school for your child) are exactly why we should all opt in, not out.

Did you actually just write that none of those were compelling except for the ones that are? (and remember kids, you need a super good education to write for Slate!)

 

I believe in public education, but my district school really isn’t good! you might say.

 

Yes. I did just say that.

 

I understand.

 

No. You don’t. If you did understand you wouldn’t be trying to guilt trip caring parents for doing what was best for the interests of their children.

 

You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it.

 

Liberal Slate links to the liberal NYT to prove a liberal point. If there’s a stat in there provided by the DNC it is like Ouroboros eating its tail.

 

If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans),

 

Because apparently scrimping and saving are bad words now. (except us “rich” folks who “game the system” that consider that kind of thing normal behavior) And taking out loans is bad, unless you are taking out a loan to pay for your Gender Studies degree from a university because then the government should like totally bail you out.

 

chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school.

 

Unless they get shot by gang bangers in one of those gun free zones you guys love so much.

 

She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy.

 

Funny. I can also choose to send my kid to a good school where she’s not miserable all day, AND still have all this awesome stuff at home too!

 

She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that.

 

How about you take a deep breath and live with the fact that your existing system is a complete train wreck and people who love their children don’t want to participate in your continuing failure?

 

Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.

 

No. Actually she wasn’t. But what do I know? I’m just the loving and involved parent. It takes a village of white guilt suffering elitist liberals to tell us how to live.

I went K–12 to a terrible public school.

I went K-8 in a public school that probably made yours look like Harvard. My graduating class had 20 kids. Half of us could speak English. Of those, half could read. My town was half illegal immigrant. Our principal was a drunk. We had a handful of decent teachers but most sucked. Because I was bored out of my mind and unruly, my 4^th grade teacher declared that I was retarded and recommended that I be medicated. Nope, turned out I was gifted and just bored out of my mind, but she was too lazy and apathetic to even try. She became principal after the drunk retired.   

My high school didn’t offer AP classes, and in four years, I only had to read one book.

The Good Earth? My condolences. And also, bullshit. I don’t care if you went to the Central Detroit Penal Academy for Gifted Drive-By Shooters, there would have been more than one book on the curriculum.

There wasn’t even soccer.

Only a liberal would cite a lack of soccer as a hardship.

This is not a humblebrag!

Yes it is, you pretentious liar. White guilt liberals always do this thing where they have to cite their suffering to show solidarity. Look at me! I’m a victim too! I understand your plight!  Sure, your kids in the hood can’t read, and they’re getting shot at by gangbangers, and they’re getting beaten on the bus, and they have to put up with coke heads and rapists, and they’re pregnant at 14, but I understand because my white suburban school didn’t have FUCKING SOCCER!

And since I’m a right winger, I don’t “humblebrag”. I straight up brag about my achievements and I OWN THEM. I had a shitty education. I had a poor upbringing.  The high light of my high school education was getting my face beaten in by four gang bangers because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and looked at somebody funny. Despite being a product of shitty to mediocre public schools, I worked my ass off. I’ve gone through multiple careers and tried and failed and then tried again. I grew up with a functionally illiterate father but I’m a bestselling novelist.

I’m not a whiny ass victim, so of course I brag because I’ve lived the American dream and succeeded. Now I’m going to continue the American Dream and GIVE MY KIDS A SHOT AT A BETTER LIFE THAN I WAS GIVEN. That’s sort of the idea. My grandparents immigrated here so they could have a better life than their parents, and my parents had a better life than their parents, and I’ve had a better life than my parents, because we’ve all started out standing on the shoulders of those that came before us, and now I’m blessed to help my kids. I did that hard stuff so now my kids don’t have to. They have a head start and I’m excited to see what they accomplish with their lives. That’s how the American Dream works.

Allison, you’ve got the American Dream exactly ass backwards. Your kids shouldn’t suffer to assuage your pathetic hang ups. It is your duty to suffer in order to give your kids more opportunities, you selfish imbecile.

I left home woefully unprepared for college,

By how woefully unprepared you were to write this essay, I’m not surprised.

and without that preparation, I left college without having learned much there either.

Yeah, you certainly sound like a winner. An ignorant drop out? Why yes. That’s exactly who I want to take parenting advice from!

You know all those important novels that everyone’s read? I haven’t.

And even though you’ve been out of school for how long, you’ve been too busy watching episodes of Honey Boo Boo and laughing at how obviously dumb all the rednecks must be in flyover country, that you’ve been too damned lazy and apathetic to read any books during that period. I’ve written more books than you’ve read.   

I know nothing about poetry, very little about art, and please don’t quiz me on the dates of the Civil War.

Holy shit, Allison! They’ve got the internet on computers now! I’m assuming you typed this screed on a computer. Fucking go to Wikipedia already! (Though I guess that would explain why so many modern democrats don’t know that they were the slavery party…)

I’m not proud of my ignorance.

Of course you’re not, which is why you just bragged about it in a self-righteous essay while you told people smarter than you about how they should live their lives.

But guess what the horrible result is? I’m doing fine.

Bitch please. You write for Slate because you couldn’t master a fry cooker.

I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I got a lame education.

Oh, I’m sorry. Is that not what I just read? When Slate’s editor gets back from working his shift at Starbucks you may want to talk to him about message clarity.

I’m saying that I survived it, and so will your child,

Unless they get beaten to death by the local drug dealers, or they get hooked on drugs, or they get shot by a gang, or they get raped in the bathroom, or they drop out because their school absolutely sucks, or they graduate totally ignorant and unemployable and go on to utterly fail at life, because oh, I’m sorry, Allison the fucking suburbanite is on the internet lecturing people who deal with actual shitty public schools in inner city hell holes about how they should just suck it up like she did. I mean come on, she didn’t even have soccer.

who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all.

You don’t read books, you don’t know when the Civil War happened, and you write for Slate. I’m not taking any bets on your mad calculus skillz.

By the way: My parents didn’t send me to this shoddy school because they believed in public ed. They sent me there because that’s where we lived, and they weren’t too worried about it. (Can you imagine?)

Seeing how apathetic and lazy you are about your profound ignorance, yes, I can imagine that rather easily.  

Take two things from this on your quest to become a better person: 1) Your child will probably do just fine without “the best,” so don’t freak out too much, but 2) do freak out a little more than my parents did—enough to get involved.

You’re like a fortune cookie, only with more self-loathing.

Also remember that there’s more to education than what’s taught. As rotten as my school’s English, history, science, social studies, math, art, music, and language programs were, going to school with poor kids and rich kids, black kids and brown kids, smart kids and not-so-smart ones, kids with superconservative Christian parents and other upper-middle-class Jews like me was its own education and life preparation.

She’s an upper-middle class suburbanite. This is my shocked face. But don’t worry. She went to school with people who looked different. Yay! Sure, she’s dumber than pencil shavings, but diversity! 

Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me. In fact it’s part of the reason I feel so strongly about public schools.

What the fucking fuck? That’s your best defense of public school? Getting wasted at the trailer park? Okay, that does explain a lot, but why didn’t you just skip that whole go to class part and cook meth all day instead? At least then you would have learned some basic chemistry. “Well class, today we’re going to learn how to huff paint so that you can have well rounded life experiences.”

Many of my (morally bankrupt) colleagues send their children to private schools.

Let’s see, you want to sacrifice your children’s well-being for political correctness, and you’re a spoiled, ignorant, stuck up suburbanite trying to display street cred solidarity with people who are actually suffering, and you’re calling your colleagues morally bankrupt?

I asked them to tell me why. Here is the response that most stuck with me: “In our upper-middle-class world, it is hard not to pay for something if you can and you think it will be good for your kid.”

Nobody ever told you that. Nobody actually talks like that outside of anonymous Slate, Salon, or Mother Jones straw man quotes. But then again, I don’t hang out with a bunch of white guilt ridden pseudo-journalists so maybe you guys do, but just in case you need a future quote, let me rephrase that response into Normal American for you: “They’re my kids and I’ll do what I think is best for them, so fuck off, you nosy busybody.”

I get it: You want an exceptional arts program and computer animation and maybe even Mandarin. You want a cohesive educational philosophy. You want creativity, not teaching to the test. You want great outdoor space and small classrooms and personal attention. You know who else wants those things? Everyone.

Why don’t you go ask some parents in Washington DC what they wanted before Obama screwed them over on school choice? It probably wouldn’t be arts and computers and Mandarin. It would be I don’t want my daughter pregnant and hooked on crack at 12.

Whatever you think your children need—deserve—from their school experience,

They need—deserve—you to pull your head out of your ass and allow people to exercise their personal freedom in how they live their lives.

 assume that the parents at the nearby public housing complex want the same.

Good. I’m all in favor of school choice.

No, don’t just assume it. Do something about it. Send your kids to school with their kids.

Oh look. It’s the soft racism of the left again. People in “public housing complex” don’t want what’s best for their kids, so it is up to suburbanites like Allison (or her poor kids, if she actually has any) to fall on the sword to lift them up. Oh whatever would we do without you, noble majestic liberal?

Use the energy you have otherwise directed at fighting to get your daughter a slot at the competitive private school to fight for more computers at the public school. Use your connections to power and money and innovation to make your local school—the one you are now sending your child to—better.

Do you sleep in a helmet?

Don’t just acknowledge your liberal guilt—listen to it.

Sorry, since I’m not a fucking idiot I don’t have any liberal guilt. If you actually admit to having liberal guilt, it is because you suck and are a complete failure at life. Cowboy up. Take responsibility for yourself and your family and quit listening to rudderless losers like Allison.  

So after reading all of that dreck, if you want to watch something actually interesting about the issues of failing schools, check out Waiting for Superman.  http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=monshuntnati-20&o=1&p=8&l=as4&m=amazon&f=ifr&ref=ss_til&asins=B003Q6D28C

Apparently CNN—a sucky, biased, boring, news channel which is only watched in airports and doctor’s waiting rooms—has a website with blogs on it!  Of course, their blogs are of the same high quality that we’ve come to expect from CNN on TV.

Recently I was able to participate in a Twitter fight with one of CNN’s professional bloggers, though I hesitate to use the word fight to describe it, as it was really more like some drunken Norwegians brutally clubbing a baby seal. Most of my regular readers aren’t on Twitter, and the ones on Facebook just got snippits as the day went on. So this blog post is here by popular demand. Because I care.

I’m Twitter friends with Nick Searcy and Adam Baldwin. Both of these guys are great actors, and some of the few out of the closet conservatives in Hollywood.  Because they are famous, active on the internet, and go against accepted group think they get attacked by caring liberals all day. Adam debates with them and Nick just makes fun of them.

I found this CNN blogger through one of these guys, but can’t remember which one now. His writing is your usual smug lib nonsense. Guns are bad, m’kay. Why are you guys such hatey hate mongers? Republicans don’t believe in science and hate all the binders full of womens. That sort of thing. I’m always looking for dumb articles to fisk, and this one from last week in particular had entertainment potential.

The CNN bloggers name was Dead Obeidalla and the article was titled Is Rush Limbaugh Still Relevant?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/opinion/obeidallah-rush-limbaugh/

But because I have to write books for a living, I didn’t get a chance to fisk it. The hilarious part was later that day the President of the United States of America complained about the terrible influence of Rush Limbaugh. So, gonna go out on a limb and say yes. Still relevant.

Nick was laughing at the CNN blogger, who was all butt hurt and smug (and moving right down the Liberal Arguing Checklist “well, you’re not a *real* actor! You sound angry!) Since I’m not a *real* author to liberals, I take special joy in my solidarity on that one. It had been going on for a long time before I tweeted that it was kind of ironic that CNN would be asking all 15 of their readers if something was relevant.

(I yanked the weird formatting and all of the names that were tagged in these)

Correia: Blogs about pet grooming get better traffic, and they don’t even have a James Earl Jones voice over.

Dumbass CNN Blogger: Great point – very well written and insightful. Thank you for taking the time.

Correia: What did you expect in 140 characters? (well, we could fit in most of your reader’s names I suppose)

Nick Searcy: Actually @monsterhunter45 our mentioning @thedeansreport might generate the most traffic he’s ever experienced.

Correia: The day @thedeansreport fought with @yesnicksearcy was the most important day of his life… To Nick, it was Tuesday.

Dumbass CNN Blogger: Yes it was – a day I will always treasure. I circled it on my calendar and its in my time capsule.

Correia: Is the other day circled on that calendar when RuPaul’s Drag Queen beat Piers Morgan in the ratings?

Correia: One show is make believe where a man shows his pretty pink panties. The other is about RuPaul.

For the record, all references to Pretty Pink Panties is due to Nick’s mission of getting liberals so angry on the internet that they show the world their panties. And if you’re not watching Acting School, you are wrong.

So that was the first time I ran into Dean Obeidalla online. (and I even got to quote Street Fighter The Movie!) He’s supposed to be a comedian, but in his writing he comes across as your typical, self righteous, smug, humorless lefty. He tries to talk smack, gets beat up, gets all surprised when conservatives don’t roll over to have their belly’s scratched like a good little John McCain. Once he starts getting beat on then he tries this weird self-depreciation turtle tactic that almost makes you feel sorry for him.

But sadly, I was born incapable of feeling mercy for dumbasses.

So fast forward a week and we get his new article… All about how Twitter is just like Fight Club! (no. I shit you not!)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/20/opinion/obeidallah-twitter-hate

He makes a valid point. There are racist assholes on the internet. Shocking. I love how these people are a huge problem when they don’t like liberals, but when they’re telling me that I’m stealing all the white women or that they’re going to shoot me in the face because I support the 2^nd Amendment, then that’s just caring liberals exercising their rights to free speech. Nick has never said anything even vaguely racist and has an adopted black son, but he still gets called racist every day on Twitter because he thinks Obama sucks.

So conservatives are used to Fight Club. The difference is, we know how to take a punch.

And the ironic thing is I’ve now been reading this guy’s Twitter feed for a while, and his definition of hate seems to be “Oh, no, these conservatives don’t like when I say that they are all stupid hate monger racists! And some of them call me on my bullshit! HATE! HATE! HATEY-HATE-HAAAAAAAAATE!”  As a guy who gets death threats from caring liberals every time I write a political blog post. I find that hilarious. (and I share all my best hate mail with you guys, because I care so hard)

Now writing an article like that is sort of like chumming the water for sharks, Adam Baldwin posted the link, and this time around I got to spend some quality time with Dean. These went all day in so many different threads, with so many being posted simultaneously that I’ve probably got them out of order, and I’ve surely left out some really funny ones from other posters. These are only the ones I was tagged in to follow, because twenty other conservatives were also taking turns on the Dean Piñata (Deanata?) at the same time.

As you read this, you may start to think that we were being too mean… A lopsided beating will tend to have that effect on the tender hearted. Whenever you begin to experience that feeling I want you go to back and read some of Dean’s blog posts, ranging from such brilliant topics as Barack Obama, Dreamy or Just Super Awesome? Or Why Do All The Stupid Conservatives Not Believe in Dinosaurs?

To keep things orderly, I helpfully added the names (and titles) of who was speaking in bold. Because I care.

Nick: Dean’s blog post “After I Call People Racist On Twitter, Then They Should Shut Up” is poignant.

Correia: It is just like Fight Club, except no punching, and Dean is a wuss.

Correia: If this is fight club what a sheltered pansy life he has led.

Dean the pansy CNN Blogger: U need to write better tweets if u really want me to respond

Correia: U need to write more blogs so we can continue to club u like a baby seal.

Dean: I’ve been writing for CNN weekly for 2 years Where have u been?!

Correia: I’ve been a NYT bestselling novelist sleeping on a big pile of money.

Random Crazy CNN fan on Twitter: – insert a whole bunch of random bullshit posts about Nazis are the NRA, and some links to google images to pictures of confederate flags, and then some rambling craziness about evil gun owners that is barely understandable as English. All wrapped up with threats about how FEMA should round us up and put us in camps… You know. The usual.

Nick: Nothing damns @deanofcomedy more than the drooling idiocy of his 2 or 3 fans.

Nick: Hey, @monsterhunter45 don’t all hilarious “comedians” tout writing a blog for CNN as their #1?

Dean who makes minimum wage to the guy second billed on Justified: I hope to 1 day be a glorified extra like u on a basic cable show

Hermit Wizard: @deanofcomedy, you could become one of @yesnicksearcy’s bitches. More respectable than CNN.

Bitches is a reference to Nick Searcy’s Acting School. Just go to Youtube and watch them. Good stuff.

Correia: Whoring is more respectable than CNN… Wait… Never mind.

Dean, with delusions of his importance: can’t u guys get Michelle Malkin to join this?

Correia: I wonder what “CNN blogger” pays? Points on his Subway card?

Kurt Schlicter: Fun Fact! I lose more money responding to a @deanofcomedy tweet than he makes writing a CNN column.

Correia: If Dean writes two more blog posts he can get a foot long teriyaki chicken!

Dean, trying the Battered Trailer Park Wife Defense: Actually I have to write 3 more if I want to afford cheese on it

Correia: While you are there you should fill out an application and get some gainful employment.

Dean who is very proud of his participant ribbons from T-ball: My article just came out on CNN Espanol – maybe I can afford cheese

Correia: I’ve book deals in German, French, and Chinese. Please, continue to wow us with your fame.

Dean who thinks he’s clever: That’s impressive – Im going to Google u later so I will know how famous u are

Correia: CNN’s new slogan: “Hold on. Let us Google that.”

Nick: It is amazing how unfunny @deanofcomedy is when he tries to add to the joke and act like he’s in on it.

Correia: it is the “perhaps if we’re nice they’ll go away” defense. Sort of like Obama’s foreign policy.

Ace of Spades: Who told him he was funny, and what could cause that level of *hatred*?

Dean who has grown delusional: Nick – as long as ur laughing – at me or with me – I’m doing my job as a comedian

Correia: Man, you really suck at your job!

Correia: You are to comedy what Nickelback is to music. Kind of sad, because they try so hard.

Dean who is sad that nobody loves him: I love Nickelback – that is a really cheap shot. They are the soundtrack of my life.

Nick: That’s why he’s killing them on the CNN blog, and not on a basic cable, or any, show

Correia: Judging by CNN’s ratings, he’s better off on the blog.

Dean who mistakenly thinks we give a shit: that’s actually true. CNN com is top news website beating even Fox. But no in TV ratings

Correia: So you are bragging that your TV channel sucks on TV, but has a nice website…

Dean demonstrating “comedy”: Im much better when ur drunk

Correia: I don’t know if there is booze sufficient. I’d have to huff paint to suffer through CNN.

Jeff: Isn’t @deanofcomedy the guy who tried to make a name on Limbaugh’s back last week?

Dean’s hurt feelings: Yes and it worked out great. I’m hugely famous now #idiot

Correia: He said TRIED. But since you suck at writing, it didn’t stick.

Laura: Can’t stop laughing! Priceless! You should have talk show on #CNN

Correia: CNN better have their checkbook ready. Or Subway card for Dean.

Dean, whose crying pillow smells of lilacs and shame: Looks like I really pissed off Nick w/ glorified extra comment on basic cable

Correia; Nick’s pool cleaner makes more than you do at CNN. Surely he is heartbroken.

Dean, grasping at straws: Nick has a pool? I didn’t realize they had those at the nursing home

Ace of Spades: Wow. You’re really, really frighteningly untalented and unsuited for this work.

Correia: For CNN? Naw. All you have to do is insinuate racism and you’re good to go.

Nick: He doesn’t have work.

Dean, who is Occupying Some Street: This is so much more fun than having a job – I think we can all agree on that

Correia: Why? Nick, Kurt, and I have jobs. I’m collecting royalties while I make fun of you.  

Sean: All the H8 on Twtr. WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS! The bullying, I mean.

Dean, demonstrating the definition of the word Oblivious: Funny – but actually they fight with me to see if they can match wits and #fail

Correia: You have a very odd definition of “match wits”.

Ace of Spades HQ: If you’ve got anything beyond 2^nd grader rubber/glue jokes, we’re all waiting.

Dean, demonstrating his university education: u truly are the human version of #epicfail

Jay: Easy there waterwings. Mommy left the inhaler in the minivan.

Correia: I kind of pity @deanofcomedy now. He doesn’t even realize how dumb he looks. Sad.

Jay: I want to know how his waterwings fit under his academic gown.

Meanwhile one of my fans, a 16 year old by the name of Donovan posted to this mess. By the end, Dean of Comedy, CNN Wonder Blogger, was reduced to making fun of a teenager’s choices in music. It was sort of like watching a slow motion train wreck.

Donovan: I have to thank @monsterhunter45 and @deanofcomedy for this after-school battle of writers. Just one makes books and not blog news.

Correia: Heh… I bet my blog gets more hits too.

Sean: No bet.

Donovan: Wait. Dean can make Twitter rainbows and unicorns?

Donovan: Dean, I’m only 16 and even I can tell the IQ of CNN which is equal to ants.

Dean, whose only role in Fight Club would be the punching bag: that tweet didn’t even make sense. Pls take a moment, collect urself + try again

Donovan: Wait. Do you need me to repeat the same thing seven times like CNN?

Correia: BOOM!

Correia: Well, you get slapped around by writers and actors, might as well go after a kid.

Dean, under delusions of competence: I treat all who fight me equally be they Men, Women, kids, or right wing idiots

Correia: You treat all equally, by asking them if they would like fries with that?

Dean, who probably wears skinny jeans: Cmon Larry ur better than that-Take a moment and try again. Thanks.

Correia: Says the guy doing lame ass old folks home jokes.  

Dean, turning his considerable CNN debating skills against somebody who just got their driver’s license: Isn’t there a Taylor Swift listening party u should be at?

Donovan: I listen to metal and rock.

Dean, channeling Woodward and Bernstein: Sure u do.

Donovan: Proof? Hey – (flags a bunch of friends from the mosh pit, so now Dean is being insulted by an entire high school worth of kids listening to Slayer)

Correia: Making a 16 yr old prove what bands he listens to. That’s the hard hitting journalism we expect from CNN.

Dean the Concern Troll: Im worried about u now – those bands look scary- go back to One Direction music.

Donovan: If this is comedy, I’ve seen funnier things in Twilight.

Dean… okay, I got nothing: And ur a Twilight fan as well?! Best of luck with puberty

Donovan: So? At least I can admit it. Anyone else just think Dean’s a pedophile now?

Dean who was just outmaneuvered by a teenager: Sorry u will have to leave now-come back when ur acne clears up. Deal?

Correia: And this is what you’ve been reduced to @deanofcomedy? You sad, pathetic little man. Welcome to Slap Fight club.

Donovan then had a bunch of hot girls show up and fall at his feet like an Axe Shower Jell commercial.

So there you go folks, one Twitter clubbing compiled for your amusement. I for one can’t wait for Dean of Comedy’s next hard-hitting CNN blog post titled How to Remove a Boot from your Ass.

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-spokesman-tells-reporters-kiss-polish-holy-110442318–abc-news-politics.html

Read the whole link. The first paragraphs (the part that most people actually read) is all mew mew mew, poor reporters… And then read the rest of it, where you can see the reporters were being their normal douchey selves and Romney’s guy told them to kiss his ass.

I don’t know who this Gorka guy is, but promote him. He simply said to them what most Americans would like to say to members of the press.

No time to fisk the whole thing, but the level of bias and snide insinuation is hilarious. But the press totally isn’t biased. Not at all. Michelle Obama was wearing a $6,000 shirt at the olympics so the press oohed and aaahed and Ann Romney wore a $600 shirt and they had a freak out about how out of touch those rich bastards are.

This editorial was sent to me by a fan. It is an opinion piece from CNN. As can be expected in the aftermath of any shooting that grabs headlines, two things are going to happen. 1. Liberals will knee jerk try to pin it on the right. 2. They’ll start bleating for more gun control. We got #1 when ABC news was trying to blame this on the Tea Party before the blood had even dried, and of course when that came back as untrue, just like it did with the Giffords shooting, they went right into #2.

Come on. Seriously news media? And there are still a handful of people out there who think that you guys are unbiased? They must sleep in helmets.

So as expected, the news is ignoring reality in favor of their typical happy bubble world. The media is busy butchering facts to fit their narrative. Anybody who is really knowledgeable about any particular topic has seen this before. Whenever I see a report about a topic I’m an expert on, it is usually crap. Or as Michael Crichton said:

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

And now we’ve got an opinion piece from CNN, where if you know anything about the topic, it is obvious the author is huffing paint, but if you’re not up on the subject, it may sound convincing.

I’d like to explain how it is not. Original article is here. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/webster-aurora-shooter/index.html?iref=obnetwork

The article was written by Daniel Webster, who is a college professor who runs an anti-gun “policy and research” center, my responses are in bold. And for the record, I am a former concealed weapons instructor, former gun store owner, have written for gun magazines, have participated in a whole lot of classes on this subject both as a student and as an instructor, and have testified before state legislatures on the issue of mass shootings. Basically for a period of about five years I professionally soaked up every single piece of information I possibly could on this subject, taught people how to deal with it, went through a bunch of training and have even played the bad guy in scenario training. (I make a great villain) To say that I’ve thought about this topic quite a bit would be an understatement.

 (CNN) — Scenes from the mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater are horrific, but are all too familiar in the United States.

Some have argued that gun control is irrelevant to mass shootings because the perpetrators are typically so determined that they will overcome any legal hurdle to acquiring firearms. However, mass murderers often use assault weapons or guns with large ammunition capacity.

Let’s think about this, because this is going to come up a lot in the anti-gun thought process. Webster points out my side’s argument and then quickly dismisses it, like “oh, you silly gun nuts, crazy murderers will totally be thwarted by the same laws as law abiding citizens”.

Just last year, Anders Breivik shot 69 people in Norway, a country with gun control far stricter than America. (he also blew 8 people up with bombs, but I’ll come back to that later). In 2008, a group of terrorists completely shut down the city of Mumbai by going on an epic shooting spree. More than 300 casualties. India has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world (and in fact, has no “gun culture” to speak of, which led directly to their disastrous police response, but I’ll come back to that too).

The thing about all gun laws, and you really need to get this through you head, is that criminals don’t give a shit.

One of the guns James Eagan Holmes allegedly used to shoot 70 people within minutes was an assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine. This extraordinary firepower enables gunmen to kill and wound more victims than they otherwise could if they used weapons that held fewer bullets.

There are a few problems here, and I’ll try to take them in order.

First off, the term “assault rifle” in this context means whatever the media needs it to mean. In actual gun nut parlance, an assault rifle is an intermediate power small arm capable of full auto fire. Which this was not, but to the media, any gun that is vaguely scary looking is an assault weapon. So if you’ve got a Honda Civic it is a car, but if you put a spoiler on a Honda Civic it is now a race car. No. It is still a Honda Civic. Words mean things.

Second off, as we saw during the Clinton years, what they really want to ban is what is actually known as a detachable magazine fed semi-automatic. Semi-automatic means that for each pull of the trigger, the action cycles itself because of recoil or gas pressure, and feeds a new round into the firing position. A magazine is the thing that holds the ammunition.

Here is the thing. We banned high capacity magazines once before. It did nothing. Absolutely nothing. For ten years. The only difference it made was that the law abiding now had defensive guns that held fewer shots than was intended, and once again, criminals simply did not give a shit.

So he had a hundred round mag… (which malfunctioned, because they don’t work that well). Normally a rifle like that would have a 30 round mag. However, somebody who is completely fumble fingered and totally inept can change a magazine in a few seconds. Somebody who has practiced can do it in two. Somebody like me who was paid in OPA* to shoot competitively can do it in one.  (* Other People’s Ammo). 

So let’s theoretically ban higher capacity magazines like we did once before. That will assuage this academic’s tender sensibilities. Let’s go clear back to 10 rounds like we had before… So the main difference will be that every law abiding citizen in the country now has fewer shots available for legitimate self defense (oh, and don’t worry, I’ll talk about why you need more shots here too), except that since there are literally millions of higher capacity magazines in circulation, the criminal will still have them, because remember, he don’t give a shit.

Wait? What? Yeah… Last time they banned high cap mags, we went a whole decade using old ones AND DIDN’T RUN OUT. So you’d have to ban new ones, confiscate old ones, and remember… Criminals don’t give a shit. (sensing a trend yet?)

There is obviously no need for any civilian to have such powerful weapons.

Au contraire. The founding fathers were far smarter than you, Dr. Webster. The 2^nd Amendment exists as a final life insurance policy for the Constitution… Sure, I’ve seen lots of Facebook posts over the last few days talking about how absurd that is, which simply tells me that the author doesn’t know history, current events, or is simply willfully naïve as to how the world works. 

Anyone who says that sort of thing can’t ever happen here is a fool. In 1900, Germany was the most socially, technologically, and culturally advanced country in the world. Thirty some odd years later they were a totalitarian murder machine.

But let’s forget about the real reason for the 2^nd Amendment for a moment and look at Webster’s point. No civilian needs to have such powerful weapons…

Okay… He’s only mentioned capacity, not actual power (sort of like mixing up torque and horsepower, but whatever), because relatively speaking all of the weapons used in this particular shooting were relatively low power, i.e. he was shooting a glorified varmint cartridge rather than an elk rifle. So let’s concentrate on capacity. Why do civilians need guns that can hold that many rounds?

Effectiveness.

Rational gun policy, one that puts public safety ahead of the interests of the gun industry and gun enthusiasts, would ban firearms and ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds. Such a policy might not prevent many of our mass shootings, but it should reduce the number of victims from these incidents.

Why do I want a weapon that holds more than 10 rounds? Well, first and foremost, why do I have a self defense gun? It is a tool in my tool box used to solve a certain specific sort of problem. In this case, it is to defend myself from serious bodily harm from assailants. Notice the s on the end of assailant. As in plural.

10 shots isn’t many if you have more than one attacker, or you miss, or most importantly, contrary to the movies, when a good guy shoots a bad guy, the bad guy doesn’t fly backwards through the wall, do a flip, and catch on fire. Most defensive weapons simply poke a hole in the bad guy, which then bleeds, which causes a drop in blood pressure, which makes him stop trying to hurt you. Here in the real world, sometimes you have to shoot somebody multiple times in order to make them stop trying to murder you.

You’ve all heard the stories about the dude that gets shot 14 times by the cops and then walks under his own power to the ambulance. Nobody has ever gotten into a gun battle and said afterwards, “damn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo!” Many times it takes multiple shots to stop a determined attacker.

//                        

Skeptics might point to the federal assault weapons ban (a section of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act) that Congress let expire in 2004 as a failure that did not affect overall homicide rates.

Duh.

However, the law’s impact was limited by its narrowness that made it easy for gun manufacturers to evade.

Remember when I said assault weapons ban was a made up word? Well, that’s the problem when you try to legislate something that doesn’t actually exist.

The problem was that since assault weapon to the media is defined as anything scary, the basically banded Civics with spoilers, but couldn’t ban regular Civics.

And when a liberal says manufacturers “evade” he means obeyed the law. If the law said no folding stocks, we said okay, and put on regular stocks (one of the many items that were banned, yet which made zero functional difference).

A broad ban on the sale and possession of high capacity (more than 10 rounds) ammunition magazines with stiff penalties would translate into saved lives.

He asserts with no evidence.

Between 9,000 and 10,000 people are murdered each year with guns in the U.S., most garnering little attention.

Most garner little attention because the media doesn’t want to draw attention to the fact that most murders happen in cities run by liberals that already have harsh gun control laws in place. Like Chicago for example.

Local news coverage of such events typically provides scant information or context to enable citizens to understand the role of guns in these incidents.

BWA HA HA HAW Ha snort! Did you just try to blame the main stream media for failing to put the role of guns into context? The same media that never reports any positive stories about defensive gun use? Sorry, I have to pause to wipe away my tears.

Invariably, the only time that gun violence and gun policy are discussed in the national media is after a horrific shooting rampage.

Yep. You guys are perched like vultures, just waiting to see if you can capitalize on fear or tragedy.

We should not brush aside discussions of gun policy as too politically difficult to expect meaningful change, or “the price for our freedoms.”

Of course, when a liberal talks about freedom, he has to put the word into quote marks.

The reason nobody wants to talk about your gun policy is because your gun policy is stupid. This is one of those debates where most of the country has looked at your stupid way of doing things and said that it doesn’t work and we don’t want to do it anymore.

Your inner-cities are hell holes, and you blame us for the crime. Crazy people shoot innocents and you blame people who had nothing to do with it. You declare places like schools and movie theaters to be gun free zones, and they you blame us when nobody is there to defend them.

In fact, your single most reliable defense against this sort of attack is an immediate violent response, and since the police need time to get there, that means the immediate response has to come from the victim pool or not at all. Yet your policy is to kick us and our guns out of those places, that way the bad guys can work unmolested until the cops arrive.

Instead, we should reflect on why the U.S. has a murder rate that is nearly seven times higher than the average murder rate in other high-income countries

Oh really? And this is all about guns, and not about our failed Great Society, liberal inner city hell holes, gang warfare, our massive illicit drug trade, and all while comparing us to ethnically, racially, and socially homogenous countries far smaller than we are?

and a nearly 20 times higher murder rate with guns.

Because getting killed in England with a claw hammer is so much more awesome.

As Mark Twain said, lies, damned lies, and statistics. And statistics go right out the window the first time you need to defend yourself from somebody who wants to cut your face off and wear it as a hat and you really wish you had a gun to do it with.  

Remember the thing with bombs earlier? Yeah… You make it harder to get guns, that’s the next option. The only reason they don’t get used more is that bombs are scarier to make, and take up to half an hour on the internet and trip to Home Depot to make, but once you get over that hurdle, then you can really cause some destruction. See for example, the rest of the entire world.

And what was the biggest mass murder at a school in US history? Michigan, 1927. And the crazy guy used a bomb.

And we should consider how flaws in current gun policies contribute to this disparity.

But wait… are these statistics even true? How about how the United Kingdom, a tiny island, with some of the strictest gun and even knife control, has some of the worst crime in Europe? An island, with the most police surveillance in the world, can’t stop violent crime, and can’t stop weapons from coming in. You might be a lot less likely to get into a mass shooting there, but you are a whole lot more likely to get your skull smashed in with a bat. And since mass shootings are extremely rare, but assholes who want to rape you and take your stuff are common, that’s supposed to be a net positive trade?

And yet we, who have individual states with borders bigger than the entire UK, with a hundred million guns already in circulation, are going to ban everything and crime is going to magically stop? I don’t think so.

Because let’s say it again, criminals don’t give a shit.

Standards for legal ownership and permits to carry a concealed gun are relatively lax in the U.S.

As they should be.

In most states, a person with a long history of arrests and convictions for misdemeanors (often pleaded down from felony charges), prior restraining orders for domestic violence and history of drug and alcohol abuse can own as many military-style weapons as he can afford to purchase,

Actually, that’s not even close to true. And since Doc here is a professional academic elite anti-gun think tanker, so he’s either deliberately lying or he’s just stupid.

When you purchase a firearm from a dealer anywhere in America you have to fill out Form 4473 for the BATF. On that form are a series of questions, including some of the ones above, and when we call this information in to the ATF or whatever your state criminal investigatory agency is, they run a background check. If you come up as ineligible, the dealer can’t complete the transaction.

So let’s really think about what he’s saying there… He wants people who were acquitted of crimes to be denied guns. He wants somebody who abused drugs twenty years ago to be denied the right to own a gun. (sorry Barack Obama, you’d be shit outta luck).

But really, let’s be honest, he wants nobody to have a gun, but he can’t come out and say that.  

and can legally carry concealed guns almost anywhere.

Almost anywhere? Like the theater in Aurora? Oh, wait… Nope. Gun Free Zone. Virginia Tech? No… Also a Gun Free Zone… Hmmm… Columbine or any of the other schools that had shootings? Wait a second. Also Gun Free Zones. What about the Post Office? Well, huh… Gun Free Zone. What about some of these big workplace shootings… Why those are Gun Free Zones too? You don’t say…

Wow. I’m seeing two trends here. Gun Free Zones only keep out the good guys with guns and the bad guys know it, and second, criminals don’t give a shit.

Under federal law, anyone wanting to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer must pass a background check.

Yes.

But in most states, the gun dealer who stands to profit from a gun sale, rather than a law enforcement agency, determines the authenticity of purchasers’ identification cards.

False. In fact, that’s not true at all. You have to call the information in to a state audit agency that then checks their records to see if that person has anything on file which would bar purchase. This would include criminal charges, court orders, and convictions. I’m assuming the doctor knows this and is just pulling facts out of his ass.

Gun dealers face little consequence if they fail to account for dozens of guns upon inspection.

HA! That’s a good one… Little consequence is hilarious. Oh wait, you’re serious? Dude… The BATF will burn your house down. The BATF will destroy your business at the slightest hint that you’ve done something wrong. The BATF has no mercy, no kindness, and well and truly enjoy ruining gun dealer’s days.

FFLs keep a bound book, all guns in, all guns out. If your bound book doesn’t match your physical inventory, then you get shut down and everything gets confiscated while the BATF conducts an investigation.

So unless you consider going to prison a little consequence, then chalk up another lie.

Data indicating which gun dealers sell the most guns linked to crimes are kept from public view and cannot be used in decisions about the dealer’s license.

Nope. BATF can revoke your license if they’ve got any reason. They even tried to throw the dealers involved in Fast & Furious to the wolves, except those guys were smart enough to document that the BATF had ordered them to go against the law and good sense.

Illogically, federal law and most state gun laws allow firearm purchases from private sellers with no background check or questions asked.

That is because we live in America and we still have private property. You are allowed to leave your guns to your kids. You are allowed to sell your firearms without the state’s permission.

And here’s the kicker, it is already illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to somebody who is prohibited by law from having a firearm. It is illegal to give a firearm to somebody who you think is going to commit a crime. Should you purchase a firearm from a dealer on behalf of somebody else who couldn’t pass a background check, you are committing a felony. That is called a Straw Man Purchase, and those are only okay when it is Eric Holder shipping thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels.  

As a result of these policies, it is far too easy for dangerous people to own, carry and ultimately use guns.

And the easy availability of the internet and computers makes it too easy for dangerous people to spread dangerous ideas… See what I did there?

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the
US right now that aren’t being used to murder anybody. Go figure. It looks like the doctor is trying to convict people of pre-crime. You have a gun, ergo, you are dangerous and should be banned. Not really, doc. I’ve got a gun exactly because it is dangerous. The danger is what makes it a useful tool.

Following mass shootings, gun control opponents have not been bashful about pushing for laws to remove restrictions on carrying guns in schools, bars and churches.

You mean all the places where mass shootings happen, but the single best deterrent against mass shootings aren’t allowed? Friggin’ dur, moron.

Indeed, calls for removing restrictions on carrying concealed firearms will not stop mass shootings.

Lie. Which is why we’ve all heard about Columbine, but not Paducah. That’s why we’ve all heard about Virginia Tech, but not Virginia Law School… Similar circumstances, yet one side of those coins had body counts that got the headlines and the other didn’t because there was somebody there with a gun to interfere with the bad guy’s plans.

In just my local area since I’ve been a professional gun guy, a crazy lady started shooting people at the KSL building in Salt Lake, stopped by a permit holder with a .45. Trolley Square, bad guy on a rampage was stopped by an off duty in normal clothing cop with just a pistol until the SLCPD got there and shot the dude to death. Couple of weeks ago, dude bought a butcher knife at a grocery store and started slashing the hell out of a bunch of people, until he got proned out by a permit holder coming in from the parking lot.

Oh, there’s more. Many, many, many more. And those are the rampages, which are statistical anomalies. You are way more likely to need your gun against a regular scumbag.

Research indicates that so-called right-to-carry laws don’t reduce violence, and may increase aggravated assaults.

No. And in fact there is a lot of research that goes directly against that. See Mark Twain. We’ve been over this a million times already. If you torture statistics enough you can make them say whatever you want. John Lott wrote More Guns, Less Crime, showing a decrease in crime when the potential victims are armed, and all of the anti-gun think tankers have been playing catch up ever since.

But studies I have conducted indicate that stricter regulations of gun sales, whether by retail dealers or by private sellers, are associated with fewer guns diverted to criminals.

Yes. I should totally accept your non-biased study at face value. It isn’t like you are a biased, political hack shill with an agenda.

Moreover, national national surveys show that a large majority of citizens favor these reforms to our gun laws, including most gun owners.

And it is common in your world to give up your rights based upon surveys? I do not think I would wish to live in this place.

In addition, there is substantial research showing that law enforcement strategies that focus on deterring illegal gun possession reduce violent crime.

You know what else deters violent crime? Shooting criminals in the face.

Public health initiatives in Chicago and Baltimore, which use reformed ex-gang-members to reach out to youth, mediate disputes and promote alternatives to violence, have also been shown to significantly reduce homicides and shootings.

I live in Yard Moose Mountain, Utah. I should give up my firearms because midnight basketball in inner city Baltimore will curb gang crime. Gotcha.

More than 30,000 people die every year from guns in the U.S., and more than 400,000 are victims of nonfatal crime committed with guns. The economic costs are staggering — an estimated $100 billion annually.

But he doesn’t address the flip side, that depending on where you get your statistics from guns are used to PREVENT crime 2.5 MILLION times per year. Now that stat is from the NRA, so some of you will automatically throw it out. Okay, cool. Having done this before, I’ve also seen from other sources (remember statistics are all crap) 1 million, 800 thousand, or 600 thousand… And even if we went with the likely biased stats of the people who hate hate hate absolutely hatey-hate guns, the Brady Center puts the number of defensive gun uses at around 80,000, which means the Brady Center is totally cool with the population of your home town being murder-raped every year.

In most defensive gun uses, no shots are fired. Merely producing the gun ends the problem, because now you’ve gone from victim to work, and if the criminal wanted to work, he’d get a job. You’ll notice that in two of the three local rampages I posted, no shots were fired by the good guys. Just having effective resistance was enough to shut them down.

Only a small fraction of these deaths are connected to mass shootings.

Yup.

But the mounting deaths and associated trauma from mass shootings should motivate us to take action to make needed reforms to our gun laws, focus law enforcement resources on combating illegal gun possession and invest in prevention initiatives proven to reduce gun violence.

Midnight basketball, wishful thinking, and disarming the law abiding aren’t going to do anything to prevent these sorts of things from happening, The best thing to stop them is a bullet to the head. Fast.

America’s high rate of gun violence is shameful. When will we change?

Never.

Your side has already lost this debate. We tried your way and it was ineffectual. All you can do is punish the innocent while criminals well and truly do not give a shit. So now we are going to do it my way… Oh, and look at that, nationwide violent crime is down while concealed carry is up, except for in places where you don’t allow the good guys to have guns.

Besides, Ice-T is on my side.

 

Checkmate, motherfucker.

Picture from the anti-gun magazine Rolling Stone, because that made me laugh. 

And since I’ve had to talk about this damned topic so many times, here are some other fisking posts about gun control going clear back to 2007:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/fisking-the-university-of-utah-editorial-page-about-guns-again/

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/on-college-students-with-guns-a-blog-response/

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/fisking-the-university-of-utah-editorial-page-about-guns-again/

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/anti-gun-letter-to-the-editor-at-brandeis-u/

And for those not familiar, here is an explanation of Fast & Furious:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/why-eric-holder-should-being-jail-and-the-wapo-sucks-balls/