The New Yorker Gun Control Article: A Rebuttal

As we have indicated before, the biases of the media can be a very scary thing. This is all the more apparent when horrendous tragedies occur since most people instinctually rely more on their emotional response than their sense of reason. As indicated in this The New Yorker gun control article, the media is apparently very aware of this.

This article was posted by one of the most prestigious publications in the US at one time and had us absolutely fuming. So, without further adieu, here is our analysis and commentary on a shameless display of so-called “journalism.”

The New Yorker Gun Control Article Analysis

While nearly the entire article is riddled with anti-gun bias, this was the part that set it all off:

Following the Newtown shooting, Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of Gun Owners for America, suggested that these massacres might be avoided in the future, if only more teachers were armed.

As Pratt’s sentiment should make clear, the United States has slipped its moorings and drifted into a realm of profound national lunacy. Ponder, for a second, the fact that I cannot walk into a C.V.S. today and purchase half-a-dozen packages of Sudafed, but I can walk into a gun dealership and purchase a .50 caliber rifle of the sort that U.S. snipers use in Afghanistan. In fact, I can buy six or ten—there is no limit imposed by law. Should the gun dealer think it fishy that I might want to acquire a weapon capable of downing a small aircraft (much less six of those weapons) he may report the purchase to the A.T.F. But in most states, he’s not required to.

First of all, nothing trumps proper training. That’s why our police go through the rigorous training that they endure to protect us every day. That’s why our military go through even more rigorous training beyond that of police officers. Not expecting the same from our children’s first true line of defense, and those who are in charge of our children’s safety, is—as Mr. Keefe so eloquently put it—“lunacy.”

Furthermore, Patrick, your argument about being unable to buy Sudafed is outside the scope of the argument. It is totally unrelated to the issue of gun control. Even if it was somehow related, this only matters if someone accepts that the idea that being able to only buy a certain amount of Sudafed is a helpful law.

It isn’t.

The reason people buy Sudafed in large quantities is to cook crystal meth. Clearly, this law is ineffective, as meth use has skyrocketed despite making large purchases of Sudafed illegal.

Ironically, if we outlaw guns, the same principle applies. People who legitimately want/need the Sudafed are unable to get it because of the people who want to do bad things with it, but the people who want to do bad things with it get around it and do it anyways because they don’t care about the consequences. So much for logic, eh, Pat?

Beyond that, yes, in many states you can buy a .50 caliber rifle. There is nothing wrong with this. Notice how no one has “downed a small aircraft” with one? That’s called the slippery slope. Implying that people who buy these guns are necessarily going to shoot planes out of the sky, with plenty of evidence to the contrary (i.e., that these weapons have been sold and not a single aircraft has been downed), is illogical, irresponsible, and nothing more than blatant fear-mongering.

Speaking of which, what did Afghanistan have to do with your argument? Does the air in Afghanistan somehow make the bullets behave in a more or less lethal way there than here in the States? Or are you just trying to draw a non-existent correlation between a warzone and Main St., USA in an attempt to fool your readers into thinking that just because a weapon is used in one place, those same conditions are going to occur here as well—despite the fact that they are completely separate and in no way comparable causes and effects?

By the way, who the hell can operate five or six .50 caliber rifles anyways? You can only use one at a time—what difference does it make if you buy one or one hundred? Actually, it is probably safer to buy one hundred rifles, since you wouldn’t be able to afford the rounds that it fires after purchasing all those rifles.

Finally, you think you could be a little more condescending, trying to tell people how they should be feeling after a tragedy like this? If you’re going to tell us how we “should” feel, could you at least get your facts and reasoning straight?

He continues:

The state of Indiana recently enacted a law that enshrines an enhanced version of the “Castle Doctrine,” that…under certain circumstances, is now hypothetically legal under Indiana state law for you to shoot a cop.

Hey Patrick, guess what? The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights for precisely this reason. It wasn’t to hunt, or to shoot your neighbors—it was meant to keep the government in check if they got out of line with you. In other words, if they had no legitimate reason to persecute you or other citizens in your community, it was within your rights—and duty—as an American to fight against the government. Its sole purpose was to give Americans the right to fight tyranny in all its forms—foreign and domestic.

Speaking of tyranny, here’s another little gem:

When Attorney General Eric Holder suggested in February 2009 that the Administration might seek to reinstate the assault-weapons ban, he was reportedly chastised by Rahm Emanuel, and told to drop the subject.

Again, do you know why, Patrick? Because Eric Holder is the last person in the country who should be dictating who should be able to own an assault weapon. Emanuel was doing him a favor: “keep your mouth shut, Holder, before you further embarrass yourself and us.”

What do you have for me next, Patty?

The N.R.A. relies, for its existence, on the appearance of persecution—or, in the absence of any actual persecution, on the illusion of it.

Oh, you mean like the persecution—or illusion of it—that you are perpetrating right here in this very article in an attempt to demonize guns, gun owners, and the NRA?

As the public reacted to the events at Sandy Hook on Friday, many people took to the airwaves and the Internet to make a strident case for greater gun control. But they often betrayed a certain prudish illiteracy when it came to the basic features of the firearms and laws that they were talking about.

First: Pot, I’d like you to meet Kettle.

Second, as a journalist, you should know that you don’t start a sentence with “and” or “but.” That’s just basic stuff we learned in elementary school.

Kudos, though, for knowing that “automatic” weapons are already illegal, and that the shooter was using semiautomatic weapons. Seriously—I give you major credit for that one. Maybe I was wrong about you…

…There are a number of important legislative adjustments that could be enacted now, which would likely have a dramatic impact on public safety in this country. One obvious change would be to mandate a criminal background check for all gun purchases.

Nope. Never mind.

It’s not clear yet whether the Connecticut shooter used a jumbo magazine, but given the body count, and the fact that at least some of the victims were reportedly shot multiple times, it seems quite like likely that he did.

Oh, so in other words, this is pure conjecture that may be completely wrong and may not apply in any way, shape, or form, and is essentially you talking right out of your ass? Got it.

…With his extraordinary rhetorical powers, Obama should surely be able to articulate that…

Okay, I’ve had enough.

I have an idea: get off the President’s nuts and be open-minded for once. Pretend for one minute that you don’t have all the answers because—clearly—you don’t. Guns have never become sentient beings that just got up and shot people all by themselves. The only time a gun has killed anyone in a rampage or mass shooting was when a disturbed individual was the person operating it, or it was someone taking out the shooter and preventing even more innocent lives from being lost.

You cannot legislate this problem away. What are you going to do? Arrest Lanza, Klebold, Harris, Cho, Roberts, or all the others who came before and will come after this last tragedy? The problem with people who kill themselves is that they don’t really care whether or not they’re prosecuted. Know why? Because they don’t have any brains. They don’t have any brains because they blow them out so they don’t have to face the consequences of their actions.

It would be nice if it was that simple, but that isn’t an option—no matter how badly you want it to be. Instead of complaining about not being able to do things the way you and people like you want them to be done, how about assessing the actual options we have? I’d suggest coming up with some of your own, but that would probably just amount to more security systems, which Sandy Hook already had.