Take a look at what Cracked has to say.
I like the way the people at Cracked write, it somewhat reminds me of my own blog.
Hat tip: Jessica <3
I dunno, man. Cracked used to be pretty good at being topical without being preachy. They’ve gone full retard enough times in the recent past that leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth even when I agree with what they’re saying. Too much cross-polination with huffpo, I think.
Opinions? Ah…. ignorant. Terrible. Unfunny. Inaccurate. Hope you don’t think the style of writing in this “article” is on par with your blog mike. It ain’t.
^^ This ^^
Why should I care what they think? It’s like people in the steiff bear collector’s industry taking advice from RCFiles on what is the proper markings of a turn of the century teddy.
Let’s not make this a habit, shall we? It’s good to see what those who actually can do us harm are up to, but people not in the industry, hobby, or associated at all talking about it? Neeeeext!
(Bonus time: count the juxtaposition of “AR-15” and “assault rifle” in that article. If X > 0 then format cracked.com install Monkeyclangingcymbals.mp4)
That… Was one of the most ridiculous articles I have read in a while.
Until I read the comments. Ugh…
Faith in humanity -10
Roll for saving throw vs Idiocy or take damage to Intelligence.
I so need that on a tshirt.
That’s us, a bunch of fantasizing lunatics.
So the author believes that the NRA lobbies for the right to use suppressors so that we may murder people silently? This guy tries to establish his bona fides by stating he owns four guns, but clearly he has no understanding of firearms. Most liberals learned everything they need to know about firearms from the tv and the movies.
No. The authors argues that the NRA is fighting to legalize hunting with suppressors because guns are like Barbie dolls and suppressors are like Barbie clothes. That’s really the problem with article. They correctly notes that gun violence is down and that there isn’t a clear profile for school shooters (except for mental health issues which the authors gloss over). They also correctly note that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicudes but insist that these suicides wouldn’t have happened without the guns. Combined with the suggestion that guns are almost exclusively obtained to live out fantasies and you can see why the comment section is full of, “Ban guns. They don’t do anything good. I have a right to feel safe.” That last bit I also blame on a lack of understanding throughout the country about what rights actually are.
“What about the people who actually buy guns? Statistics tell us that fewer people are buying guns, but those people are buying more of them. To the grad students on the anti-gun side of the debate, this looks like a bunch of crazy rednecks, stocking their militia for the coming war on Obamacare. Why else would the NRA be fighting to get states to legalize silencers if they don’t want to shoot people and keep it a secret?”
They also make the point you described, but they clearly think the only use for a suppressor is to silently kill people.
There was a lot of sarcasm in the article, which made it difficult to identify the real intent.
It does seem the author believes that guns are tied to masculinity in some abstract way.
Which ignores the growing legions of females shooters completely.
The only thing anyone can conclusively say about gun owners is that they are people who own guns.
There are no other variables that apply consistently over the entire group.
The article’s seeming conclusion about gun owners being obsessed with masculinity and action movies fantasies is kinda ironic considering it also notes there’s no set profile for school shooters.
Essentially it suggests:
School shooters=people with their own unique personalities and issues
Gun owners=monolithic block of insecure men with small genitalia
It does make a few good points but them remembers that it’s a comedy website and that it’s considered funny to stereotype gun owners and then make fun of them.
Alinsky rule #5
It was hard to tell where the sarcasm ended, I guess most that people here took it a lot more seriously than I did. I thought that it was funny and pointless, which pretty much sums up everything on their site. The article kinda marginalizes guns and then says it doesn’t really matter with their last point.
I couldn’t find anything factually wrong or particularly damning to our cause, so i think that it’s a harmless read. At best anti-gunners might even learn a few things, like Lanza’s attack wan’t the most deadly…
“America’s love of guns in most cases has nothing to do with actually using them.”
Really? I would fire as much as possible if I had unlimited ammo. I’m sure most readers and commenters here would as well.
Don’t ‘crack’ on us, Mike. I read that article the other day. The underlying imagery and such is placed there for a reason. I used to have to do that when I wrote magazine articles or illustrated ads.
I really tried to see the viewpoint of the author… but the whole concept was just so alien, missing the point (for me at least), that I just couldn’t really understand it in my gut. The only thing that really spiked for me was one of these ALFs fianlly admitting the crime rates have been dropping… I’ve started reseaching and cannot find anyone else on the anti-side that was at least that honest. At least he didn’t start the “-if it saves one child” BS again. Getting drunks with 6-8-10 DWIs off the road perminantly or keeping poor dumb sods out of 20 year sentences for their 3rd offense over a few ounces of pot… or better yet doing something about the “Man-Boy Love” crowd would seem to do more to protect children than banning those EBRs…
The comments on that article just go to show that people who need to vindicate their own opinions seek out similar emotional based views just to feel like they matter. Truth and logic will always defeat these people one way or another, its just a matter of time and persistence because thats how the natural order works.
Calling that article a series of “facts” is possibly the worst thing about it.
For example, Australia is a perfect example of the whole concept of suicide substitution being real and valid – firearm ownership precipitously dropped a while back, due to a variety of confiscations and “buy-back” schemes on top of the bans we are all aware of. Suicides… increased. The folks found other means of ending their lives (apparently hanging took the lead).
I hope your comparing yourself to this article was tongue-in-cheek…
The presupposition and outright bigotry in that hatchet job, was as thick as something very thick and gummy and hard to get off your shoes. Once I got into the 2nd page, I was ready to punch the author in the neck and kick him out of a moving vehicle. I deeply regret finishing the article.
LEAVE A COMMENT:
Previous post: ATF Raids FPS Russia Hoping To Catch Him Slipping
Next post: Cadbury Cacophony And Peep Penetration