Friday, February 24, 2017

A cracked post I missed!

Thanks to Oddball,   and the vagaries of RSS feeds I have a cracked article talking about guns that I missed.

It came out in September and for reference was between an article where they admit  the futility and massive damage gun confiscation in the us would cause.

And one where they take gun control advocates to task for doing counterproductive things and  declare that gun control is a lost cause.

This was shortly followed by an article where they actually decided to talk to people who worked at gun shops to get their perspective.

Annnnnd then a two months later they went back to form with an article on why the NRA is bad for gun owners  Including such reasons as the NRA can occasionally defeat a gun ban.

But the article we're talking about, that I missed  was in that brief window when Cracked was at least talking about the problems of implementing gun control,  the counter productive actions of gun control advocates, and the difficulties they have in making their case.


In a somewhat dark article about why the Marvel Universe would be a nightmare to live in...
They mention gun rights.  As #1.  Specifically with regard to self defense.

Yes there is the obligatory, boilerplate opening swipes of "Mass shootings are happening all the time in the US" and "Gun companies profit off of mass shootings"

But after that....    they go onto:
  • People would want guns, not for glory of awesomeness... but just to protect their families.  
  • (With the unspoken admission that the goverment would not be able to protect everyone)
  • That even in the Marvel universe, guns would be pretty effective for self defense against most villains.
  • That gun bans would be a political dead letter given that the citizenry would want to defend themselves against the sundry threats.
  • Broaches the subject of if people with super-powers would be treated like those with CCW permits.  Including issues of duty to inform.
  • Where is the line drawn between super-powers,  innate skill, and gadgets 
  • Annd the difficulty the goverment would have on regulating new and weapons technology.

All in all a pretty sober assessment and a fair explanation as to why gun rights people want to have the rights they agitate for.


So, it's interesting to go back to the brief window when Cracked actually questioned the gun control dogma.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

I'll admit...

I don't really watch the Cracked videos.

It's a mix of due to their stylistic choices being annoying and for a video you're attention is more captured.  Where for an article (especially their short articles) you can read it and be done with it.

Now when their vids do address gun control, that'll get my interest enough to mock them.
Like when they had a vid about how "nobody wants to take your guns" put up right after a vid about how great  Australia's gun control was.

Or when they tried to mock gun owners not trusting the state... right when they had an article admitting that militia folk are right not ot trust the goverment. 

Yeah, so when I see a new vid with this byline:



You know what.  Maybe Trump is after banning all the abortions (or restricting it to just the rich and connected via an expensive onerous permitting regime.   Maybe his court pics will overturn Roe V Wade.  (I have my doubts, and even if they did it wouldn't yet be a ban on abortion, but it would open up a massive can of worms on the state and federal level).

And the whole gun issue seems to be secondary.  As none of the comment-folk (youtube or Cracked) are (at this writing) mentioning guns.  At all.  Which is funny because normally when Cracked goes anti-gun it stirs up a predictable response (kinda like this.)


But you know what's really, really funny?    Cracked repeatedly does the "We don't want to take your guns,  you're just being paranoid." I mean yesterday they had an article saying that.

But today?  That little byline admits that they see the issue as binary choice between gun rights and reproductive rights.

I mean if one looks at the context of SCOTUS and fears that it's guns versus abortions...

then doesn't that mean that Second Amendment people's concerns of overturning a landmark pro-rights case and ushering in prohibitionist laws are just as legitimate of Reproduction rights people's concerns of overturning a landmark pro-rights case and ushering in prohibitionist laws?



Saturday, February 18, 2017

Cracked: City Living Turns you Liberal

Today they have 6 Big Differences That Turn City Dwellers Into Liberals
Or alternatively  6-ways-big-cities-turn-you-liberal-converts-perspective

Just... guess what number 1 is.
(That I'm writing this post should be a large hint).

Now, some the points are largely true... some are due to just having more people together requires more organization,  others are more artifacts of how urban people see themselves even to "outsourcing" compassion.

#6. Traffic Is A Nightmare
#5. Sick, Desperate People Ask You For Help Every Day
#4. Around A Quarter Of Your Neighbors, Coworkers, And Friends Are Probably Immigrants
#3. Minimum Wage Is A Ticket To Homelessness
#2. The Impact Of Good Government Is Easier To See

Of course number one is gun control

Take the rural perspective in the article itself;  Guns are used for practical reasons like food gathering, pest control, self defense until the cops show up, or plinking fun.   And gun control seems to by and large be because the goverment "they have something shady up their sleeve".  The most negative of the article is some "southern stereotyping" and normalizing drinking and plinking.

Now note:  This is the same Cracked that has been skeptical of police powers and highlighted how easy it is to abuse them many times in the past, has made a cottage industry of writing genuine articles about the villainy of the US goverment against the poor and oppressed.  And is currently talking about the dangers of Trump.

So keep that in mind when the article goes to the urban perspective:  Guns are for criminals killing people.  And the only time city folk see guns is when bad stuff is gonna happen.

Here's the funny part, it's those very gun control laws that have tried to directly or indirectly ban gun ownership in said areas.  DC and Chicago had complete handgun bans.  Many cities did everything they could to get rid of run ranges, and through May Issue made it so that common people couldn't legally carry guns.

All things to make it so that the only guns a normal person saw... were in the hands of a criminal.
How...  convenient.  (Well guns are also in the hands of the cops, the rich, and the connected. Which Cracked has also railed against)


And I'll just put in the whole ending paragraph:

So when the topic of gun control comes up, you start thinking maybe guys who've been in prison plotting revenge for the last five years shouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic online their first day out of the big house. You had to take driver's ed in high school and pass a driving test -- maybe it's not so crazy to make people do the same thing before they can own a gun. If absolutely nothing else, at least they'd learn not to hold it sideways so they'd hit their target instead of innocent bystanders. Once you get on board with any kind of gun control, you're pretty much a card-carrying liberal.

At least the rural folks in this article aren't stereotyped as being ignorant scolds.  Yes that is a link to The Trace.  Yes it is freaking out over the non existent Online Loophole.   The article also omits that gun control advocates (including Cracked itself)  don't simply want those "loopholes" closed.

And that they don't object to any existing gun control laws, no matter how racist in origin or practice.
(If Voter ID is racist then how about letting NYPD, that paragon of race relations, decide who can and cannot get a pistol permit?)

And yes a publication that most recently freaked out about gun training (even the limited if you see a gun run and call an authority figure) is now presenting training as "common sense"

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Oh Cracked... you just can't help yourself.

(Alt title 7-goofy-cartoon-mascots-for-truly-horrible-things)

So either way they're being very clear that these are "horrible things".

Just take a guess at what's #1.

Yup Eddie Eagle.

Keep in mind the Eddie Eagle program is literally:

1) Stop
2) Don't Touch
3) Run Away
4) Tell A grown-up. 

So a program telling kids to run away from guns, explicitly saying "This removes the temptation to touch the firearm as well as the danger that another person may negligently cause it to fire."

Is... well.. .let's see how the article describes it.

That's why the organization has a long history of finding ways to get kids interested in guns from as early an age as possible. Hey, if it's good enough for African warlords, it's good enough for the NRA.

You know... if you were gonna talk about the NRA getting kids interested in guns. There's plenty of other NRA programs to cite.  Maybe not the one that tells kids to Run Away.


Sure, having kids learn gun safety from the NRA is a little like asking Walter White to be a career counselor, but that didn't stop the organization from created their own cartoon mascot to help children swallow their bias:

How much gun safety do the gun control organizations teach?

Here's the thing, though: Eddie is the worst. For starters, his lessons didn't actually work on kids. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, "existing programs are insufficient for teaching gun-safety skills to children" as when they tested a bunch of Eagle Eye schooled kids, none of them knew what to do when around a firearm. It's almost like the solution to protect kids from guns is to not leave guns lying around, a responsibility that should rest squarely on adults, not on schoolchildren and a smarmy cartoon bird. All Eddie seems to achieve with his awareness is to normalize the idea of being around firearms from a young age. 

Yes, parents are responsible, but what if a kid still stumbles on a gun. What should they be taught?
Also the Eddie Eagle program has for parents advice that deals with safe storage.


And hey the article does go onto some other NRA programs are are pretty questionable.

But then... "The same goes for Little Red Riding Hood, who makes great use of the "stand your ground" rule to take on that shifty, vaguely ethnic looking Wolf."

Uh...  huh?

Though a lot of the other mascots for "horrible  things" are....   not smoking,  train safety, anti-public dedication, and uh... fitness.   At least the prison warden and creepy president are mascots for questionable things.  Still...   2 out of 6.


But hey cracked has gotta cracked.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Cracked: Why the NRA is bad for gun owners.

So Cracked has a new video up.

And it seems a bit... familiar.


You can tell their argument is... problematic when the main pillars of their argument are
1)  The 2nd Amendment is totally about militias and the NRA is crazy for lobbying otherwise.

2) Nobody wants to ban guns.  Which is... interesting given laws President Obama lobbied congress to pass, and the similar laws Hillary wanted enacted.


Now 1 is.... hilarious.  Since the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that yes, the 2nd amendment is about an individual right in Heller.  Where they split 5-4 was, given the 2nd being an individual right, is a handgun ban against said amendment?

So, going the 2nd is about Militias is against the SCOTUS rulings.... in addition to basic logic.  If the 2nd said that militias could not be infringed... what does that /mean/?   That a bunch of guys can make and armed cadre and the government can't infringe on it?   That a state can make an army and  the feds can't say no?

Of course 2 is based on the argument of  "Hey as long as the government doesn't do door to door confiscation of every gun the NRA should shut up."


At least it's not as bad as the earlier Cracked article mentioned here.

Do note that that article 5 Reasons even Gun Owners should hate the NRA  is written by the same guy who earlier,  wrote about how awesome gun ban are  and thinks that the NRA is bad for gun owners...  because they oppose gun bans.


So...  yeah Cracked goes this "nobody wants to ban your guns"  in one video, where they have several articles, about how great gun bans would be.

Including one video about how great Australasia's....  mass confiscation was.

It's kinda hard to buy the whole "The NRA is paranoid for thinking people want to ban guns" from a publication that has recently demanded gun bans.

Friday, September 16, 2016

This time Cracked decides to *talk* to Gun shop workers.

Ah yes.  Cracked did the *brave* thing and decided to see what people who work at gun shops have to say about guns.


Seriosuly that's the tone they take

Of course, after every shooting, we have another national discussion on guns that goes nowhere. Perhaps because we're all partisan jerks who'd rather people keep dying than admit those other partisan jerks might be a little bit right. Taking a tiny baby step toward understanding, we figured we'd start at the source: We spoke to two former gun-sellers. We spoke to two former gun-sellers, Jerome in California and Jacob in Texas, to get a better handle on the American gun trade.


California you say?

And then they immediately go into #4. Paranoia Sells Guns.

People buy guns for all sorts of reasons -- sports, protection, vengeance -- but at Jerome's store, nothing sold like paranoia.

Wait... the guy in California found that people buy guns out of fear of them being banned?
That's... not paranoid.


Yes, the price spikes are frustrating and can get silly.  (As the article mentions). But given that after these mass shootings politicians do demand guns for certain guns...  And sometimes get their guns. Again that's not paranoia.


And then they go into how you get crazies at the gun shop.  Yup.  Nothing much to say there.

Interestingly,  2 admits that yeah... an FFL can deny a sale if they want.


And then #1 gets on the "it's too easy to buy guns whine"


If you want a gun, all you have to do is show up with a pulse and not get a visible erection when the clerk talks about stopping power. "It's ridiculously easy to buy a gun under federal law," Jacob says. "The shortlist of things that allow you to buy a gun are: Be the actual buyer of the gun, so no wives buying guns for husbands, etc. Be a citizen or a resident alien. Be of sound mind. Don't be on drugs. Don't be a felon. Don't have any record of domestic violence. That's about 90 percent of people who haven't been to jail."

Wait.... you mean the vast majority of citizens can buy a gun after proving that they're not crazy, abusive or criminal?   Gee, it's almost like it's a right.  Oh wait, for a right you don't have to beg for prior permission.

And naturally the article goes on about Default Proceeds and blathers about how great Private Sale bans are.  What's fascinating is the article utterly ignores that 1) many, many states *have* banned private sales.  and 2)  most mass killers don't bother with private sales anyway.


Still, the tone is interesting as it continues a fatalism towards gun control we'd seen in Cracked recently.  And an attempt on their part to at least understand the issue better.

And just a bit of amusement, earlier this week cracked had a bit about "Massive Catastrophes"
Which had for #5: Arson Attacks Tend To Be Much Worse Than Mass Shootings

Do tell Cracked.  Do tell.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Cracked takes... Gun Control advocates to task.

So cracked has another article about gun control.

Now Cracked has a funny thing where the url gives a different title
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-dumbest-things-we-do-in-name-gun-control

Huh....   well that's telling.

Let's go over their list
#5. We Worry Most About Guns Criminals Use The Least
 #4. We Barely Even Mention Suicide
 #3. We Pretend Background Checks Will Fix Everything
 #2. We Don't Think About Logistics
 #1. We Forget What Country We're In

So mentioning a myopic focus on "scary looking guns", lumping in suicides to goose crime stats, acting as if background checks would be a magic cure-all,  ignoring the thorny issues of enforcement,  and the nature of the US.


Oh and then there's this

Basically, no one at any level of our current gun crisis is going to part with their weapons as freely as Australians did. Gun violence of all sorts was already on the decline in that country when the stricter laws were put in place. Whether the stricter gun laws even had an impact on homicide rates still seems like a question that hasn't quite been answered yet

That's right, they can't even claim that Australia's mass confiscation actually reduced homicide rates.

So the answer to "Why we can't Australia away the gun problem" is...  the Australia solution still had millions of guns out in circulation,  requires a much more pliant populace, and might not have even reduced homicides.

Hence another reason why gun owners resist.

And amazingly... the article ends on crime reduction plans that aren't gun control.

Though just to show that they're cracked they still spitball about some touchy feely gun control

Maybe we could toss a few mandatory safety features onto the guns we sell going forward to make them safer to keep around the house, thus (ideally) reducing the number of accidental gun deaths each year as well.

Just keep in ind #2 applies to safety features as well.

Obviously, even if we did all of those things it wouldn't fix the problem completely. That said, any one of those things would make more sense than our current strategy of making guns an all-or-nothing proposition where we either have to ban them entirely or freely carry them around in public without restrictions of any sort.

Oh bless your heart.

But this does show the last refuge of the gun control advocate.  They go "Oh I don't want to ban all guns!  Let's compromise!"


We're never going to go for either one of those options, so we have to find some kind of middle ground at some point. Shifting our focus away from ridding the country of guns completely and more toward combating the reasons why we point them at each other (and ourselves) so often might be the way to do it.


Told you.   Still, grading on a curve this is a big jump on Cracke's part.

Oh and for the compromise bit...  you think the writers will oppose any new Assault Weapons Bans?  Like say the one percolating in Washington State?

Or would they agree to a "compromise" legislation that has mental health reforms & safe storage liability in exchange for overturning AWBs?