Amazon

The Gun-Control Article that Cracked.com Rejected

Because Ezra Drissman is so cheap and doesn’t pay me enough for writing for The New Paine, I’m forced, from time to time, to sell out my principles and submit a piece to websites whose views I feel run in direct opposition to mine.  My latest attempt, to write an article in support of eliminating guns from the face of the western world and submit it to the Social Justice Warriors at Cracked.com, sadly failed.

You may be wondering why, in spite the fact that I do not support gun control on the level that the gun control advocates do and in spite the fact that there is no real given evidence that owning a gun will lead to gun violence and in spite the fact that if you took out cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Baltimore from their studies on gun control, that the “per capita” gun control violent statistic would not be very much different from that of European countries, and in spite the fact that European countries like Switzerland allow half of their population to own guns and in spite the fact that even liberals are starting to question and downright refute Obama’s push for stronger gun control measures as a way to deter gun violence and in spite the fact that women who walk in dark streets at night or have their houses broken into and want an extra level of protection might want to own a gun, I would be even be able to come up with a reason to support stronger gun control (in leftist nu-speak: eliminate gun ownership altogether).

Well, in true spirit of classic Cracked.com articles like Why men are evil and should all be euthanized and in helping the gun control advocates find reasons to ban guns where they are too stupid and lazy to find it themselves, here is my original article I submitted to Cracked.com.

Guns are everywhere these days.  Some people use them for target practice.  Some people use them for target practice on other people.  Bottom line is: people need to stop using them.  They hurt people and, in some cases, even kill them.  Whether you’re Dylan Roof, Elliott Roger, Christopher Harper-Mercer or the thousands of gang members who kill each other in drive by shootings or at parties in “the hood” (sorry, I know it sounds racist), the fact is, the statistics show, “no guns = no violence.”  In case you needed MORE reasons, here are five why you shouldn’t own guns.

1.       Guns are as addictive as tattoos.

Do you have a tattoo?  No?  Of course you don’t , because if you had a tattoo, that means you have several  tattoos and you realize that one isn’t enough.  First, you want the peace sign, then you want some kanji, then you want that semi elaborate piece that’s an homage to Gandolph or Darth Vader, then, next thing you know, you’re getting an elaborate $1500 back piece designed for you which has a tiger leading a Spanish armada during a dimly lit sky that resembles "Starry Night"; unless you have a really good job, you’re going to bankrupt yourself getting all of that permanent ink affixed to your body, which by 60, won’t look nearly as hot as it when you were 30. 

Same thing applies with guns.  First you want the revolver, then you want the automatic hand cannon, then you want the 9mm, then the glock, then the bazooka, and so on and so forth.  Next thing you know, there are so many guns in your house, there is room for nothing else and you're broke and soon to be homeless and ready for battle.  And who do you think you’re going to be doing battle with?  Chances are you’ll be doing battle with the man who comes to repossess your home and you’ll think you’re Mel Gibson in Mad Max and you’ll start shooting people and then you’ll be carted off to prison with nothing to show for it, but your awesome gun collection, which then will also get auctioned off.  Just don’t start!

2.       When a woman owns a gun, she’s saying she’s not as tough as a man.

Unless you’re a sexist pig, you realize that women are as tough as men.  Therefore, like any man, a woman should be able to go anywhere and everywhere without any form of protection.  Oh sure, we can placate the rape culture and patriarchy by telling her that she should carry some mace or learn some neat self-defense tricks to ward off the bad guys, but, the truth is, she shouldn’t have to.  A woman should be able to walk anywhere and everywhere and men should be stepping aside and not raping her.  Since everyone is human and everyone can be reasoned with, than it stands to reason, every man should and could be taught not to rape.  Granted this tactic hasn’t worked with robbers, muggers and murderers of all types, but I’m fairly certain that if the ghettos and back allies where these rapes happen had anti-rape classes, then rapes probably wouldn't happen.

Sorry, that seemed racist.  Okay, let's talk about the non-street rape that is allegedly an epidemic at college campuses.  The fact is, if a woman brought in a gun to the frat party that never happened, that Rolling Stone erroneously reported about, would she have blasted away her would be assailants?  See, right wingers?  You can’t go into a party and just kill people!  Remember: women are as tough as men and don’t need guns to prove it and we need to stop men from overpowering women, even though they’re as tough as men.

3.       What, are you gay or something?

This one’s for my gun loving “males” (not that anyone should be defined by any genders anymore anyway) who own guns.  Let’s face it fellas; guns are phallic and, if you like to hold guns, you clearly like to hold other mens’ penises.  Why else would you purchase bigger and bigger guns?  Surely it can’t be because you legitimately enjoy the craft or enjoy sport hunting, target shooting or own them for self-defense, can it?  Look at the school shooters.  What do they all have in common?  Okay, aside from that they were all mentally unstable ticking time bombs that nobody had any interest in paying attention to;  Gay.  Yep.  They weren’t so much as “mentally unstable” as they were sexually (and I do mean homosexual sexually) repressed, you homophobic creeps.  They were gay and, because they weren’t allowed to express their homosexuality in public since our country is homophobic, they brought guns to public places and “released” their tension on innocent people.

Oh, so you’re saying you’re a “man” and you have guns and several children and you live a happy, normal and productive life?  Clearly more signs of your latent homosexuality.  Nobody calls their lives “normal” anymore because there is no normal, you closed minded, prejudiced fuck.  If you have to call your gun filled, sex filled, child filled, “happy” family life normal, then that means you’re calling people who don’t have those things abnormal, which means, not only are you hiding your homosexuality, but you’re doing it with bigotry, you gun loving, homophobic fuckhead.

4.       What next: Grenades?  Land mines?

Have you met a gun owner that didn’t own a grenade launcher or fill his or her (sorry, I know that’s heteronormative, but for the sake of the bigots reading this, I’m using “their” language) backyard with land mines and then invite neighbors to reenact a World War I scenario by having his or her (again, sorry) neighbor run through it while shooting grenades at his or her (sorry a third time) neighbor?  Of course not!  That’s because the government doesn’t allow private civilians to own land mines and grenade launchers. 

Now extend it to gun owners.  If the government said people weren’t allowed to own guns, then it’s PRETTY CLEAR that people wouldn’t USE THEM.  And I know you’re thinking; “that’s pretty absurd to think that the lack of legality is what's keeping deadly weapons out of people's hands, since it clearly isn't" and "why don’t we eliminate the knives, axes, hatches, bows and arrows and other items which could be used to hurt people as well?”  Well, we’re working on it.  You and your children will just have to live without archery.

5.       Owning a gun, even for protection, is racist.

If “owning a gun legally” and “possessing a gun” are, in fact, two different things, then, it stands to reason, that gun possessors are gang members and other riff raff that cause the absurd spikes in gun violence in the inner city, NOT your legal gun owners who live in boring-ass places like Maine or Idaho.  Therefore, it’s pretty clear that, if you are a gun owner – typically white, male and (ahem) straight – your ownership of a gun is further proof that you are then a racist.  This is why if, you should find yourself in New York, L.A., Chicago or Baltimore and you happen to take the wrong route and end up in the inner city, rather than one of those safe, boring suburbs and, if you should pull out your gun and use it for protection during a mugging or car theft, you have thus committed a hate crime.  I know, the mugger might be a white guy and you might be a suburban black guy, but chances are, he might still consider himself black and you’re from the suburbs, which means you’re trying to be white and thus racist and against other blacks AND yourself, therefore, it’s still a hate crime.  Capiche?

Yep, they rejected that.  Oh well, better luck next time.