Well 20% of their list.
Here's their 5 Awful Public Reactions You See After Every Tragedy
#5 The Hero: How dare someone suggest that someone armed might be able to stop a mass shooting.
#4 The Topper: This one's reasonable as it's about people who try to one-up the outrage.
#3 The Problem Solver: Simplistic problems are laughable. Now they actually make a token swipe at the "Let's make bullets cost $1000!", but the rest is mocking the idea of armed self defense.
Then we get to the two fun ones.
#2 Don't you dare Politicize this to fit your agenda!
#1 How dare you tell someone to not to Politicize this to fit their agenda!
But here's their attempt to excuse the inconsistency:
The exception to the Agenda-Seizer, as those of you taking notes should know, is the person who wants to talk about a relevant issue. ... Or, to pick another completely random example, if there's a mass shooting, then it's actually pretty goddamn reasonable to talk about guns.
Except Cracked thinks it's unreasonable to talk about pro-gun issues after a tragedy. And that it's unreasonable to point out that the laws being pushed, such as Universal Background Checks... aren't even applicable to the situation.
This also goes into the whole point that it's Gun Control Advocates who demand no one dare disagree with them, and then act as if there's no such thing as a debate over gun issues.
Also take note. In an article that's really all about how Mass Shootings should be politicized to push gun control, the only specific gun control proposal they mention is the token one they mock. Interesting tone shift from a publication that only recently was pushing for the Australian style confiscation and bans.
But that shows that the actual gun law is secondary. It's more the emotional response of "Something Must be done."
Aside from mocking Cracked, this article does make something to think on. While it's not an example of an Ideological Turing Test the article does show an utter inconsistency in thinking