The article is about how "gun nuts refute their own arguments."
But the first two in the list are a really bad DVD and a really bad book. How bad? The book is "My parents open carry."
The first, somehow, refutes that firearms can be used for self defense, and the latter, similarly, somehow, debunks that firearms can protect one's family.
Those are pretty pedestrian. The confusing one is #2 "Men Are Monsters, So Women Need Guns!"
But the confusion grows:
About 38 percent of gun owners are women, but they don't seem to be interested in shooting those guns for murder or self-defense. In 2014, only 15 ladies gunned down a man in self-defense. That obviously doesn't include the women who defended themselves at sea and told no one but the sharks what they had done, but 15 seems low, doesn't it? That's the number of women out of 16 who probably had every right to kill a man in 2014.
That seems... low. Oddly enough that's the one time the article has no citation, and why 2014? Why not a decade? Weirdly, in the same paragraph the writer then admits that it seems very low. Okay.
Moreso the writer notes that women aren't abusing their guns.
And right after this the article goes on about the Detroit case where a woman was put in prison for using a gun to defend her family. Um... so guns are bad because the police and prosecutors are railroading people?
Women obviously don't want to solve their problems with guns, so why are we pushing them so hard to do so?
Parse that. So women being law-abiding with their guns (nearly 40 percent of women are gun owners by his own admission...), and the writer thinks that women don't have the agency to make their own decision to by them? That they're somehow being tricked? That's rather sexist.
Though this is the same guy who then goes on to proudly put in a tweet where he goes all macho chest thumping and uses a term for female genitalia as an insult.
So.... yeah sexist.
And how does he prove gun owners are the real sexist folks? By citing a 30 year old VHS. Okay... there's a lot more recent stuff to show that gun owners still have some massive problems with appealing to women (Hey let's make guns pink!)
And how is the video?
It's crushingly boring, which is unexpected. Gun videos for men feature corner-pieing drills and quick draw techniques to eliminate multiple ninjas. Ralph Mroz showed me how to talk an outlet mall shopper into carrying a loaded firearm and then kill him by diving under an SUV and shooting his feet. This lady video is almost un-American in how it treats guns like exhausting responsibilities no one should ever touch without expert training. Lee learns about holsters, eye and ear protection, trigger guards, and firing pins from two creeps who talk like they only teach firearm classes because their hypnotism careers never took off. They seem to truly want to keep the viewer alive.
What? The writer had the whole of the bad "ladies training" to pick and he went with the dull one that actually tried to be responsible and do it by the numbers.
Note the double standard. A video that is all "ninja-skills" is mocked for being a power fantasy, and one that's nuts and bolts is mocked for being boring.
Nevermind the writer's intention was to mock the video for being sexist.
As I said: confusing.
And last is the old "Guns are to overthrow the goverment"
Which.... well becomes revealing. The article goes from the confused muddle of before to angry ranting.
There's repeated calls of gun owners as stupid, mentally-ill racists with small penis. The writer bragging about the illegal weapons he proudly owns. Him fantasizing about the US military killing civilians. Him actually encouraging gun owners to join said militant repression on the side of the army.
He goes into the all gun owners are mentally ill right after talking about how gun owners are all about making it so mentally-ill people can buy guns. (Someone who knows the transitive law can figure out tat one)
And he advocates that gun owners resist any confiscation by illegally hiding their guns.
He then once again points out an abuse of police against a lawful gun owner and uses it as evidence that... gun owners are racist because they didn't have the revolution that the writer seems to be fantasizing about.
The telling part is that the article doesn't really mention any specific laws, guns, or accessories that he has a problem with.
And it ends with a photo of him pumping a shotgun while angrily, glaring at the camera.
Which is... problematic.
But the article seems to be more of a rage-filled form of venting than anything else. Given the comments are by and large a similar bout of cathartic release...
