Gizmodo Joe: Just Say No to Guns

 

Joe Brown, Editor of Gizmodo.com, had this to say about the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre:

More than a dozen children were just murdered in Connecticut. It’s time to take steps toward preventing this sort of tragedy. The Second Amendment was written when all Americans could remember being occupied by a foreign power. That was 220 years ago; the British are not coming. Red Dawn is not real. Give up your guns, and make it at least a little harder for a maniac to go on a killing spree . . .

Too many people are dying. Connecticut. Colorado. 34th Street. What’s next? How many people have to literally bleed to death in our streets before we realize that easy access to a tool any unskilled person can use to snatch a life out of existence is too much responsibility for humans?

Would you sell a death ray at Walmart, requiring only a driver’s license and a cursory background check that only checks to see if someone’s gotten caught doing something terrible? No, that’d be crazy. Would you give a 16 year-old a time machine if he promised not to go back in time and change anything? Of course not. Fortunately, we don’t have to deal with these decisions (yet?), because those technologies are science fiction. Unfortunately, guns are real. And for some reason, we’re not willing to admit that, even though they’ve been around a while, they are too advanced for humans to use safely.

[h/t SC]

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m speechless. However, I can still type. Firearms are way too advanced for this schmuck to use safely. But I’m doing just fine. So there it is — no guns for gizmo or whatever his name is. More guns for me. What could be better?

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      You beat me to it Ralph. He obviously feels he can’t deal with firearms safely, but the rest of us can. No more reading gizmodo for me, I made sure to let them know that as well.

  2. avatar Average_Casey training says:

    So I’m never reading Gizmodo again. People like him are concerned about the UN Internet Treaty but don’t care about our bill of rights. Which item is in the Constitution? I can live without internet but can’t defend myself with a computer. Typical ignorant city dweller.

    1. avatar David W. says:

      I can’t live without the internets… Well probably but I’ll end up being more productive and who wants that?

    2. avatar Darren says:

      Just in case you’re wondering which other websites to ignore so that they don’t get your clicks (and associated revenue), Gizmodo is owner by Gawker Media. Their websites are Gawker.com, Deadspin, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, io9, Kotaku, Jalopnik, and Jezebel.

      They are all 403 to me now, in http terms.

  3. avatar scottlac says:

    Sure, let’s try another prohibition scheme. It worked so well for Alcohol and, of course, nobody can get any weed since it’s illegal and all. Prohibiting law-abiding people from having those nasty guns will work out really nifty. It surely won’t lead to a bloody revolution or anything.

    1. avatar barnslayer says:

      Prohibition worked great for the Kennedys. They wound up with a monopoly on liquor imports. And… all you people that were put out of business or killed by the gov’t…. “Oh well”.

  4. avatar Sammy says:

    Fvck this creep. I fear loosing the thousands I have invested is self reliance. And It’s not just them taking my guns, that turns my stomach. I’m sure my house will be ransacked in the process. Snake BO is coiled and ready to strike, Like someone said, by the 1st at the latest.

  5. avatar Teddy Ruxxpen says:

    Every one of these idiots will soon realize how important firearm ownership is once the US crashes fast and hard over the fiscal cliff. PS… F*** YOU Jizzmodo.

  6. avatar Helen A Handbasquet says:

    Hey Joe, I’m not worried about the British, Chinese, Norks, etc invading us, I’m worried about the US Government invading us.
    It’s funny I’ve operated my guns in total safety my whole life; they’re not too “advanced” to figure out.
    Come on Joe, you don’t even know me, how can you say you don’t trust me with a gun? My old employer did for 18 years and not only did I never shoot anyone I never had to pull it out of my holster.

    1. avatar peter says:

      On your first point: That was the point of the 2nd amendment, by my understanding. We have an army to repel foreign powers. I always thought that 2A was to keep the government in check.

  7. avatar WLCE says:

    “even though they’ve been around a while, they are too advanced for humans to use safely.”

    LMAO!!!!

    speak for yourself there cupcake.

    i guess since there are hundreds of thousands of deaths due to medical malpractice, modern medicine is too advanced for humans to use safely.

    LMAO!!!! this is the funniest thing i have read on here yet!

  8. avatar jwm says:

    Another douche with an opinion. Isn’t it great that the 2a protects this dirt bags 1a rights.

  9. avatar Gary says:

    Why do you print this crap? I suspect you really feel that way. It’s one of the reasons I don’t trust you or read here anymore

    1. avatar The Guy 09 says:

      Yet here you are.

      1. avatar din says:

        zing!

        also, how does gizmodo joe reckon that people voluntarily handing over their guns is going to make it harder for maniacs to kill people? anybody remember that putz over in germany who set school kids on fire with an insecticide sprayer full of gas?

  10. avatar Matt in FL says:

    The guy wrote a three paragraph emotional knee-jerk. Did you really expect in-depth research and reporting on this issue from Gizmodo?

  11. avatar Joe Grine says:

    Sound like Joe Brown’s house is a gun free zone. I wonder if he has any kool stuff to steal.

    1. avatar Charles says:

      He is the editor of Gizmodo… you can bet his home is packed to the gills with expensive electronic appliances.

    2. avatar JoshinGA says:

      Would it be too terrible to start a list of known anti-gunners and their addresses, and post it on the internet as a “List of Houses that are Gun-Free Zones by Owners Choice”. Thieves are getting pretty internet savy these days…

      1. avatar Lolinski says:

        Could they sue us if they got robbed? If not I wouldnt mind someone doing that.

        1. avatar In Memphis says:

          Dont see how they could sue. Maybe you endangered their life BUT it is not as if they dont make their opinions public knowledge. It is not much of a stretch for anyone to say, he hates guns and is loaded (cash wise).

        2. avatar peter says:

          Yes, if they can prove before a jury that that was your intention.

          If you had not posted here first, you’d have been great.

          However, since you did, any internet-savvy lawyer will be able to show that intent was present even if it was as a joke.

  12. avatar george lortz says:

    How many people have to literally bleed to death in our streets before we realize that easy access to a tool any unskilled person can use to snatch a life out of existence is too much responsibility for humans?
    They sell hammers at Wal-Mart. I can snatch the life out of you with that, a$$hat. Leave my guns alone.

    1. avatar peter says:

      Or a pen(cil). No more writing.

      You could bludgeon someone with a computer or typewriter. No more typing.

      You could use your arms/legs. No more moving.

      You could use your brain an voice to think up something to convince an able-bodied person to do the deed. You can pick one: lose vocal cords or get frontal lobotomy.

  13. avatar DC says:

    The last invasion was 72 years ago in Hawaii, not 220 years. I guess that wasn’t important enough to make it into this story. I got stupiderer from reading this. thanks alot.
    I want to buy another AR15. How about some truthaboutar15reviews instead of this silliness.

  14. avatar ST says:

    It’s a manifestation of a concept many people have.Put simply,humankind as a whole is incapable of individual responsibility.Since mankind is incapable of refraining from killing their neighbors the only solution is to deny the tools.

    Of course what such people fail to consider is that predation is our innate nature.A disarmed utopia is impossible to achieve because any object- especially a computer -can be a powerful tool of assault.I may not be able to directly kill Joe Brown directly with a laptop,but the police will do it for me after I snatch his ID and use it to commit several crimes without his knowledge.

    If we follow Mr Browns thoughts to their logical conclusion,then cars,computers,Facebook,HDTV,video games,and the Internet itself should be outlawed right along with civil gun ownership.

  15. avatar Darren says:

    How about I keep my guns safe, like they’ve been since I owned them, and you let me and people like me make it far, far harder for a spree killer to operate?

  16. avatar Totenglocke says:

    That was 220 years ago; the British are not coming. Red Dawn is not real.

    No, but Nazi Germany was only 75 years ago. People alive in the US today (and other countries) have seen their previously peaceful democracy turned into a dictatorship ruled by murderous thugs. THAT is why we have the Second Amendment, and that is why I will never get rid of my guns.

  17. avatar Aharon says:

    Dear Joe Brown.

    If all law-abiding, sane, and moral Americans (which is what 99.99% of gun owners are) give up their guns then everyday will be a Sandy Hook over and over again. Do you want that to occur? Here, I’ll post your email for anyone who wants to express more truths to you. Cheers.

    joe@gizmodo.com

  18. avatar GunNut says:

    Classic case of projection, ignorance, and (willful?) blindness to the realities of defensive gun use.

    I started operating guns five years ago, at age fourteen. They were not “too advanced” for me then. They are still not “too advanced” for me now. They won’t be “too advanced” for me at least until I hit eighty, and maybe not even then.

    And I’m wondering if Mr. Brown includes LE and military in his assessment of what tools “human beings” should and should not be able to own and use. If cops, bodyguards, security company personnel, the military, etc. were denied use of these overly dangerous tools, things would get really interesting really fast.

  19. avatar libertyguild says:

    From the Baltimore Sun.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/bal-that-pesky-second-amendment-20121215,0,4492100.story

    The other plain English words he forgets to mention: “necessary”, “security”, “free State”, “right of the people”.

    Be sure to read the footnote.

  20. avatar MT Ryan says:

    9 times as many people where killed by medical errors last year as were murdered with a firearm. Why then don’t we ban doctors? Because they save many more lives than they take. So do firearms. DOJ estimates indicated 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms every year. Doesn’t take much imagination to guess that the number of lives saved then by firearms far exceeds the 11,000 estimated murdered by firearms in 2011.

  21. avatar Lance says:

    Same crap for liberal scum as usual.

  22. avatar Drama says:

    Hey Joe, guess what the world ain’t perfect. Far from it, in fact it’s pretty messed up. The best thing you can do about that is prepare for it, not hide and pretend everything is honky-dory in la-la-land.

  23. avatar Greg Camp says:

    Another deluded type who figures that if he says “pretty please with a cherry on top,” I’ll turn in my guns.

    Topic for research: How can we get all gun control freaks to be permanently stupid enough to believe that this approach will work and leave it at that?

  24. avatar Greg Camp says:

    By the way, what’s with the italics?

    1. avatar Kelly in GA says:

      I think someone forgot to close their italics earlier. [/i]

  25. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Well, first of all lets not gloss over this death ray at Walmart, maybe I can get it in the CC version. Fear, the mans rant was nothing but fear of guns. Lots are waking up so theres hope for this idiot too, Randy

  26. avatar John Boch says:

    Why is it craven individuals dance in the blood of victims each time there is a horrific crime committed?

    It’s not a liberal vs. conservative issue. It’s about decency.

    There’s nothing decent in using the blood of small children to advance one’s cause. In fact, it’s repugnant.

    A Congressman says we must “exploit” the deaths of these children to pass more gun control. Has this man no decency?

    Mayor Bloomberg tells us we must “take immediate action” to restrict gun rights. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, in advocating for sweeping gun bans said, “We have to make sure that our laws protect students.” Father Pfleger, one of the shrillest voices for gun control in Chicago, crassly used the massacre as an opportunity to say, “We’ve gotta deal with the gun issue”.

    A liberal position would advocate for liberty by opposing racist, classist and sexist gun laws, instead of advocating re-enacting past tyrannies.

    Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and those laws didn’t protect those children. That school was a gun-free zone and the make-believe protection it afforded did nothing to protect those children from evil.

    All of these laws and rules failed because evil doesn’t respect laws or even societal norms against murder. Evil has no compassion and doesn’t respond to reason.

    Evil lusts to destroy and to kill.

    Gun-free zones let wicked men know they will not face meaningful resistance in carrying out their evil deeds.

    Yes, firearms in the hands of good men and women are a powerful force for good over evil. Guns are tools that protect children and families from evil.

    Guns in the hands of good men and women deter wicked men from evil deeds.

    Disarming good men, as these charlatans Bloomberg, Pfleger and Quinn advocate, will leave evil men free to victimize the young, the old and the weak, just as they did in the Medieval times when the common man was debarred the possession of weapons.

    Let’s not set ourselves up to repeat the tyranny experienced by mankind during the Medieval times.

    Let’s choose freedom and liberty instead.

    And remember, gun control is more about control than it is about guns.

  27. avatar S.CROCK says:

    what a genius. all we have to do is say no to guns and the bad guys wont use them. i wish i could have thought of that.

  28. avatar S.CROCK says:

    “easy access to a tool any unskilled person can use to snatch a life out of existence is too much responsibility for humans?” so we all should not drive? i don’t personaly know anyone who has been killed by a gun, but i can name a few by a car.

  29. avatar Chase says:

    Gizmodo along with pretty much every other tech website unfortunately are also FCC cheerleaders.

  30. avatar In Memphis says:

    I worked as an electricians apprentice once, ten years ago. I was very UNSKILLED and have taken my share of voltage while using the TOOLS of the trade. Time to ban electricity

  31. avatar Joe says:

    More emotion than useful insight from the uninformed.

  32. avatar pat says:

    Is this guy real? Does he also support the banning of weapons from law enforcement and the military? The whole world? Me thinks a bit nieve in regards to human nature and all…..and the trust in ‘the tender mercies of’ our fellow man.

  33. avatar peter says:

    @Greg Camp:
    I’m closing the italics.

    Lets see….. is this italic?

    Edit: d***it

  34. avatar pat says:

    Jizzh-omo. I am trying to pronounce it right. Jiz-zhomo. Must say this faster. Faster.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email