Previous Post
Next Post

Andy Borowitz (courtesy

New Yorker writer Andy Borowitz is tired. He’s too tired to fact-check studies that “prove” that gun ownership is a bad, bad thing for both individuals and society at large. Too tired to read TTAG’s analysis of the faulty methodology required to produce these foregone conclusion. And he’s tired of people who dare question this “settled science” on gun control. So he wrote this semi-moronic – sorry semi-ironic “news satire” instead . . .

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report)—Many Americans are tired of explaining things to idiots, particularly when the things in question are so painfully obvious, a new poll indicates.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, while millions have been vexed for some time by their failure to explain incredibly basic information to dolts, that frustration has now reached a breaking point.

Of the many obvious things that people are sick and tired of trying to get through the skulls of stupid people, the fact that climate change will cause catastrophic habitat destruction and devastating extinctions tops the list, with a majority saying that they will no longer bother trying to explain this to cretins.

Coming in a close second, statistical proof that gun control has reduced gun deaths in countries around the world is something that a significant number of those polled have given up attempting to break down for morons.

Someone needs to tell the Harvard University magna cum laude graduate that willful ignorance is not a badge of honor (which is pretty ironic, if you think about it). And while we’re doing the humor thing, did Borowitz break his nose from a fight over politics or in a brown-nosing episode gone horribly wrong? Just wonderin’ . . .

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. That nose looks like its been in a couple of fights. Probably because it didn’t mind its own business.

    • Granted, judging a man by the shape of his nose is as much a fallacy that he uses in his anti-gun proofs.

    • This nose would fit well on a tapir.
      Come on, we could all benefit from tapir opinion.

    • Well he is a Jew, a people generally known for big noses and not knowing how to mind their own business.

      • You had to go there, troll? That is a pathetic comment, and not worth bothering answering, except to note that its pretty obvious that the anti-gun Left, most likely among Bloomberg’s paid staff of AlJizzwadeera ninnies, having long lost the war on ideas and facts, is down to the lowest form of discourse- and is out actively trolling gun sites to portray the POTG as racist KKK types.

  2. statistical proof that gun control has reduced gun deaths

    That is technically not wrong. But, it does ignore how all those countries with strong gun control also have higher violent crime rates overall. But that’s the thing. It’s not about the violence. It’s about the guns.

    • True. These guys say, oh gee whiz, if we control guns, we can control “gun violence.” OK, well maybe, but that is not the question–the correct question is whether controlling guns will reduce VIOLENCE. England has great gun control and virtually no “gun violence,” but its knife violence, and its overall rate of violent crime, is four times higher than in the US. (Figures available from the FBI and the Home Office.) Once one recognizes that guns are just one tool with which to commit violence, then one starts to look at overall statistics, not just those associated with guns, and suddenly the narrative that eliminating guns will make our lives safer and better disintegrates. The real fact is that it doesn’t matter if you are not shot, but stabbed, strangled or beaten to death; YOU ARE STILL DEAD.

      • I just watched a documentary type show about the London Metropolitan Police. Nearly all the murders have been by knifing. One guy knife killed another and got all of 13 years for it.

      • When you use that logic you’re saying gun control works but they still steal, smuggle, build, and use guns too.

      • The I’M also had some interesting reporting methods. For example, it’s only a reported homicide if the case is closed and there is a conviction. Then there are other questionable practices by the friendly neighborhood Bobby that ensures crimes are not reported. For example of a Bobby witnesses you being robbed they will issue a warning and tell the assailant to move along. Not quite the enforcement I would want here. Police in those countries are more report adjusters than law enforcement.

        • Do you get your information from the same place as Andy Borowitz? Certainly sounds just as uninformed and ignorant.

      • You are correct, but there is more. The left has successfully demonized “violence” as well as guns. Violence is neutral, like gravity. It can be used for good or evil.

    • Ya but guns kill you more dead. If theres a confederate flag near then the gun can kill your soul to. Very dangerous items that need complete government control so we can all be truly safe

    • There’s a reason they use the phrase “gun deaths”. The one thing gun control DOES clearly, reliably reduce (beside freedom) is the fraction of suicides committed with firearms. Not the overall number of suicides, mind you, just how many of them are committed with guns.

      And “reduces gun deaths” sounds so much better than “drives people to hang themselves” which would be an equally accurate way of expressing the same result.

    • Like I always say, I fail to see the advantage of being stabbed, beaten or bludgeoned to death over just being shot to death.

    • …because, as everyone knows, gun deaths make you more deader than knife deaths or baseball bat deaths. Why, bare-hand deaths actually only leave you mostly dead.

  3. Yup. The climate has been changing for about the last 10,000 years when the ice age ended. Our ancestors started it with those pesky camp fires cooking delicious game.

    And gun control only works in places like Russia, Cambodia, China, etc… Just ask all… Oh wait, they’re all dead.

    Looks like Mr. Borowitz can’t read a right hook when it’s right in front of him.

    • Yup I’m a firm believer in climate change in fact the climate changes four times a year and from what I understand has been doing such for awhile.

    • Technically we’re still in the Pleistocene Ice Age, we’re just in an ‘interglacial period’. Anytime the polar caps are permanently frozen it’s an ice age. The glaciers advance and stick around for 100,000 years or so then retreat for 20,000 or 30,000. No credible scientist believes the glaciers aren’t coming back, although it’s theorized that man’s restoration of atmospheric CO2 may have already stretched the current interglacial period to 75,000 years. Give or take.

    • When people say climate change, they mean to say anthropogenic climate change, which yes, is a real thing. Ask any major scientific institution.

      • If they could get close enough to screw with it they would . That big ball of fire in the sky , The God of Egypt . You know what causes to Earth to get hot or stay cool , Ice ages and melting stages , There are lost civilizations under the oceans of every land mass . Humans can’t alter the planets temperatures , the sun does that . We believe ourselves to be greater than we are , a common trait of all Gods creation .

        • If you want to argue about the science, I’ll be happy to do that. Yes, the sun does regulate temperature on the earth, as well as greenhouse gasses. But then how do you explain the melting of glaciers as we came out of the last ice age? Insolation did not dramatically increase. No, it was CO2. It’s the same thing that is warming our planet now. The effect has long been understood. To put it into perspective, we’ve had a similar amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 than in the last ice age, and this all happened in the last 200 years.

        • In the video you posted below they noted the 800 year lag in CO2 levels after the temperatures rose. They tried to explain it away by pointing out that once glaciers receded CO2 was released into the atmosphere adding to the warming. However the lag still exists and some other mechanism must have existed to start the warming process in the first place. The ‘yea but it helped’ argument does nothing to quantify how much warming was or is caused by the carbon because it could not have caused the warming by itself.

        • Since I’ve already noted the intellectual dishonesty in the first video I think I’ll skip this one. If he does have a way of explaining how something could cause something 800 years before the first something existed I’m sure you can find a way of articulating it in a brief comment. It’s like blaming Barack Obama for the Third Crusade. You can claim that the CO2 made it worse, but you’re just grasping at straws.

        • It’s not intelectual dishonesty. It’s you simply not getting it. That thing is positive feedback. In that way CO2 can both lead and track temperatures. Instead of asking me to type it out. Why don’t you watch the video?

        • OK, there’s 13 minutes of my life I’ll never get back. So they admit CO2 didn’t initiate the interglacial periods but insist that it helped, which it probably did, but who cares? The fact is that the glaciers retreated and that’s a good thing. I live in Iowa. 20,000 years ago there wasn’t a single living organism in the entire state, and without help from anthropogenic global warming the entire state will again be devoid of life in another 20,000 years. The same can be said for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, etc.

          So what’s the worst case scenario? The glaciers don’t come back? That Greenland melts and once again becomes a forest like it was a half a million years ago? Either CO2 is THE primary driving cause of global warming or it’s just a small piece in a very large puzzle. If it is THE primary cause then good, the CO2 levels were at the lowest levels since multi-cellular life appeared on the earth and we’re stuck in an ice age. If it’s not then we don’t have anything to worry about except the glaciers coming back and killing most of us. Either way or somewhere in between, more CO2 is a good thing.

      • Anyone who believes that something that constitutes 0.01 mole fraction of the atmosphere drives climate change is either in on the fraud, or else a complete idiot. As others have noted, CO2 is a lagging indicator, not a driver.

  4. He appears to be using the argument of Arrogant Presumption, sans facts, logic and reason. I can see why people would become weary of explaining simple things to idiots like him.

    Also the linking of “causes”, clearly to enlist a group that feels strongly about one “cause” in the adoption of another, presumably with the forgoing of conscious thought.

    I suppose he is saying the the “conversation is over” and the “you do what I tell you” phase is in. Does that signify a “control freak” personality? /sarc

    • Correct. He is using a literary device, sarcasm, to engage in an ad hominem attack denigrating “gun nuts” as stupid people too blind to realize how stupid they rally are, that appears to be supported by facts and logic, but in fact is not. He does not prove his premise–he assumes it as “obvious” and “common sense,” without having to establish the truth of these conclusions. Circular reasoning at its finest.

      • Mark N.,

        That is the consistent play over and over. Gun grabbers say that we are stupid, crazy, and/or corrupt. They go that route hoping to discredit us before we even open our mouths. It shows how weak and lazy they are.

    • “New York style deli. I don’t see why they’d advertise that selling point.” Hank Hill.

  5. Anyone notice the anti-rights hate group crowd is just getting nastier since they are losing the war, especially with younger people not buying into their nonsense as much as the older generations do.

    • I have definitely noticed it.

      As for why they get nastier? Well first of all, they have no other strategy since they have no facts. More importantly, they are hoping to shame and/or scare us into compliance.

      In case anyone hasn’t figured it out yet, the “scare” aspect means they claim that we are on the fringe and will lose lots of friends because of it — unless we stop clinging to our firearms and jump over to their side.

    • Andy has always been an angry, bitter hack.

      And I’m not saying that because I disagree with his politics. I do disagree on this issue, but on many other things we are on the same page. I’m also no Pollyanna when it comes to dark, sarcastic humor.

      But his delivery has been hostile, smug and insultingly sarcastic for as long as I’ve been seeing his stuff in various publications.

      We get it Andy. You’re angry and you know how to type.

      • Robert,
        I know you and Dan are Jewish, but don’t you think it is offensive to make fun of Mr. Borowit’s nose? Surely you aren’t kidding yourself in subtly insinuating that Mr. Borowitz is Jewish – therefore left wing. Pretty ain’t-Semitic, to stoop to that level to discount his views, especially considering your background. Every religion, race, creed has left and right leaning people. Don’t make fun of your own kind. Ugly.

        • Easy there Janet. They were commenting on his BROKEN nose which they surmise may be a result of his sticking it in other peoples business. I has nothing to do with its size, location, or function.

        • OR perhaps RF, as someone who leans libertarian, sees nothing inherently racist or anti-semitic in making fun of a guy’s nose, just because he happens to be Jewish, if being Jewish isn’t WHY you’re doing it. A libertarian thinks no one should be immune from humor just because of ethnicity. RF didn’t exactly suggest bringing out the old Nazi nose measuring device or link to a Goebbels propaganda film depicting Jews as vermin, so…chill. I don’t care if he’s Irish (like me); dude’s prodigious proboscis is funny. And when you run around willy-nilly calling other people fools, especially without scientific citations, a little name-calling returned in your direction is just fair turn-about.

      • just an observation RF, the Pope and members of Catholic Church and their religion are all fair game too.

        • You’re certainly entitled to your beliefs (so to speak), but methinks your hostility towards religion has very little to do with the (inaccurate) statement that religious people are, in general, anti-gun.

          But it’s sad to see how being a believer went from a “good thing” to a “bad thing” in the last couple of decades. I don’t have any objection to gay marriage, etc. but I am very sad that the pro-gay movement seems to have felt the need to poison many of their fellow Americans (and especially the media) towards religion. I just hope misguided 2A supporters don’t start trashing religion as well based on inaccurate information.

        • organized atheists are doing quite well taking away the civil rights of people

      • Source? It seems to me that the majority of gun grabbers are liberal atheists who have replaced religious belief with political correctness (violation of which is the unpardonable sin).

        • Liberals? Sure. Atheists? Really? Where’s your source for that? Last time I checked the majority of idiot politicians in my state are both liberal and religious. They gladly take your rights away with one hand on a ‘holy’ book (pick your poison as to which one). If they’re atheists, they’re sure hiding it well.

        • “Liberation Theology”??? I’m a lifelong practicing Catholic and have never heard the words “liberation theology” mentioned in Mass, in Cathecism, etc. by either clergy or parishoners.

          You sound like one of those atheists / religion-haters who believe themselves to be experts on the religions they attack but can’t even get basic facts straight.

          Please feel free to keep attacking my beliefs — I just ask that do your homework about the people, organizations, and beliefs that you so despise.

          P.S. Googling and copy/pasting from atheist forums is not “research”

        • Wait a minute Indiana Tom. You probably need to remember that this country was founded on the fact that the founders were attempting to flee religious persecution in England and elsewhere. Their beliefs were attacked. They also became strong in their belief that their religious freedoms would come under attack again if they did not adopt a constitution allowing them to arm themselves against anyone who would again try to take away their freedoms whether they be religious, happiness, liberty, or life, allow them the freedom to speak out against tyranny and worship God in public (which is under attack by liberals, and, it appears, by you), allow them equal rights with the social and financial elite (which is also under attack today).

          Statements like you have made here would lead one to believe that you have “jumped on the bandwagon” of gun rights and have a total disregard for the other rights we are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. If you don’t accept it all, then you are just as bad as Obama and Company who want to pick and choose which rights to “allow” you to exercise.

          I am Catholic, just like my Irish and English forefathers who came here to escape tyranny. I believe in the Second Amendment and my right to protect my other rights with arms, especially my right to live. I also believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech (even though you have insulted me to no end by exercising it), and all of the other freedoms our founders knew would be important if this country were to survive more than a few years.

        • David says:
          July 1, 2015 at 06:39
          “Liberation Theology”??? I’m a lifelong practicing Catholic and have never heard the words “liberation theology” mentioned in Mass, in Cathecism, etc. by either clergy or parishoners.
          You sound like one of those atheists / religion-haters who believe themselves to be experts on the religions they attack but can’t even get basic facts straight.
          Liberation theology has it roots in Latin American Roman Catholicism. Its rise is seen as a response to widespread poverty and the mistreatment of large segments of Latin American society. An influential book promoting liberation theology is Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez’s A Theology of Liberation Liberation theologians also use Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:34 to promote the idea that the church should be involved in activism
          Critics of liberation theology associate it with Marxism and see it as a religious form of failed socialist policies. Vatican officials, including several popes, have spoken against liberation theology. The reasons for Catholic opposition involve liberation theology’s emphasis on practice over doctrine and their rejection of church hierarchical structure—liberation theology advocates “base communities” that meet outside the confines of the church, effectively bypassing Catholic clergy.

      • Ralph, you sure about that? The anti 2nd Amendment crusade reads like a who’s who in the Jewish community. Sounds like Alex Jones fantasy nonsense where he claims that Arabs run Hollywood.

  6. Well Andy… is this article a segway to dating the ladies? Being that you cite other countries, perhaps you would like to move there. Please report joyfully how smart people live.

    Hey new idea, people of the gun sell one of their guns, providing one way passage (no right of return) to the gun control country of their choice…come on step right up, get your ticket here…Gun control utopia…get your ticket.

    • Your first sentence may be onto something. Long ago, when I was in undergrad, I got plenty of action as a very average-looking guy, just by pretending to be liberal and passionate about whatever their cause du jour was. If that’s his goal, it ain’t a bad strategy. Conservative women aren’t that stupid.

  7. These anti-gunners operate on a different set of assumptions than we do. And from a position of smug, unearned, self-conferred moral superiority.

    • No…the operate in the vacuum of freedom by the sacrifice of others.
      And they are willing to sacrifice our liberties on a flawed logic.

  8. ‘Of the many obvious things that people are sick and tired of trying to get through the skulls of stupid people, the fact that climate change will cause catastrophic habitat destruction and devastating extinctions tops the list, with a majority saying that they will no longer bother trying to explain this to cretins.’

    If he were as smart as he thinks he is he’d know that before man came along atmospheric carbon dioxide was at it’s lowest level since complex multi-cellular life appeared on earth (~600MYA). He’d also know that all life on earth depends on the existence of a sufficient amount of the trace atmospheric gas. He’d understand the carbon cycle and understand that (within reason) the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the more life on earth. That plants grow faster and produce more food with more CO2. That trees grow faster and larger, even the redwoods. He’d also know that the Holocene is just the current interglacial period of the current ice age, and that the glaciers are going to come back (not in our lifetime, but soon) and bury most of North America under a mile thick ice sheet.

    Of course he knows that the ‘really smart’ politicians have computer models that say the earth is going to warm up by 12 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, and if that happens Greenland will melt in about 3000 years or so and then sea level will rise 27 feet. Perhaps then Greenland can once again be a forest like it was a half a million years ago.

    Perhaps the reason why he doesn’t want to explain anthropogenic global warming to cretins like me is that he doesn’t know the first thing about the subject.

    • Climate change segway into Gun control. WIDE REACH landing just a little outside the logic tree.

      • Well, all the socially acceptable smart people have the same opinions on anthropogenic global warming and gun control.

    • I won’t explain it to you, but I know a good resource on youtube that’s very good for High-school students. If you have any objections to the science presented, please provide citations why you think they are incorrect. The author may be wrong on gun control, but not so much on the global warming issue.

      • My issue with AGW isn’t that I deny it’s existence, but I question the assumption that it’s a bad thing. In the video the narrator mentions ‘the last ice age’ which is incorrect. We are living in the Holocene interglacial period of the Pleistocene ice age. The glaciers are coming back. If atmospheric CO2 is THE driving force in the earth’s climate than the lack of it is THE reason we’re in an ice age in the first place. CO2 levels had been steadily dropping for 650 million years by the sequestration of carbon in the processes that created oil and coal. Before man came along CO2 was at it’s lowest level since complex multi-cellular live appeared on the planet. When you consider that current levels are still less than 400ppm and most of life that has existed on earth existed with many times that amount, is it really such a bad thing that we’re restoring some of that carbon to the atmosphere? Add to that the fact that plants grow faster and produce more food with more CO2 and I’d argue that it’s a good thing.

        Another point to question is whether the climate fluctuations (even the disastrous predictions) are anything unusual. Most of the Greenland Ice Sheet is only 125,000 years old because most of it melted in the last interglacial period (before man made carbon emissions). For a while Greenland was losing 50 cubic miles of ice, which sounds like a lot until you realize the ice sheet is 680,000 cubic miles. In other words, we have a LOT of warming yet in store just to equal the last interglacial period. In fact the last 4 interglacial periods were much warmer than today.

        • CO2 is not the driver of climate change, it is just one factor, the other being insolation. The problem, of course, is the massive increase in CO2 output is changing temperatures and as for it being a bad thing, yes it’s quite bad. Acidification of oceans is one of the symptoms of AGW, so is decreased crop yield in certain parts of the planet, along with the massive economic expense that will come in the future. It’s not that global warming is going to end the planet, but it will make it very expensive in the future, with some communities being devastated by it. It is very much a bad thing for us to dump so much CO2 in the atmosphere that we raise global temperatures at this rate. Please finish watching that series if you have the time. The guy still checks his comments and messages, so feel free to ask questions too and do your own research. You might find that a little knowledge goes a long way.

        • So how did life flourish with CO2 levels 10 or 15 times present levels? Wouldn’t the oceans be too acidic to support life?

          This is the heart of my ‘nothing to worry about’ argument, 200ppm was barely enough carbon to sustain life on earth. 1000ppm will support much more life than 200ppm. More plants = more food = more animals.

        • By the way, solar output is supposed to increase by 10% every billion years, yet here we are in an ice age.

        • Nobody says life ends because of CO2. The main issue is that it makes it hard for humans and other species. Of course, life will live on, and even if conditions became so harsh that all human life went extinct, life would still flourish, it just won’t be life that matters to you or me.

        • Nothing is as harsh as 5000 foot deep sheets of ice covering half the planet.

      • Drinking the Cool aid , I guess it could be from all the hot gasses from the muzzles of all the guns killing all those innocent Merikans .

      • I usually listen to Rush on my lunch break. I think he’s spot on from the political standpoint on global warming. But there is a grain of truth to it. It’s just they’re making an evil mountain out of a benevolent molehill. Most of the people making all the dire warnings aren’t scientists, they’re media hacks or politicians. Al Gore thinks the middle of the earth is ‘millyuns of duhgrees’. And some people actually want to hear his ‘science’ opinions.

        • Just a side note: In medieval times the earth was much warmer – wine was produced in England, and the Danes landed a colony on Greenland. The “mini” ice ages of the Renaissance period chilled things considerably, there were reports that the Thames froze over regularly, which had never happened before. Wolves roamed the streets of Paris during a frozen winter. We are only just climbing out of that little spell of frostbite.

          On the religious question – the reason Christianity has consistenly held back from endorsing a wholehearted acceptance of armed self defense is two fold: (a) the concept frightened Church leaders who were part of and frantic to maintain acceptance from the leaderships of the time; and (b) most Bibles mistranslated the 6th Commandment as “Thou shalt not kill”, when the ancient Hebrew word used was “ratshahh” (murder), not “harag” (kill). The reason most Christian exhortations make little sense is that people don’t bother to actually read the Bible (both Testaments). Find out for yourself.

          So it’s morally OK to defend yourself with weapons. The 1689 Bill of Rights allowed citizens to “have arms suitable to their condition, as allowed by law.” In other words, there was expected to be legal control over weaponry, but the right to have weapons was unarguable.

          Until crime can be totally prevented (and how scary will THAT society be?), there is an inherent right for all compos mentis citizens to possess arms for their self preservation. That is neither ill informed nor mentally challenged. Those labels seem to fit the alleged comic much better.

  9. We really need to start pushing back against the term “gun deaths.” Like the term “assault weapon” It’s a rhetorical strategy used by insincere people to manipulate the argument.

    We should hit the comments section with a terms like “death by violence” every time the term “gun deaths” is used in an article to demonstrate that violence is the problem and not guns.

  10. Little Andy and little Jimmy from Australia are very funny boys. They are also ever so clever. The thing is, even if you dress up lies, propaganda and hate speech as comedy, it is still lies, propaganda and hate speech.

  11. I just don’t have the time for these brain-dead, animalistic, hate-mongering shitstains anymore… It’s like debating a cockroach that wants to give you the finger but can’t…

    • “It’s like debating a cockroach that wants to give you the finger but can’t…”

      A roach’s middle finger is when they just stand there, waving their little antenna at you…

  12. That Australian comic on Thursday….Barack Obama on Friday … now Andy Horowitz….Please, we surrender! Take the damn guns already.

  13. Yes, please explain to that “dolt” Rachel Maddow how she is too stupid, uneducated, and conservative to own that Glock handgun.

  14. So tell me Mr. Borowitz: do your “statistics” include the 100 to 200 million murder victims who government agents executed with firearms in the last 100 years? …….. (crickets) …….. I didn’t think so.

  15. It’s like saying eliminating cars would reduce car accidents. True, but irrelevant. Eliminating cars is not an option, and eliminating guns isn’t either.

    • Thomas Sowell, a Harvard graduate, has commented that the main benefit of a Harvard degree is not having to be impressed by people with Harvard degrees. It’s a benefit of reading people like Thomas Sowell also.

  16. I understand that swallowing camels and straining at gnats is a required course at “Hahverd”.

  17. I’ve often wondered whatever happened to Jackson Browne’s haircut.

  18. Sorry I don’t just think what superior intellects tell me to think. It’s horrible, I’m full of shame. Please don’t forgive me, I’m unworthy.

  19. Typical liberal elitists. You don’t believe what they believe in , you are a moron. Don’t confuse them with facts. Feelings is all that matters to them.

  20. Why, of course he’s pro gun control…until something happens to him and he won’t be able to obtain one. His profession is not the safest. Late nights, pandering to drunken louts. I’d like to say I hope I’m wrong but I don’t.

  21. Fascist Gun nuts are only a minority in this country and only one in three own Firearms but of those 1 in 3 what percentage live like Cowards and need an AR15 with 300 rounds to go out for a Burger or check the damn mailbox! And these idiots especially the ones on this website think they are Freedom loving patriots by living in constant fear!

    I don’t needed a Gun with Me! Unlike like you terrorists I don’t live in constant Fear!

    You incestuous pigs called gun owners so afraid of everything. they live out in the country\sticks, they’re mostly anti social so they really don’t interact with people\criminals much. I don’t get their fear. I think maybe they’re weak minded and have been led around by the fascist gun lobby and the tyrannical NRA who instill fear and suggest gun ownership. or maybe it’s like guys who feel they’re inadequate so they buy things to bolster their confidence or maybe their lack of size.

    The role of the Fascist NRA is to insure that as many guns as possible are sold in the USA. Period. End of Story. If everyone bought 3 guns for Xmas presents, the NRA would be momentarily pleased…and the next year suggest 4 more. That is all the NRA is…a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers. 2nd Amendment
    pretty sure the NRA is a L O B B Y I N G Non Profit with 14 Gun Manufacturer clients. At least this is what public records in Washington D.C. reveal. As such, their job as I stated very clearly is to ” insure that as many guns as possible are sold in the USA….:” Can you understand that gun-nuts?

    Fact: Gun owners injure or kill themselves or family members much more often than they prevent a crime.

    • This morning a woman 5 blocks from my house was a victim of an armed home invasion. Fortunately she was just beat up and had her property stolen. I’m not the least bit afraid of the two felons who are still on the loose, because I’m armed. I think contrary to your argument it’s the unarmed that are afraid. Or at least they should be.

    • “Fact: Gun owners injure or kill themselves or family members much more often than they prevent a crime.”

      Hey, little Willie,

      If gun owners injure or kill themselves or family members, why are you complaining?

      The result of all those dead gun owners will be… wait for it… less gun owners!

      You do want less gun owners, don’t you?

      Just let nature run its course…


    • I don’t needed a Gun with Me! Unlike like you terrorists I don’t live in constant Fear. Just think of yourself as a model for EVOLUTION IN ACTION.

    • , they’re mostly anti social so they really don’t interact with criminals much.
      Birds of a feather flock together.

    • His writing reminds me of a cartoon character jumping up and down with excitement while talking.

      Also, random use of title case capitalization does not make one’s message any more emphatic or valid.

    • “I don’t needed a Gun with Me! Unlike like you terrorists I don’t live in constant Fear!”

      You don’t need a gun until you need one. Then it will be far to late to obtain one or summon the police.

    • “Fact: Gun owners injure or kill themselves or family members much more often than they prevent a crime.”

      Then what are you complaining about? You just referred to gun owners as “terrorists” and “incestuous pigs”. You, if you were a teller of truths, would be glad that “terrorists” and “incestuous pigs” were killing themselves and their families off, instead of warning us to get rid of our guns. That means you are a liar.

  22. Apparently he is tired of attempting false arguments and has resorted to name calling because that is easier.

    • What name like the one you trailer-park trash continue to do and at the same time suppress the right to free speech while defending your outdated right to murder, terrorize and oppress the civilized america and the world with our outdated fascist “2nd Amendment”?

      The Fascist NRA, the terrorist propaganda website TTAG by way of the 2nd Amendment etc. is set on entrenching guns more firmly in the American Psyche. That 12,000 plus Americans were murdered by guns in 2014 and that roughly 50 a day are murdered by guns means NOTHING to the NRA and TTAG. If the number were 500 a day with mass shootings every day of the week…the NRA and TTAG would simply state: “what is needed is more guns”. Guns guns guns….the problem is G U N S you meth-head morons….it is NOT the solution……

      Left out is the Fact that Red Gun Nut States have the highest rate of Gun deaths per 100,000! Alaska is the worst at 19 per 100,000! States with the most gun laws like NY, IL, CA, DC, CT, NJ, have the lowest rate of gun deaths!

      I’m looking at the facts right now! Alaska is #1 in Gun death per 100,000! Other states with high gun death rates are AL FL GA TN OK AZ LA AK NM SC…..all are 13-18 per 100,000 States with the lowest per 100,000 are IL NY, CA, IL, DC, NJ, CT only 3 -8 per 100,000

      Death rates are death rates! And Gun Nut state are dying at a much higher rate!

      Funny in Civilized countries like european union, australia and japan the citizens feel safe walking around unarmed! They also don’t have bunkers stocked with beans, oats and moonshine!

      • As Archie Bunker once said, ‘would it make you fell better if they was pushed out of windows?’

      • Blah blah Fascist. Blah blah Terrorist. Blah blah Pigs.

        Come back when you learn to troll. Clearly your mommy and daddy’s tuition money and/or tax payer funded liberal arts education has ill prepared you for life on the internet or outside your parents basement.

      • You forgot about the Illumineers and the the BurgerBuilders and their glomulus agenda, using the Fascist NRA, HIPA, ASPCA and NASCAR to de-green all the currencys and turn all the ovens on an warm up the planet.
        WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

      • Willy, willy, willy…. the only fascist here is you. You blame the repressed for your crimes and expect us to accept it.

        Eat sh*t, bark at the moon and die you fascist phuck.

      • I’m glad you took a second bite at the apple. This one was a much better effort. The fascist angle works better than the incestuous pig angle, I think. And, nice job with the cherry-picked, misleading stats. The facade of real data was refreshing.

      • Do you own an automobile ? I sure hope not , that would make you a hypocrite . Do you know how many people are killed by electricity every year ? Turn off your lights and hand over your car keys Willy and go back to beddy by .

  23. Could someone ‘spain to this dooood that Vikings settled Greenland and lived pretty well for hundreds of years-before all of our man-made carbon crap-until the “Little Ice Age” around 1350…and it lasted until about 1815. Anyone see the Reynolds paintings of ice-skating on the Thames? “Winter festivals” for hundreds of years.Because it was COLD… That’s why America was settled -to get out of freezing Europe. Being of a certain age(over60) I vividly remember the horrible arctic winters of the 1970’s-only THEN the headlines were “The New Ice-Age”)…and the gun thing is covered pretty well…”professing themselves to be wise they became FOOLS”…

    • Watch out, there’s talk we might be heading into a new Maunder Minimum.

      • Our ‘miracle” planet(92-93million miles from the sun,the very large moon to stabilize it’s orbit,23 and a half degree tilt,protected by the gas giants and having properties no other known planets in the UNIVERSE have would point to a maker. So why is Mars hotter as of late? Our tiny probe? I believe we puny humans have very little effect on this world…and GOD controls solar energy and radiation. We are already in a Maunder Minimum….but Al gore and his ilk can’t make any $ off that…

  24. I find it more than hilarious this tool uses both climate change and gun control to make a point about “settled science” and the intellectual level of those that dare challenge the narrative.

    The scientific assertions made by the left on either topic barely meet the definition of science, and since they continue to either manipulate or fabricate data to meet their stated agenda, one could hardly call it settled.

    But keep on believing there Andy. Because you know when you are listening to folks like the Vatican’s chief “climate adviser” who is also a well know holocaust denier, you know they are pillars of the scientific community and firmly based in reality.

    • Ha! Settled science…like trotting out an extinct ape every few months to “prove” the chimp brained critter is man’s direct ancestor? Pretty sure some chimps and bonobos use tools and rocks NOW. I saw some science channel bonobo story-as in “they’ve been on these same banks for a million and a half years”. So why haven’t they evolved? AT ALL? I guess they are too busy having sex 90% of the time…and I think we’ve all seen Humanzee walking perfectly upright…

  25. What is it with (university educated) leftist, secular humanist, American Jews and suicidal ideas like gun (independence/freedom) control.

  26. “Coming in a close second, statistical proof that gun control has reduced gun deaths in countries around the world is something that a significant number of those polled have given up attempting to break down for morons.”

    Why does it never occur to these geniuses that guns are not the only implements of violence? And why don’t these geniuses never cite their numbers, methodologies and assumptions?

    A couple days ago, I finally decided to run some numbers to see what kind of correlation, if any, exists between civilian gun ownership and crime. To this end, I’ve calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for rates of civilian gun ownership per state vs. crime rate. The data I’ve used was the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey of 2001 and the FBI Uniform Crime Report for the same year. Only data for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia is used. The rationale for using this particular data set is as follows:

    – Comparing crime rates across countries is inherently suspect. Different criminal codes, different methods of collection, not to mention the fact that some nations are flagrantly cooking their books. By limiting my data to the United States I can be reasonably comfortable that my working set is at least consistent.

    – 2001 is the only year for which data is available for both the crime rate and the gun ownership rate. I do not believe it is reasonable to draw meaningful conclusions from data across different years.

    – The data is freely available, thus interested third parties can readily double-check my math.

    Before we begin, there’s a critically important fact to remember:


    The straight results:

    Violent crime: -0.41
    Property crime: -0.21

    Murder and manslaughter: -0.31
    Rape: 0.14
    Robbery: -0.57
    Aggravated assault: -0.30
    Burglary: -0.06

    There was one thing I wanted to do, however, and that was to recalculate the results while excluding DC. It appeared to be an outlier with a gun ownership rate half as much as the next lowest at 3.8% vs. Hawaii at 8.7%, while being an absolute cesspit of crime with a violent crime rate of 1736.7 per 100K being over twice as high as the next highest of 797 per 100K in Florida. So the following are the results excluding Washington DC.

    Violent crime: -0.26
    Property crime: -0.10

    Murder and manslaughter: -0.02
    Rape: 0.15
    Robbery: -0.52
    Aggravated assault: -0.13
    Burglary: -0.03

    Additionally, I’ve also recalculated the numbers while also excluding HI and AK since these are extremely isolated territories. So the following are the results for just the lower 48 states.

    Violent crime: -0.36
    Property crime: -0.02

    Murder and manslaughter: -0.08
    Rape: 0.03
    Robbery: -0.57
    Aggravated assault: -0.24
    Burglary: 0.03

    I do not want to hear another damn-fool tell me how less guns will make us safer. Gun ownership rate by itself is completely irrelevant to the homicide rate, and negative where violent crime in general is concerned. So if you think that “assault weapon” bans, or magazine capacity limits, or any of this jazz will have one iota of positive impact, you’re either ignorant, stupid, or you have an agenda unrelated to reducing crime or improving safety.

    I do not believe that the evidence that more guns by themselves will reduce violent crime is compelling. Furthermore, I suspect more guns by themselves will have no measurable effect on property crime in general. The one instance where I think “More guns, less crime!” may have some validity is where robbery is concerned. Everywhere else the correlation it too weak.

    For anyone interested, feel free to play with the data:

  27. Many Americans are tired of explaining things to idiots, particularly when the things in question are so painfully obvious, a new poll indicates.
    At least he might have gotten that part right.

  28. Does this clown have a licence for that nose?! If that goes off (you know like guns just go off by themselves) …think of the children!!! Yes. This is a personal insult. Just like he insulted me.

  29. What is an Andy Borowitz and why should we care what she has to say about anything. Her opening line of the article is elitism at its worst so why should I keep reading?

  30. “….they will no longer bother trying to explain this to cretins.”

    That is the usual response when you can’t win a conversation with facts, or silence dissent. One can on take so much refutation from cretins.

  31. Who cares what he thinks. You want gun control them amend the Constitution.

    Best of luck.

  32. I remember this guy from the 1990s. I’d forgotten he existed since then, though.

    He schtick always struck me as class clown trying too hard to be funny, but who occasionally, perhaps accidentally, did come up with something humorous.

    Is he trying to transition to serious satirist now?

  33. what is the motive for this Poor article, money? power? glory? being a person of whatever religion is immaterial to this discussion!
    Just another wanna be something! look at me I special because why? not an original thought in his head but he can babble about anything he wants and it doesn’t have too be true, Sue him make his BS bite him in his Ass
    if that doesn’t work Public castigation, etc.
    Career is failing so needs attention by being a Putz!

  34. I’m so sick of telling anti’s it’s a natural right to own a gun that I don’t bother anymore.

    Anyway, the schnoz on this schmuck is epic.

Comments are closed.