In the wake of gun control comments by Bob Costas, here is the greatest radio personality of our generation explaining the real problem:
He’s damned good. This is genius.
But by all means, keep telling yourself he’s a boob, and his followers are mindless sycophants.
You might also like:
- The New York Times Magazine on Rush Limbaugh
The New York Times Magazine just published an engaging profile of Rush Limbaugh. Check it out. I don… - How to make your penis cost you $200 million
I was going to stop at beating up on Tiger Woods a bit with a bullet, but that was before the ranks … - To all people supporting Donald Trump for president
Please stop now. Walk away. I know he’s saying some things that need to be said. That is not enough … - Technology’s insidious cerebral assault
Our longtime friend Alex is an architect. As systematic as he is, he may be better suited to his occ… - “All brain, no penis…”
Real Genius should make more “best of” lists from the ’80s than it does. Val Kilmer had a tremendous…
I’m generally not a fan of Rush, and I’m sure that’s not a surprise. I honestly think it’s more I have a hard time parsing his sarcasm and satire, and sometimes I feel his presentation isn’t quite appropriate, because sometimes people take what he says as actual truth/fact instead of understanding it’s sarcasm/satire.
But in this case, I do agree with him in this case. Domestic violence will occur with or without guns. People will get killed with or without guns. Go look at the police blotter. Most of the domestic violence cases don’t involve guns, instead it’s usually fists, blunt objects, or knives. People still end up in the hospital, and people end up dead.
What surprises me lately is all of these public place shootings, a la Dark Knight Movie theater and mall in Oregon yesterday, where there’s only one person doing the shooting. Everyone who’s pro-gun touts their right so they can protect themselves, yet some how these shootings always tend to occur when not a single person is carrying for self defense.
Now I’m not condoning that there be a big shoot out between some nut and the everyday consumer in those situations… because I’m not sure that wouldn’t make it worse. But it seems like at some point there would’ve been someone who was there from the start who could’ve shortened the shooting spree. I would help said person was well educated in the use of their weapon and took all precautions to prevent non-bad-guys from getting caught in crossfire.
The biggest thing I worry about with “fighting back” is when the cops show up they don’t know how to identify who’s the bad guy and who’s the vigilante-self-defense-person.
It’s a bit of a conundrum but I don’t think getting rid of guns is the solution. Time has shown that if you ban something, be it alcohol, weed, etc. that people who already fall into the world of crime will possess them and likely make a huge profit off of them. All the rest of us law abiding citizens will end up as defenseless sheep.
Sorry for any poor wording. I didn’t really write all of that in one sitting. I’m not the best self-editor.
Tahm, no worries re: wording etc. I understand.
I agree with your comment regarding whether people take Rush Limbaugh’s satire seriously, but in a fairly specific way. I think his regular audience is, by and large, highly intelligent and gets him. I think his critics get off in the weeds swallowing some stuff as literal that they shouldn’t, and just generally not getting where he’s coming from.
Rush is a very smart guy, and his show reflects that. In my experience, it’s not even one detractor of his in ten who demonstrates even passing familiarity with his show.
And for the record, I think it’s a shame that there’s so much social static about carrying a firearm. I don’t think a thing of it except “good for him” or “good for her” when I see someone carrying, and I’m teaching my kids to think the same thing. Carrying a gun ought not be any more controversial than carrying a pocket knife or a handkerchief.
There have been several incidents where a carrier has stopped a bloodbath before it happened. Because it wasn’t a bloodbath and sensational TV there was not much airtime. These freaks that want to do this also choose gunfree zones like malls so they don’t meet resistance.
“The biggest thing I worry about with “fighting back” is when the cops show up they don’t know how to identify who’s the bad guy and who’s the vigilante-self-defense-person.”
Tahm, to a degree, I do as well. And I say this as someone who has a CCW permit and carries it daily.
Shoot/don’t shoot scenarios are something that you have to decide on a split-second basis, and I don’t envy anyone in that position. I often wonder myself how I would make that decision. It was the subject of deep, thoughtful discussion in every class I’ve taken, with the legal ramifications spelled out in no uncertain terms.
You have to hope the district/commonwealth’s attorney can see who the bad guy was based on the cop’s report. You have to hope your reasons for drawing that weapon make sense in their head. You have to hope that your firing that gun was worth any of the legal fallout that comes down on you, whether it’s losing your weapon, facing charges, facing civil lawsuits from the perp or any innocent bystander unlucky enough to be caught in the crossfire, etc.
If it’s my life or some innocent person’s vs. some mental misfit waving an assault rifle, I’ll worry about the lawyers afterward.