So Much Stupid

So little time.

Every time I think I've seen the pinnacle of stupid, some other idjit goes and ups the ante. Take this for instance. I found it via Tam, and I'm completely amazed as to its content. The author of this piece didn't take the time to mention where it came from. Lucky for me my google-Fu was up to the task. It appears to be an attempt at a Fisking of this post at A Human Right.

What it turns out to be, however, is a mess. I've copied the format, the red text is the "fisking":

Yet much of the effort by the perpetrators of gun control has been to deny the rest of us safe, effective and well-designed guns.

Actually much of the effort has been to keep guns and weapons that are considered "too dangerous" off the streets. Things like rocket launchers, grenades and other items usable by terrorists. Besides, who carries a grenade or an automatic sub-machinegun like a Mac 10 around for self-defense?

Pardon me, but where in the hell do you see any mention of grenades, rocket launchers and submachine guns? Talking about blowing things out of proportion. If you're going to argue a point, at least get in the same ballpark.

The other target of the prohibitionists are the magazines. A standard magazine for a small or medium caliber rifle is thirty rounds. In 1994 such a magazine cost $15 and worked reliably. A standard magazine for a handgun held about fifteen rounds and cost $20.

The reasoning for this was simple: Magazine clips that contain 10 bullets are more useful to people who carry automatic weapons (which are illegal in most states). You just hold down the trigger and the handgun keeps firing, a bit like a machine gun, which means the criminal in question has the ability to fire many rounds at a police officer quickly and easily, and is more likely to hit the target as a result. Thanks to the 10 bullet limit the person runs out of bullets a lot faster. Since that law has been in place officers in many American states have seen a dramatic drop in the death of police officers due to automatic weapons.

This paragraph alone has so many glaring inaccuracies it deserves a post unto itself. Instead, I'll provide a bulleted list:

• Automatic weapons are not illegal in most states. They are tightly regulated by the National Firearms Act.
• A fully automatic handgun is a rare item. When a handgun is called an "automatic", they are in fact talking about a semi-automatic handgun, which is commonplace.
• Officer deaths due to automatic weapons? I'd bet the number is quite low. The last time I remember automatic weapons being used against officers was in 1997, during the North Hollywood Shootout, and no officers were killed in that attack. I would ask you to provide a number, but seeing as you can't even link the article you're commenting on, I guess any relevant stats are out of the question.
• What's a magazine clip, anyway?

Now, here's a point pulled out of thin air:

The crippled ten-round versions had to be produced in a way that makes restoring them to standard capacity impossible. Those changes made ten-round magazines less reliable. In 2004, that ill-intentioned law sunset, but several states implemented even more restrictive versions of their own.

Those changes were only less reliable for people using automatic weapons. The new magazines were designed specifically to jam up frequently when used in an automatic gun.

You have got to be kidding me. Where, oh where did you come up with that? Did it pop into your head and sound good enough to put in print? It must have, because that's the only place you'll find that idea.

There's more (a lot more), but like I said, I'm in a time crunch right now.

Maybe more later.