Ammo For Sale

« « ATF Funnies | Home | Bloomberg summit round-up – 3 » »

The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Ownership Blog

Via bitter, the Brady Bunch doesn’t seem to like Glenn Reynolds:

These sobering statistics came back to me when I read Glenn Reynolds’ disturbing op-ed encouraging government mandates that people have guns in their homes. I was angry and alarmed that some might take these proposals, and the flawed statistics on which they rely, seriously.

Flawed statistics? Have you read your own material?

By the way, The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Ownership Blog is now allowing comments. So far, all the comments come from pro-gunners.

14 Responses to “The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Ownership Blog”

  1. Standard Mischief Says:

    Now allowing comments? Are they nuts? Their particular propaganda strategy requires endless repeats of the same damn lies until people take their claims as truth. Letting in dissent from just anyone with a browser would ruin their standard mischief. It can’t last. I’ll give it 48 hours, tops, until they put some kind of moderation in place.

  2. The Brady Blog, now with comments at Standard Mischief Says:

    […] Say Uncle tips me off to the The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Ownership Blog. It seems that they are accepting comments without moderation. What they (The Brady Campaign) haven’t figured out yet is that their particular brand of propaganda strategy requires endless repeats of the same damn lies until people take their claims as truth. Letting in dissent from just anyone with a browser would ruin the effect. It can’t last. I’ll give it 48 hours, tops, until they put some kind of moderation in place. […]

  3. Jack Says:

    Love the way that the asshole is shooting himself in the foot. Jack.

  4. Rustmeister Says:

    He’s hoping some of the more rabid pro-gunners give him ammunition (pun intended) to reinforce his views.

  5. Jack Says:

    I’ll probably leave a comment there each day. Factual, not nasty. Maybe just a little bit sarcastic. Jack.

  6. Dave thA Says:

    Maybe we should all go to the site and Donate.

    Remembering that the per transaction fee is generally $0.20 to $0.30 for card-present transactions and $0.30 to $0.50 for card-absent transactions.

    I think a donation of 1c would be sufficient, yielding the Brady Bunch about a minus quarter each time.

    I might even make it a weekly donation…

  7. Captain Holly Says:

    Uncle, based on the comments at their page I’d say you and Bitter sent more traffic their way in one day than they get in a month. Stop helping them!

    Either that, or the gun grabbers who read that site are incapable of making a single decent rebuttal to any of the commenters.

  8. tgirsch Says:

    Now allowing comments? Are they nuts?

    Crazy like a fox, maybe. To a great many in the middle, “gun nuts” come across as, well, nuts. Allowing them to speak for themselves more often than not only feeds that stereotype far more effectively than the Bradies could do on their own.

  9. SayUncle Says:

    yeah, i was cool with the comments until someone started talking treason. that just doesn’t win many converts.

  10. Standard Mischief Says:

    Uncle, based on the comments at their page I’d say you and Bitter sent more traffic their way in one day than they get in a month. Stop helping them!

    Sending them traffic mostly consisting of the us pro-freedom types does them nothing. There isn’t even any ads that they run that we might accdently click on to earn them some scratch.

    The most we do is burn a bit of their bandwidth, and cost them a few pennies.

  11. Rivrdog Says:

    Torpedo in the water. Running hot and true. Comment #19 at the Brady Blog post you link to.

  12. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Seems their blog has been allowing comments for some time actually. I share the same concern–the “damn you pinko socialist traitors” line of argument just makes us sound a bit…phobic and detached.

    We win on the facts. Let’s keep it focused there.

  13. beerslurpy Says:

    I put my two cents in. Which reminds me, I should pay my respects to Mr Kleck while I am here.

  14. beerslurpy Says:

    Pretty much everyone in sociology and criminology has switched from being anti-gun to being either neutral or pro-gun. This is because all the evidence points to privately owned guns being an equally or more significant deterrent to crime than the entire criminal justice system (Kleck, Social Problems Vol 35 No 1, 1998). A lot more people would be on board with the Bradys if your agenda wasnt so at odds with the truth.

    The only researchers that remain on the side of the anti-gunners are being funded by the Joyce Foundation, Soros and their subsidiaries. And so far they have produced nothing but a series of easily rebutted lies backed by cherry picked data and statistical trickery. Like using absolute crime figures in a region with an increasing population, while completely ignoring all the gun-banning jurisdictions that have been rewarded with skyrocketing crime.

    Unfortuantely for your organization, most legislators want to serve their constituents and they want to solve problems. Your agenda wont produce the results they want. Your agenda, when implemented, makes crime far worse than before. That a woman is raped at knifepoint instead of at gunpoint is of little consolation when you consider that she might not have been raped had the rapist been afraid of encountering an armed victim.

    Ending private ownership of firearms only clears the way for unopposed coercive mischief, whether it be from a criminal underclass or from an overreaching government. I dont honestly beleive you are too naive to be aware of this so I have to know what your end goal is, once you have disarmed us.