Monday, January 15, 2007

Somebody Fisk This Moron

I don't have time today.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wrote a brief reply in the comments section, I will do a more complete fisking this evening (unless someone beats me to it).

E. David Quammen said...

Thoroughly thrashed him as well....

Anonymous said...

Fisked him, as well as allusions to his supposed manhood. David, over at KABA they are covering Fincher, albeit belatedly, and the commentors are coming off as well, slightly hysterical, you know, this is another Waco, Constitution Dead, to arms, to arms. Well maybe the Constitution IS dead. But is it just me, or has that place gotten kind of stale, or country clubish or what? They were off air for about the first four days of the year, and they have about half the postings they had about two years ago. Anyway, I stopped sending money and membership after the first year because I repeatedly tried to access with my code, and nothing would happen. When I would contact them, nothing would happen. So I figured it was they got the dough, now kiss off, so I kissed off. The comments over there do no gravitate towards much beyond heroics and doom and gloom.

Anonymous said...

gave him a fisking, seems the fellow needs to research before opening his yap.

Anonymous said...

Probably a dumb question, and I think I have a pretty good idea from context, but what does "fisking" mean?

Anonymous said...

I left a pretty good comment over there as well. Here's my response:

What your article should start out with is this:

"At midnight on September 13 2004, freedom was restored to American firearm owners as the 10 year old ban on the sale, manufacture and possession of otherwise legal semi-automatic firearms has been allowed to sunset."

The NRA, along with Gunowners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, and other pro-gun, pro-freedom organizations fought this absurd law back in 1994. Was it bad law? You bet it was. Placing restrictions on cosmetic features did absolutely nothing to prevent violent crime in general or "gun" crime in particular. Studies conducted while the ban was in effect said as much:

"Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost
certainly too small to detect statistically..." (1999 NIJ study on the effects of the '94 AWB.)

Contrary to popular urban legend, these weapons were hardly ever used in crime before the ban, and they were hardly used in crime both during the ban and since it's sunset. The streets haven't run red with the blood of innocent women and children.

And for the record, you disgust me. Never mind the dribble that you pass off as editorial content. Your advocacy for the "freedom for me but not for thee" mantra speaks volumes about your lack of personal character. I'm sure you'll be getting rave reviews at parties about how you went after the knuckle-dragging, neanderthal gun owner and membership of the NRA.

Anonymous said...

To fisk:

A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent early target of such treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

Anonymous said...

JR, I couldn't have asked for a clearer definition than that. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Look at the subheader: "17th century law..."

What bright young fellow!

Anonymous said...

I loved the 5th and 6th paragraphs, including...

But there are millions of others who see democracy only as carte blanche to pursue whatever selfish whim passes through their vacuous brains.

Um, yeah. It's called freedom, you socialist. Lord, this guy should be a speech writer for Kim Jong-Il.