Ken White of Popehat in the L.A. Times, Talking Gun Control
I was going to link this post by Ken White of Popehat anyway, but now that it is in the L.A. Times (yes, the L.A. Times!) I have to link it. It is about the unproductive ways that people talk about gun control — but really, it mainly bashes gun control advocates. I love this analogy of mush-headed gun control advocates to someone who knows nothing about dogs, but knows they want to do something about, you know, “attack dogs”:
Imagine I’m concerned about dangerous pit bulls, and I’m explaining my views to you, a dog trainer — but I have no grasp of dog terminology.
Me: I don’t want to take away dog owners’ rights, but we need to do something about pit bulls. We need restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What’s an “attack dog”?
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Pit bulls aren’t military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn’t a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn’t own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you’re talking about now.
Me: You’re being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: Hounds? Seriously?
Me: OK, maybe not actually “hounds.” Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with violent dogs the way you are. But we can identify breeds that civilians just don’t need to own.
You: Apparently not.
In his post, “Hounds? Seriously?” was originally a more colorful expression. But, you know. L.A. Times and everything. You have to go highbrow.
One of the commenters says: “I came here expecting another gun bashing diatribe but found a halfway objective op-ed, the LA Times surely is improving.” By publishing Ken White, it certainly is.
P.S. My favorite comment so far at the newspaper’s Web site is this one:
That’s all well and good, Mr White, if that’s your real name, but what about the real threat that faces every man, woman, and child today?
You know very well what of I am writing.
What about the pony menace?
Popehat readers get the joke.
UPDATE: Kevin M catches something I totally missed: “Imagine I’m concerned about dangerous pit bulls, and I’m explaining my views to you, a dog trainer — but I have no grasp of dog terminology.”
That line was not in the original post. It is in the L.A. Times version.
I think Ken White just punked the Dog Trainer, big time.
“Imagine I’m concerned about dangerous pit bulls, and I’m explaining my views to you, a dog trainer“
Did he KNOW this was going to be in the Times?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 12/12/2015 @ 1:36 pmGemma left that comment.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/12/2015 @ 1:47 pmmr. beerbelly beerbelly get these mutts away from me
you know i don’t find this stuff amusing anymore
happyfeet (831175) — 12/12/2015 @ 1:48 pmThere’s pit bulls and there’s pit bulls. I never thought I could cotton-up to a pit bull, they have a bad rep, but my neighbor rescued one, brought it home, and took care of if – took it to the vet, got it’s ailments fixed and brought it home.
Now, I look after Bonita when he’s busy. She’s a wonderful dog and I’m a guy who always made sure he had a hogleg at the ready when a pit bull showed up at the beach.
But, this one’s a sweetheart. We play, we mock fight, I buy her toys – she and I play tug-o-war – and I put up with her snoring. We’re OK. Pit bulls are not all bad. Take it into consideration – but always be extra cautious, especially around children.
ropelight (c944cd) — 12/12/2015 @ 1:55 pmi like pit bulls but it they’re not mine and they do that deep deep growly growly thing i change zip codes
the trust is just not there with me and the pit bulls
happyfeet (831175) — 12/12/2015 @ 1:59 pm*if* they’re not mine i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 12/12/2015 @ 2:00 pmLike any good line, that one was unexpected and right to the point. I wonder if anyone over at the Times is bright enough to get it?
Bill H (2a858c) — 12/12/2015 @ 2:01 pmUPDATE: Kevin M catches something I totally missed: “Imagine I’m concerned about dangerous pit bulls, and I’m explaining my views to you, a dog trainer — but I have no grasp of dog terminology.”
That line was not in the original post. It is in the L.A. Times version.
I think Ken White just punked the Dog Trainer, big time.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 12/12/2015 @ 2:04 pmReplace Pit Bulls with moslems and that’s what I’m talkin’ about. Sweethearts all, until they mysteriously “radicalize” and shoot everybody at the Christmas party. Oh, not the Pit Bull he just rips of some kids face.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 12/12/2015 @ 2:09 pmWell, Bill H, I’m not bright enough to get it. What the hell is a “pony menace”?
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 12/12/2015 @ 2:11 pmhere?
oh my goodness that’s kind of a reading assignment it shoulda been on the syballus
happyfeet (831175) — 12/12/2015 @ 2:17 pmIt’s an “insider” joke over at Popehat, where Ken usually refers to getting a pony as part of his dreams-come-true. He uses it as sarcastic analogy.
Bill H (2a858c) — 12/12/2015 @ 2:34 pmThey must be losing money hand over fist if they’re desperate enough to allow a logical gun op-ed in their fish-wrapper.
mojo (a3d457) — 12/12/2015 @ 3:06 pmAlso, when spammers try to hit Popehat up for ‘sponsored content’ on his blog, offering to write articles which will direct attention back to their own blogs… he asks for writing samples about the pony menace. How they sneak into our children’s rooms at night… do you know they even have STUFFED TOYS made of them?!?
luagha (1de9ec) — 12/12/2015 @ 4:02 pmBetter explanation than I put up.
Bill H (2a858c) — 12/12/2015 @ 6:35 pmRe the punking: If the shoe fits, poop in it?
Razors and alcohol, baby. I love it.
Beldar (fa637a) — 12/12/2015 @ 7:23 pmbeen around the whirl and i i i
happyfeet (831175) — 12/12/2015 @ 7:25 pmWhat I find aggravating about the “gun” control advocates is that they have no idea why the AR-15 has a pistol grip or handguards–what they call a barrel shroud.
A simple visual comparison between an M-14 and an assembled–and disassembled–M-16 would make it clear. Idiots–all of ’em.
DavidD (d8b4d6) — 12/12/2015 @ 7:55 pm*snort* No it wouldn’t. Those parts are defined as they mean them to be, nothing less and nothing more. Bet that if the Red Ryder BB rifle were still available, the anti-gun crowd would define the one with a compass in the stock as an assault weapon.
Bill H (2a858c) — 12/12/2015 @ 9:33 pmThe Update is classic. Great catch, Kevin H.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/12/2015 @ 10:10 pmNice discussion, neat post. EXCEPT. LIBTARDS/OBAMITES/FASCISTS/DEMOCRATS….all the same. Do not give a flying fiddlers fart, what you nor I think. They want control, they want to rule you, they want to take your gun rights, and all of YOUR rights that they do not AGREE WITH. They do not debate you, they do not CONSIDER YOUR VIEWS. GETTING IT YET?????? IS IT BECOMING CLEAR to you YET?????
Gus (7cc192) — 12/12/2015 @ 10:26 pmGus? Sweetie, you can stop yelling at us. The readership here is a little more advanced than the average college student, mmmmkay?
Bill H (2a858c) — 12/13/2015 @ 12:32 pmBTW and slightly off topic, Bill H, you can indeed still get a Red Ryder BB gun… Daisy in Arkansas still manufactures them.
Rorschach (8ddea0) — 12/14/2015 @ 9:01 am