The New York Times is wrong.

The New York Times has always been one of the biggest anti-gun media outlets, but you'd think that with guns now being the "in" think, they'd at least put a little more thought into their gun articles.

Take for example, this glaring error, not even a full paragraph in:

No one knows how many more firearms were purchased through the gun-show loophole that enables black marketeering.

First, there is no "gun show loophole". The private sale of a firearm from one person to another is explicitly excluded in the word of the law from being subject to background checks. That is not a loophole. With that being said, second, private sales of firearms are legal. Therefore, there is no "black marketeering". If there is any "black marketeering" going on, (i.e: knowingly selling a firearm to a prohibited person), there is no "loophole" that protects the seller or buyer. Both have broken the law, plain and simple.

Our security theater has become a dark comedy.

The TSA, like all the other government alphabet soup agencies, isn't known for it's common sense or critical thinking skills.

Let's think about this logically. If someone were intent on taking a gun onto an airplane, are they going to keep it in plain site, stuck to the side of a bag? And that's ignoring the fact that the gun stuck on the bag isn't even the size of a real gun.

This is a prime example of good, old fashioned, bureaucratic stupidity. And what is an act of stupidity without it's peanut gallery cheering it on? I was going to repost some of her more idiotic comments and rip them apart here, but then I realized there are just too many. Seriously... Between her and Baldr Odinson, you've gotta have a pair of waders.

Is help really just a phone call away?

Apparently not. Just because you call 911, it doesn't mean the person on the other end is working in your best interests:

REDDING, Calif. -- On Oct., 21 Donna Hopper's life changed forever. She was scared by a man trying to break into her Redding home so she got her gun and when the intruder started coming in she shot and killed him

...

Hearing Hopper sobbing and shaken, the operator works to keep her calm, as Redding Police rush to the house. Hopper fired two shots, but it was not enough to scare him off.

DH: He's coming back. I can see his shadow.

911: Okay. Where is he at?

Dh: (Sobs)

911: Donna?

DH: Just a minute. He's coming in to my front yard.Oh God. He's coming through the window. I'm gonna shoot him again!

911: No. Uh, ma'am. Don't.

You can follow the link and listen to the entire 911 call.

My take: If someone is bad/bol/drunk/drugged-up enough to be shot at twice and still continue breaking into your house, it's a good idea to shoot them, because I don't think they're coming into have tea and cakes with you.

"Everyone, especially women, should all carry a firearm."

UFC fighter Frank Mir in a very good video with a lot of quoteworthy material.

One very dumb criminal.

Mugger picks wrong victim: MMA fighter

“At that moment, he backs up the gun and he racks it,” Justin recalled. “The gun jammed. He racked it a second time. He ejected the bullet on the ground. He went down and grabbed the bullet and said, ‘Look, m-----f-----, it’s a hollow point. I’ll blow your brains out.’”

It's not picking on an MMA fighter that made this criminal dumb. I've seen quite a few "expert fighters" come out on the losing side of a fight with a less experienced opponent.

It's the fact that he doesn't know a proper failure drill that makes him dumb. Not a single gun fighting course recommends that after clearing a failure, you pick up the ejected cartridge and hold it up as an example of the potential damage you may inflict upon your adversary.

And here is my favorite line of the story:

“I wasn’t scared because I’m trained,” Justin explained.

The moral of this story is that in a crisis, no one rises to the occasion. They only fall back to their last successful level of training.