Professor Glenn  Reynolds, who holds the Jubilation T. Cornpone Shootin’ Arm chair at the University of Tennessee, has a few questions for all you skinny-jeans-wearin’ latte-sippin’  emo-emotin’ prefer-our-kids-alive-more-than-dead fancy-pants gun-grabbin city slicker man-card-less metrosexual homoseckshuls.

Before we get to them, you should probably be aware that the Ole Perfesser fired the first Protect The NRA At All Costs volley last Friday by penning an Op-Ed for America’s Hotel Complimentary Cartoon Newspaper known as USA Today. In it Reynolds began his argument by  invoking the words of noted handgun expert William S. Burroughs, whose weaponry CV is limited to shooting his wife in the forehead while drunk (Mrs Dr. Perfesser Reynolds, take note). The law professor then called his second witness: noted academic fraud and cross-dresser John Lott who would love to show you his gun data … but his dog ate his hard-drive after he left it in his other pants with his girlfriend in Canada so, sorry. Needless to say, after a start like that it was pretty much downhill for the perfesser but, to be fair, he had to write it before the bodies of the twenty children and six women at Sandy Point Elementary had barely cooled, and he was under the gun which caused him to shoot from the hip while half-cocked so USA Today and the NRA did not get much bang for their buck.

But wait, he ‘s hasn’t entirely shot his wad yet. Yeah. I had to wedge that in.

Today the Ole Perfesser wants to have a “conversation” about guns and, in predictable Instapundit fashion minus links to all kitchen alliances 30% off at Amazon,  he has posed a series of  glib questions, most of them exuding subtle undertones of butthurt, victimhood and losing battle.  Let’s respond to them with all of the dignitude and deep seriousness with which they were asked, mm-kay?

Why do people who favor gun-control call people who disagree with them murderers or accomplices to murder? Is that constructive?

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts  in ways which enables others to more efficiently shoot other people like sitting ducks … it kind of fits.  As for being constructive; we’re here to make better social policy, not friends. Next…

Would any of the various proposals have actually prevented the tragedy that is the supposed reason for them?

You’re going to have to be more specific than that but, as a rule, the use of variables in experiments has a well documented history of often resulting in alternative outcomes. You should ask John Lott about that.

When you say you hope that this event will finally change the debate, do you really mean that you hope you can use emotionalism and blood-libel-bullying to get your way on political issues that were losers in the past?

Emotionalism is a natural response which generally follows an event which has actually occurred. Paranoia, on the other, is a response born of anxiety and delusions of persecution and irrational fear of non-existent threats which has been known to cause people to stockpile guns and ammo because the President is black. Also, using “blood-libel-bullying” is not very constructive.

If you’re a media member or politician, do you have armed security? Do you have a permit for a gun yourself? (I’m asking you Dianne Feinstein!) If so, what makes your life more valuable than other people’s?

You should take that up with John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan, Alan Berg, John Lennon, Larry Flynt, Selena, Biggie, and Tupac. But please, proceed….

Do you know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Do your public statements reflect that difference?

I know that automatic weapons are highly regulated in the United States and also that there have been no mass shootings in the US using an automatic weapon. I know that correlation does not imply causation (see below) but isn’t that weird?

If guns cause murder, why have murder rates fallen as gun sales have skyrocketed?

Correlation does not imply causation. Ask John Lott. Or Mary Rosh.

Have you talked about “Fast and Furious?” Do you even know what it is? Do you care less when brown people die?

Yes. It was a fuck up, just like invading a country that didn’t have WMDs, except Fast & Furious was done with less malice and profit incentive. Do I care if brown people die? Lessee:

On the other hand, it’s also true that if democracy can’t work in Iraq, then we should probably adopt a “more rubble, less trouble” approach to other countries in the region that threaten us. If a comparatively wealthy and secular Arab country can’t make it as a democratic republic, then what hope is there for places that are less wealthy, or less secular? - Glenn Reynolds 11/04/06

Apparently more than you do.

When you say that “we” need to change, how are you planning to change? Does your change involve any actual sacrifice on your part?

I’m prepared to give up my right to purchase a military style semi-automatic weapon with a thirty-round capacity and a flash suppressor with which I would normally keep the damn squirrels out of the bird-feeder. It’s a sacrifice but if I can bite the 45 grain hollow point bullet, so can you.

Bless your heart.