Hilarious Satire Perfectly Nails Mainstream Media On Their Dishonest Anti-Gun Narrative


I love a good laugh. And I’ll admit that I especially love a good laugh at the expense of someone who is being mocked for something that they’re doing wrong.

In the case of a new piece by Christian / politically conservative satire site The Babylon Bee, the subject of this mockery is the mainstream media with their obsession with only giving coverage involving firearms that gives a negative impression of guns.

The piece, headlined “Media Disappointed To Learn Armed Citizen Stopped Mass Shooting” will make you laugh out loud (literally). It reads,


The nation’s media outlets announced they were grieving today as an armed citizen stopped a mass shooting.

“We grieve that this tragedy we could have exploited for weeks on end was stopped by a good guy with a gun,” said one teary-eyed MSNBC reporter on the scene. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the shooter.”

“We are absolutely heartbroken and in shock over here,” said one New York Times journalist. “What could have given us weeks and weeks of frothing-at-the-mouth stories about gun control will now have to be suppressed since it does not align with our agenda.”

News outlets also reminded the nation that they reserve the right to immediately bury mass shooting stories that don’t help push their agenda.

Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC News confirmed that they carefully look over the facts of a given case to see if it lines up with the correct opinions before deciding to push it incessantly for weeks on end.

“While we usually would exploit a tragedy like this to push our gun control agenda, in this case, the facts don’t really help us,” said CNN reporter Bob Costanza, after a recent shooting was shut down by a citizen with a gun. “It’s tragic that it ended that way, because we really could have gotten a lot of mileage out of that bad boy.”

The media didn’t even try to find children who were present during the shooting to parade around talk shows and put on the covers of magazines for a full year this time around.

I laugh every time that I read this piece.

If you think about it (and the satire in this piece really nails the one-sided dishonest way that the mainstream media covers gun stories), it’s really no surprise that people who blindly follow the mainstream media are anti-gun. If the only source of gun information that those people have is the mainstream media, then they never hear the truth when it comes to firearms. And that is exactly why you and I have to keep telling people the truth about firearms and why everyday Americans should own them and carry them.

But while we’re doing that, there’s no reason why we can’t continue to laugh at the absurdity of some people and situations like this.



  1. Good job. I like it. I shall forward it to my mail list. Keep up the good work and nail a U-tube slot.

  2. So how many rounds of ammunition does it take for a competent firearm owner to kill something, if more than two rounds, their firearm should be taken away.

  3. Tom Pritchard I can tell from your post that you haven’t been in a life or death gunfight. If you have and it ended with only 2 shots, you were very lucky. There are very few real-life or death gunfights that end in one or two shots. Between my time in Special Ops and then 38 years in law enforcement I have been, unfortunately, involved in over 20 life or death gunfights. I can tell all that the only reason I am still alive is that I practice several times a month. I hit what I shoot at. But in a gunfight, even after all that I have been in, I still lose most of the small motor skills. This means hitting a target the size of your fist becomes very hard. My advice to everyone that carries daily is to practice, practice, practice, and do so in a setting that causes you to experience fear. Even then it will not match the fear you’ll have in a real-life or death gunfight.

  4. I Doubt Tom Pritchard has ever fired a gun of any kind, or he’d know how idiotic that statement was.Even the best shot’s miss occasionally, even when not in a stressful situation, much less a gun fight.

  5. My experience has been that you keep firing until he’s no longer a threat, i.e., drops the gun & surrenders, or quits moving. I have no problem with the ‘why did you shoot him 9 times?’ ‘Because that’s how many it took!’

  6. Constrained Sheepdogs are ineffective! Dr. Andrews, Dave Lomax, you are both right on. As a former Police firearms instructor/tactical weapons instructor, we definitely advocated shooting until the threat is no longer a threat. Not doing so drastically increases your chances of becoming another victim. However, on this site, I feel like I am mostly preaching to the choir. Which brings me to wonder why people like Mr. Chastain are even doing subscribing to and receiving emails from this site. Do they believe that seeing their requests to be removed from the email lists will sway ANY of us to do the same?! To Mr. Pritchard I say that maybe however much time you have spent on the range has left you a pretty good target shooter, if you’ve even spent time on the range. If you have, I must ask you, and you don’t need to answer here, “How many rounds can you place into a threat target within the first 6 seconds of a threat being identified; how about in 3 seconds; 2 seconds? And now, at what distances, and with what stress inducements having been introduced? If you can’t answer those questions, and you do spend time at the range, all you’ve been doing is wasting time, money, and ammunition. You’ve only made yourself a “good” shooter in your own mind. You are not an “effective” shooter. Get some training, or stop trolling sites like this just to spread dissent.

Comments are closed.