I’m a firm believer that celebrities can, and should, do more with their recognition than merely entertain us. Celebrities can definitely be a positive force in American society beyond their primary contributions. After all, why should holier-than-thou, keyboard-tapping pundits monopolize the market?
With that said, writer and celebrity poker player Michael Ian Black is currently schooling social media on the American propensity for violence and the availability of its instrument of choice. In 140 characters or less, Black is actually doing something we all should be doing — civil engagement.
It started off bluntly enough…
So fucking angry. #FuckGuns
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 2, 2015
… then became a lesson in politicization.
Michael Ian Black’s Twitter engagement over the issues of gun regulation and violence should serve as a guideline for how to effectively have this conversation as a people.
He makes an appeal to the pro-gun side of the argument and finds commonality:
Pro-gun people: I get your anger at my anti-gun position but please remember we all want to reduce gun deaths. Our difference is in tactics.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
When another Twitter user brings up radical Islam, he responds directly and without provocation:
Radical Islam, while obviously a problem, does not kill Americans at nearly the rate that plain old handguns do. https://t.co/0Eew2UhBfX
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
He cites facts, not rhetoric:
Since speaking with @DLoesch last night, I have done some further research into gun deaths. She was right about much of what she said:
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
1. According to CDC, of the 33,000 gun deaths in US as of 2011, 21,175 of those were suicides.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
2. According to CDC, in 2011, 11,208 gun deaths were homicides.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
3. According to Pew Research Center, gun deaths peaked in 1993 and have gone down 49% since then. That's great news.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
The bad news: "active shooter events" and are increasing and, of the 12 deadliest shootings, seven have happened since 2007.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
Further, he corrects inaccuracies in some talking points, citing a Harvard University study…
Contrary to what pro-gun people say, the states with the loosest gun laws and highest gun ownership also have the most gun deaths per capita
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
… and he doesn’t discount suicide statistics, like many of us do.
Bottom line: I do not discount gun suicides because access to firearms increases likelihood of suicide. https://t.co/SjVHerLc83
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
But even if you take away suicides, 11,000+ is a lot of gun deaths per year. @DLoesch seems content with the status quo. I am not.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
When criticism manifested in the form of another Twitter user’s snarky comment in response to an economic view of the issue…
https://twitter.com/IsaacRutherford/status/672427779229622272
Mr. Black kicked the schooling up to 11.
I see this argument a lot, as if access to cheap handguns is somehow more egalitarian. No. From what I've read… https://t.co/h2Z4f7T1Tw
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
A strong correlation exists between poverty and gun violence. This is true in urban and rural settings. https://t.co/h2Z4f8aCL4
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
Reducing access to cheap weaponry will reduce gun violence among the people most likely to commit it (poor people). https://t.co/h2Z4f7T1Tw
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
The right to own a firearm is not the same as the right to easy access to firearms. We can and should regulate. https://t.co/h2Z4f7T1Tw
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
This guy decided to resort to the tried-and-true anti-regulation tactic of “then I guess you’re content with X number of people dying in terrorist attacks.”
https://twitter.com/CoachRogers92/status/672430794590175232
To which Mr. Black not only knocked the argument down, but asked the commentator to provide proof that “men w/guns kill terrorists.”
Trained professionals w/guns kill terrorists. Show me where the "concealed carry" crowd stopped a terrorist attack. https://t.co/kFdxSStkhm
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
He sets he record straight regarding fears of gun confiscation to guy whose Tweet has since been deleted.
Again, not talking about confiscation. Never have talked about confiscation. Only talking about regulation. https://t.co/Z4hcyFfffp
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
What is regulation?
1. Background checks for ALL gun purchases.
2. Training/insurance requirements
3. Testing https://t.co/Z4hcyFfffp— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
This guy tries to take the discussion in the direction of another tried-and-true piece of pro-gun advocacy rhetoric.
@michaelianblack let's cherry pick some more and constitutionally regulate #1A Speech & Religion. #2A #HandsOffMyGun #SanBernardinoTerror
— John McKenzie Jr (@JMcKenz5150) December 3, 2015
To which Michael Ian Black replies:
1. Regulation is written into the Second Amendment
2. We do regulate speech. https://t.co/4ugoj8tYfK— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
When someone tries to chop his credibility at the knees…
@DougMartin17 @michaelianblack @BreckLandscape is obsessed with regulating or banning guns every time anything happens.
— Old McDonalds (@argmachinetv) December 3, 2015
Michael Ian Black responds.
Incorrect. I am obsessed with regulating, not banning, and all the time. But mass shootings provide the forum. https://t.co/NGJohKfcHk
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
Having exhausted himself after schooling people on social media over this topic for the better part of a day, Michael Ian Black decided to wrap it up in the best way possible.
I'm going to stop now, but first – setting aside hunters and sportsmen, the gun argument seems to break down to one basic divide.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
Here's the divide:
Some people think more guns make us more safe.
Some people think more guns make us less safe.— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
My belief, after studying evidence from both sides, is that more make us less safe. I know the right has John Lott saying otherwise.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
But every other study I have read, and common sense, and the experience of many other nations, seems to indicate otherwise.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
Nor have I heard a compelling argument about why more regulation would be a bad thing. We can protect people and preserve the 2A. We should.
— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) December 3, 2015
Michael Ian Black’s swift and direct schooling on Twitter should serve as a guideline on how to handle this topic. There is no need for pointless, inflammatory, and provocative rhetoric. It’s such a big turnoff. What we need to do is be rational, logical, and fact-based when we debate how to handle the stark number of people killed each year in the United States by firearms.
Look, we all want the same result. No one is accusing anyone else of not having the intention of saving lives. All we really disagree on is how to go about saving those lives. Since altruistic intentions are really the backbone of both sides of this argument, then we must appeal to logic, reason, and fact.
And even though it makes some of us uncomfortable, this conversation needs to take place.
