Howard Stern’s Shameful Comments on Guns, 9/11 & the Holocaust are Appalling, Even for Him

I’ve never been a fan of Howard Stern. While I know he’s very popular with some people, I’ve never quite understood why. Then again, I have no idea why people give a damn what any of the Kardashians are doing, either — yet millions of people seem enamored with them.



Well, Stern decided to weigh in on the Orlando massacre, terrorism, guns and gun regulations by proving what an absolute idiot he is concerning all four topics.

Let me just go through them one by one:

“I can’t believe these people would come out afterward and their answer to Orlando is to take away guns from the public. It’s f***ing mind-blowing to me.”

So, it’s “mind-blowing” for Stern to try to understand why people are finally growing sick and tired of mass shootings, many of which are being carried out by semi-automatic assault weapons that can pump out around 45-rounds per minute? And it’s “mind-blowing” that people might be appalled at the reality in this country that there are people on terror watch lists who can legally purchase guns?

“In France, they have the tightest gun control laws on the planet. The terrorists all had AR-15, they had glocks, they have every kind of pistol, they have missile launchers.” 

This is an argument that’s been made by so many pro-gun fanatics that only proves how small-minded their thinking is. Sure, France has incredibly tight regulations on guns which means pretty much everywhere in the country is a “gun-free zone.” Furthermore, yes, 130 people died the night of those horrific attacks. Both of those statements are absolutely true.

However, France also has a fraction of our gun violence problem. Even when you account for that tragic attack last November, I think France would happily trade that problem for the thousands who die every single year in the United States because of our ridiculously lax gun laws. Granted, all gun-related deaths are tragic, but it’s absolutely absurd to claim France should invite our level of gun violence into their country so that people can “defend themselves” against a potential terrorist attack — when the 300+ million guns we have do nothing but place us atop the list for gun-related violence in the modernized world.

“I’m going to tell you about the most gun-free zone on the planet: it happened during 9/11, it was on a plane. You know you can’t get a gun on a plane, it’s completely gun-free.”

Yes, that’s Howard Stern saying that people should be allowed to carry guns with them on planes. Because, you know, what could go wrong with that?



“‘This is great, we’ll just kill the sheep with box-cutters.’ They went on the plane with box-cutters, and all the sheep went ‘Baaaaaaaaaa.'”

Again, Howard Stern complaining because people aren’t allowed to carry guns on planes, while insinuating that if they had been, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. Who cares about all the other horrific things that would come with people having loaded weapons with them on planes, let’s just exploit 9/11 to make some sort of asinine point that really doesn’t make a damn bit of sense.

Let’s also not forget that, without guns, passengers managed to bring down United Airlines Flight 93 to prevent the plane from reaching its target. So, what Stern is really doing is calling all the people on these other fights cowards for not doing more — which is appalling.

“Now if there had been an air marshal on that plane, a whole f***ing other thing would have went down. There wouldn’t be no 9/11.” 

Actually, odds are one air marshal up against a group of terrorists is probably more of a mental safety net than an actual preventative situation. And in this delusional “utopian world” which Stern describes, if everyone on board had a gun, why would there need to be an air marshal, at all? But, wait, there I go trying to make sense when breaking down the asinine ravings of a buffoon. I apologize.

“Can you imagine if the Jews, at least when the Nazis were banging on the doors, if they had a couple of pistols and AR-15s to fight the Nazis? If Anne Frank’s father had a f***ing gun, maybe he at least could have taken a few Nazis out.”

Forget the fact that this myth about ‘gun control laws helped Nazis rise to power and slaughter millions of Jews’ has been soundly debunked for a while now, the ignorance of his statement is astounding. He cites the one Jewish name from that time he could think of to come up with some asinine, pro-gun fantasy that, had Jewish people just had guns, Nazis would have never risen to power. Apparently the same military force that took over most of Europe, and parts of northern Africa (and damn near the world), would have been completely stopped had Jewish people simply been armed with a few guns. The ignorance of those who say idiotic stuff like this is atrocious.

Look, it might be a bit much to claim Howard Stern’s career is over following these comments (especially considering who he is), but he said a lot of stuff here that was simply nonsensical and flat-out stupid. This delusional rant was downright Donald Trump-like in that it was nothing but empty talking points and lacked any substance linked to anything remotely factual.

No matter how many times I hear moronic comments such as these, I never cease to be ashamed that there are people out there (millions of them, unfortunately) who are naive enough to actually believe them.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • DeeDee2Die4

    I believe it was the late and great Michael Henry O’Donahue who described Stern as a mid-brow doing low-brow humor. Sadly the media rarely presents the best and brightest, they don’t ‘sell soap.’ See: Drumpf

  • ORAXX

    I’ve never found Stern to be entertaining for more than a minute. He’s juvenile, vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, and exhausting. He’s popular for the same reasons Faux Noise has an audience. Pervasive stupidity.

  • BobLoblaw

    Mr. Stern is a strange little ninny. He, in “real life”, seems so different than how he portrays himself on the air. All you have to do is watch him in Jerry Seinfeld’s episode of “Comedians in cars getting coffee” to see him living like a scared beaten puppy that just discovered the outside world.

  • worrierking

    And if Moses and his boys had AR-15s, the Egyptians would have had their asses handed to them. Makes just as much sense.

  • noah vail

    he is nothing but the left wing version of O’reilly and those other morons at Faux News….i have never heard anyuthing from stern that had any suvbstance to it…he is MR. TALKING POINTS and nothing more…

  • Reginald Thornton

    This article is very dishonest in “rebutting” Howard’s comments.

    1. Mind-blowing.
    The author thinks Stern doesn’t “understand why people are finally growing sick and tired of mass shootings”. No, he doesn’t understand why the focus shifts from the real cause (a Muslim terrorist) to something that won’t have any real effect.

    2. France’s gun violence rate.
    Comparing a low incidence of gun violence HISTORICALLY is relevant, true, but only up to the point where the unarmed populace learns why that’s a problem. As for relevant facts available now, the two most horrific acts of gun violence are in a gun free country and a gun free nightclub. By Muslim terrorists.

    3. Arming airline passengers.
    Stern never said that, but the article rebuts it. That’s called a strawman. It’s also a willful distraction from Howard’s winning point, that bad guys can do bad things without a gun. You are wasting our time and energy steering the conversation to gun control.

    4. Flight 93 passengers the only real heroes.
    This is just a disgusting thought. They brought down the terrorists by bringing down the plan. But other passengers on other doomed flights were cowards? A good indicator of the author’s shallow thinking.

    5. Air marshal useless.
    Really. An armed air marshal couldn’t overpower terrorists armed only with box cutters? Too much collateral damage? Didn’t you just call Flight 93 passengers the only real heroes for sacrificing THEIR lives? Shallower and shallower the deeper we go.

    6. Armed Jews would lose against Nazis.
    Just simply a loser argument. Not losing argument, but the argument of a loser. A portion of any force is weaker, and Nazis recruitment would have been hindered by there being threat of death when rounding up armed Jews. Fewer Nazis would mean more non-Nazis (it’s “math”), and more opportunity for anti-Nazi efforts to become stronger in number. But, hey, they still MIGHT have lost, so just take their guns. Right? The author is a murderer (because I think he’s projecting.)

    I might be interested to read a rebuttal of those actual points that Howard was making. That’s why I came here. But I won’t come back to read the author’s imaginary argument against statements that weren’t made or implied.

  • beetsville

    FACT: Allen Clifton does not believe in due process.