All the spiteful can rejoice!

Comcast OnDemand is both my lover and my tormentor. I have long fought in a losing war against… Comcast OnDemand is both my lover and my tormentor. I have long fought in a losing war against the siren song that is Comcast OnDemand, causing my grades to falter and my social life to slow to an embarrassing halt. I just can’t help it. All those channels, all those shows and movies and documentary specials leave me salivating like a drunk over a hot Antoons.

But recently, one show has sparked my interest more than any other. The show is “Bullsh*t,” a documentary-style program, hosted by famous magician team Penn and Teller. Penn Jillette narrates the show in the growling, overbearing sarcasm that has brought him fame as a magician and MC.

Teller simply appears on screen as a gimmick. But what makes this show different is the idea behind it. With a sharp, moderate political sense about him, Jillette has chosen to tackle political issues and commonly held perceptions that he believes are simply bullsh*t.

Past episodes have focused on the American university system, the “typical” American family and issues of religion. I was starting to enjoy Jillette’s sharp, edgy but rational approach until he did an episode on Gun Control.

Showtime, Jillette and the producers trotted out numerous special-interest group representatives, all trying to say their piece without looking stupid. There was author and essayist Roger Rosenblatt, a radical and altogether smug leftist. There was shop owner Mabel Murray, a borderline psychotic with an arsenal to challenge Fort Bragg. And then there were some less colorful characters, all with their own rather outlandish opinions. Oh, and Jackie Mason.

As these “experts” are interviewed one by one, the argument simply goes in a circle, with all the rhetoric in tact. The documentary began to spin out of control from there until, by the end, I felt as if I had been simply read a list of bumper-sticker slogans for half an hour.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” “An Uzi is not used to kill deer.” “Shoot the breeze, not each other.” These slogans are about as conducive to change as a sticker on a bumper can be but, in the interest of rationality, perhaps someone can propose a solution that hasn’t been dumbed down to the size of a T-shirt.

There are a number of non-lethal defense options available to frightened Americans everywhere. Weapons like beanbag guns, rubber bullets, Tasers, air rifles and stun guns are available to purchase today.

Safety Products Unlimited carries a stun gun in the shape of a cell phone. Imagine getting the drop on a mugger with your Nokia! These products exist; they are just not as cool or as flashy as traditional guns. But innocent bystanders are not flashy either. Just a bit of research could save any number of lives.

Watching “Bullsh*t,” it occurred to me: The Second Amendment reads that Americans have the right to bear arms. This never states that all Americans have the right to as many guns as they want to kill with the most lethal force necessary.

There are many articles out there saying that these forms of defense are ineffective. Most recently, there was a case in Cleveland, Ohio, of a man who rushed at a cop with a knife. The cop used his Taser in defense and it failed to stop the perpetrator. I have one word in response: research.

According to its Web site, Smith and Wesson alone spent over $168 million on handgun production last year. If even half of that money went into the research and development of a non-lethal weapon capable of consistent protection results, the amount of lives wasted would be quelled before you can say “bang bang.”

For all those who want the overall satisfaction of killing an intruder, never fear. All the spiteful can rejoice! If a weapon is created that will completely incapacitate an intruder, why not throw a little make-up on him so when the cops come to take him away, you can all have a good laugh at his expense.

To my knowledge, the documentary producers are yet to explore this angle. Michael Moore tried to casually suggest that Americans have no right to be afraid of the world around them. Penn Jillette suggests that one can only defend oneself with a fully loaded assault rifle.

Where is the middle ground? The rational answer may shock or stun you.

Shoot John an e-mail at jrs26@pitt.edu.