Trust me: You believe in gun control

What's the total readrship of the paper?

Should we assume that she is trying to bait us into some foaming at the mouth response?

Instead of attacking the facts, or outright lies, would it be best to point out that the piece was obviously written to provoke a response because of the inflamatory language (bark) from the beginning and the intentional misstatements or inadequate research that anyone with a free hour could show were grossly in error.

With a piddly 10k readership I'd not bother.

Contacting her directly is a wast of effort. If you can't post a rebuttal in the paper or on the website it is a doubly a waste of time. She's a lost cause and if you can't influence others who may have a chance of being influenced these people are best not given any of the attention they crave.

Does anyone see a way to comment/rebut in the Bemidji Pioneer so the readers who actually read the Opinion page would actually see a response? Is there a way to do this in Crooks and Liars?

What sort of rebuttal note should be sent?

Also, a review of Ms. Dupuy's webpage is in order (know thy enemy). http://www.tinadupuy.com/bio/ She claims to a satirist so we don't need to feed any obvious straight lines to her.

Let's flip our perspective on her opinion piece for a minute to be neutral instead of advocates of one side or the other to rebut her opinion. Nuclear weapons and handguns are not equal so nuclear weapons control and gun control are not equally valid positions. A nuclear weapon devastates a strategic target comprised of thousands to millions of people. There's nothing individualistic in the use of a nuclear weapon. It doesn't target a single person (not even a single zip code). A firearm is used one person at a time with each shot being a decision. Atomic bomb = tens of thousands of deaths so the trite comparison with firearms is hyperbole taken to the absurd level. Martin/Zimmerman argument, trying any shooting in the court of public opinion before all the facts are available isn't journalism, except for the yellow kind. Fact-if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun Martin wouldn't have been shot. Current fact-if Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman and been pounding him on the ground Matin wouldn't have been shot, if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun he might have ended up brain damaged or dead and the story would now be reversed. Let's not intentionally use part of the story to make an argument when the facts of the case can change before the argument is even presented. NRA's position on gun control - organizations respond to issues important to their members, over time those issues important to the members will change. When politicians as groups started to us gun owners as political fodder to advance themselves the NRA's members reacted and the NRA responded. Matter of fact, the NRA's response wasn't strong enough for many gun owners and other competing organizations sprung up like GOA and 2nd Amendment Foundation with even more aggressive stances than the NRA. Organizations like the NRA, GOA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, etc. exist because the people that pay the memberships support them and expect support in return. The positions of the NRA and other gun owner advocacy groups reflects the opinions of their members just as much as the other activist groups reflect the opinions of theirs. Membership at the NRA and other gun owner advocacy groups has grown while the support for anti gun owner groups has shrunk, a truer measure of the support hardly exists.