So, I picked this piece from your portfolio because the title caught my attention-it's bold, a little ridiculous, and I was curious how a budgie ended up involved in what I assumed was a rant about gun violence. Spoiler: the budgie’s metaphorical, the chaos is not.

Now, before you assume I came here to argue, let me be clear- I’m a member of the National Rifle Association. I’m here to give a real, structured review. I'm genuinely interested in hearing from people with different perspectives, but I expect those perspectives to have coherence, intention, and maybe even a point.

The tone of this piece is unmistakable: sarcasm dialed all the way up and fury barely held together with duct tape. And that’s fine- sarcasm can be powerful when used well. But what you’ve got here isn’t sharp satire. It’s an emotional explosion wearing a t-shirt that says “I’m clever,” while running in circles yelling, “Humans are dumb and guns are evil!”

Your central argument is scattered, but it seems to be that humans are reckless, children are accessing guns, and the world is spiraling. The solution: fewer guns. Fair enough. But instead of guiding the reader through a compelling case, you just spray accusations in every direction and hope one lands. It reads like you wrote it in one sitting, furious after watching the news, then hit “publish” before reading it twice. The rage is real, but the structure is MIA.

And the comparisons? Charlton Heston vs. Arnold Schwarzenegger? That’s your moral compass test? One guy waved a rifle around at a rally, the other made a fitness video for kids. That’s not an argument, it’s an out of date pop culture shrug.

You bring up real issues- kids getting access to guns, the failure of curfews to solve bigger problems, the hypocrisy of political systems- but instead of unpacking any of that, you lean hard on shock value and snark. Which, sure, might win over people who already agree with you, but it does absolutely nothing to open a conversation or challenge a viewpoint. You’re not writing to persuade- you’re writing to blow off steam.

If you want to be taken seriously, and I think you do, because underneath all the chaos there’s clearly a point trying to get out, then you need to slow down and shape your fury into something readable. Add structure. Trim the theatrics. Use your anger, but don’t let it run the whole show. Otherwise, this reads less like an op-ed and more like a high school paper written by someone who just discovered sarcasm and hasn’t put it down since.

Give us less yelling and more thinking next time, and I’ll actually want to keep reading. This has real potential. Thank you for sharing.

I really don't see anything else. Like I said, it's a good premise. It left me with many question, so you definitely piqued my interest. Keep up the good work and thank you for sharing.