Following Kleck’s critique on my recent article on guns, firearms homicide, and mass shootings, I wrote a detailed and thorough reply refuting his methodological concerns and discussing directions for future research. In response, Kleck published a second rebuttal reiterating issues already addressed in both the original manuscript and the reply article, erroneously dismissing my work as a “non-response response” that is “destructive of the ends of scholarship.” Here, I respond to Kleck’s two critiques not discussed at length previously before highlighting the perils of confirmation bias and the politicization of science.