Stei120323

Self Defense

This cartoon will have the same strong impact all my previous 500 or so gun cartoons have–none. Pushed hard by the gun-worshiping fundamentalists of the NRA, state legislatures have fallen all over themselves in a rush to adopt ever crazier laws legalizing guns everywhere you can think of–in college campuses, in shopping malls, in courtrooms, in church–and half the states allow perceived threat as a defense in case some trigger-happy idiot happens to shoot down an innocent teenager armed only with a menacing bag of Skittles, as happened in Florida the other day. Great law, that. Golly, judge, he was Black and holding a suspicious-looking ice cream cone; I feared for my life. Case dismissed. Along with any pretense of sanity.

16 thoughts on “Self Defense”

  1. I hope that it has no impact, because it displays a simplistic and misleading grasp of the issue. Take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis for a look at the harm gun control laws cause.

    After multiple school shootings have taken place, were any prevented by gun laws? Maybe a few would have been prevented, or at least minimized, if schools had gun clubs (as they used to) and there were people there who knew how to shoot back.

    You would leave people defenseless, trusting that criminals or madman will somehow not obtain weapons, despite reality showing the folly in that.

    1. The idea of preventing school shootings by armind the teachers and students is appaling. In consequence it would mean that every student and teacher needs to be prepared and ready to shoot anybody else. How do we know who’s the threat and who’s just the heoro, who’s saving all those innocent lives? I think it would be hard to distinguish. So if anybody were to pull out a gun, by that logic basically everybody else would have to react the same way and it would end out in one big shootout. How can anybody want this? Call me crazy, but I’d rather take my chances and be shot by someone than live in a climate of constant threat and suspicion twoards everybody around me.
      The argument that criminals and insane people will always have guns is invalid. First of all, where should a teenager get a gun, if not from their parents or relavtives? Most shootings occur, because somebody is in a frail state of mind and just has way too easy access to guns. They might plan their actios for a while, but most people who’ve never fired a gun would have the idea to shoot people. It’s mostly those people, who are way too familiar with firing guns.
      Criminals, specifically ‘professional ciminals’, people who rely on theft or robbery to make a living need a way of getting the job done. If they’re desperate enough, they will go out and do it, since they’ve probably not got enough to lose to fear for their life. So it doesn’t matter to them, wether their vicitm is armed or not. It might change their tactics though. If a robbery victim surely isn’t armed, they probably won’t need such a fierce weapon, they might have a knife or a small pistol. But if basically everybody is armed, they’ll just have a bigger gun and be way more ready to use it. At this point you haven’t stopped any crime from taking place, you’ve just escalated the situation.

      Anybody can be brought to a breaking point through different circumstances and anybody might be tempted to shoot somebody, if they have the opportunity. If the answer to this is, that we just arm everybody to be able to shoot everybody else, then we as a society are doomed.
      The answer should be, that we should try and get rid of guns as far as possible. We cannot live in a society without any guns at all, but we should try and head in that direction.
      If everybody fears everybody else and tries to protect themselves from these percieved threats, then everybody does have a reason to fear the other person. You can either cherish the killing and try to be the last man standing, or you could just give up the vicious cycle and try for a better society. At least I hope that that can be done…

      1. You do understand that private gun ownership has been the law of the land since this country was created? You do understand that private gun ownership is responsible for the founding of this nation and the creation of it’s Constitution? You do understand that the Second Amendment guarantees that Americans will always have armed recourse to self defense and defense against government tyranny? You must also know that, because of armed citizen resistance to government tyranny we now all enjoy the protections of our Bill of Rights. Our founders knew what they were doing: they created a system that respects individual rights and gave us the means to defend those rights.

        “The answer should be, that we should try and get rid of guns as far as possible. We cannot live in a society without any guns at all, but we should try and head in that direction.”

        This statement is naïve. It supports a notion that only criminals who have no respect for the rule of law and instruments of government will be armed. Who will protect the innocent citizen when criminals act? Not the government, as even the Supreme Court of America has ruled that police have no duty to protect innocents or prevent violent crime. We are on our own in that regard. Further, who will protect us from governmental violence and tyranny? The armed criminals? No. We are on our own in that arena as well.

        When you, ideologically unarmed as you are, suffer from a violent attack where you are trussed like a hog and are forced to watch your wife being raped and your children being killed, you will question your philosophy of disarming law abiding citizens.

        When the government breaks down your door and those of your neighbors, taking you all into custody according to the new NDAA guidelines, you will wonder how your government got so out of control and what you might have done to prevent the imprisonment of you and your family and the seizing of your property and goods.

        Armed resistance was what created this nation, and armed resistance is what will preserve this nation. To argue otherwise is to ignore the lessons of Rwanda, Kosovo, Syria, and the Holocaust in Europe.

        Beware what you wish for: you may be the next victim of armed assault.

  2. The guns laws are weak and porous; you can have no problem obtaining any militarty ordnance you so desire. So part of the laws must include major concerns in regards dealers and sellers of various guns. The shooting/killing cited in Killeen, TX, was yet another American tragedy. Pay attention to the weaponry involved, why she had decided to change the position of her protection from her purse to her car, what made her father (a man well into his 60s) rush a ‘madman spraying bullets’ and why her mother refused to make an escape attempt and why she was not shoving her mother out the window. What was the history of the shooter, and how could that tragic event have been avoided?
    By pressing for more gun activity in supposedly civil daily life, simple thought processes require more elevated dispassionate rational thought. When someone jumps in your face cussing and cursing and being an objectional pain the arse and head, can you feel ‘threatened’ and too macho and decide your life is threatened and therefore pull your phallic symbol and kill him when he is simply an irritating turd enjoying pissing you off while remaining not a physical threat?
    A weapon and desire to use is quite an excuse for being a simpleton unwilling unable to talk to listen to engage in social intercourse to learn a little something about each other to de-escalate a situation.
    Statistics show a gun in the home is far more likely to injure or kill a friend or family member than an intruder. Intruders prefer to break into and enter an empty home; they are not killers, rather they are thieves and burglars. In order to keep and maintain a gun in the home safely, especially where children live and play, that is to say unloaded & locked and locked up with bullets in a separate location as is recommended generally, that gun is rendered useless for the very rare instance when an intruder really is a desperate as-Qaeda agent after your life.
    Target shooting might be fun, and is a useful bit of knowlege, while hunting and killing for the thrill indicates emotional insability. Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, while the Duck said a gun is a symbol for a phallus.So some gun guys do over-compensate a short-coming.
    And once I again I will remind readers of the history of this country in the 17th & 18th centuries and what government was. There was no military; the somewhat centralized government, such as it was then, could not protect the farms and people spread over the newly white discovered colonies and country, the English and French we in one war or another, and the Red Man wanted back his country…sound familiar? Local militias were the best available for protection. Rule came from London, and there was unrest in the various colonies. That situation does not exist. There does exist an enduring treaty between local aboriginal tribes and their white invaders, so that situation does not exist.
    Just for the sake of a bit of completeness, the British who came here and built the colonies did not found a christian nation, but rather a nation where everyone could worship and practice their own personal faiths, something they could not do in Britain and wanted the new people coming to the colonies to be able to do. The separation of church and state remains quite clear via that reasoning and experience of those early colonists.
    Another issue completely is the treatment of the native locals by the church and state from the ‘great fathers’ back in Europe, and I am not going there today. or tomorrow.

  3. The Duck makes many points. Here is my reply.

    1. The father displayed courage when he charged the gunman, hoping to rescue his wife, daughter and the many other people there that day. He risked, and payed with, his life. His wife refused to leave her mortally wounded husband. The daughter, after informing the mother, made a break for freedom and life. The daughter’s gun, a weapon she had for self protection and that could have been used to end that massacre far sooner, was in her vehicle due to gun control laws. Laws which did nothing to protect her, as the gunman obviously didn’t follow the law, only law abiding citizens, like the daughter complied, who, effectively, disarmed herself.

    2. You state that “guns laws are weak and porous; you can have no problem obtaining any militarty ordnance you so desire. So part of the laws must include major concerns in regards dealers and sellers of various guns.”

    This totally misses the point as criminals will have no issue in obtaining weapons, the ones stopped will be the law abiding citizens who need it for protection, e.g. Miss Hupp on that fateful day in Killeen, TX.

    3. You implicitly assume that law abiding citizens armed with weapons will lead to more violence. Do you have any proof for this assertion, or do you want disarm citizens, removing a proven source of protection, based on your gut feeling? My gut tells me that is a risky move.

    The evidence as well refutes you. The Chronicle of Higher Education: “No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime.”

    Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III: “We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared.”

    4. You make a distinction between the unsafe times of the 17th and 18th centuries and today. While I agree that, on a whole, life today is safer, there are still many places and times where a gun offers the only source of real protection. By definition, unless a policeman is present when a crime occurs, they are called after the crime is initiated. You would condemn thousands of people to wait in helpless terror for a police response that might not come in time.

    Again, the cartoon is, well cartoonish in it’s grasp of the issue of gun control, with it’s simplistic and false portrayal.

  4. A clarifying remark: Upon reviewing the YouTube link I gave above, I see now that it has more than Ms. Hupp’s testimony. I searched for her testimony and included the first video that had it, without reviewing the entire nine minutes. Anything beyond the testimony is not indicative of my personal views.

  5. a hero? tossed his life with courage and conviction to save his wife and daughter? noble … and stupid, as was the wife who wanted to stay with her husband, okay maybe, and daughter wanted out, right, and did she return with her gun? She had the gun for protection, apparently against the law in texas then decided to abide by it? gun traffiking is huge, so it would be up to the local gendarmes to enforce laws that should be on the books if they are not, keeping automatic large calibre weaponry locked up nice and safe. The standard argument that the right laws would make for a bloodbath since only bad guys will have guns is specious and dumber. Tough laws and enforcment will do what is intended for personal and public safety. There is no ‘real evidence’ to justify or give truth to enhanced safety by having a shootout at the OK Corral because we are lazy slugs incapable of rational reasonable conversation with any sense of any value to life. I looked up the source, a DC journal for university level staff and job offerings; do better. Sometimes there may be a cop while a crime is being committed, maybe later to investigate. I will remind readers the majority of crimes, especially violent crime is committed by someone known to the people involved. Random violence is less common. And real cops do a decent job as a paramilitary force serving and protecting the city.

    1. You think paramilitary cops PROTECT citizens? Are you mentally defective? Paramilitary SWAT is only called when deaths have already occurred, and the government decides massive armed response is warranted. Or, on the other hand, when government decides that law abiding innocents who own guns need to be killed. Ruby Ridge, anyone? In that case armed government thugs murdered an innocent unarmed woman whose only “crime” was to be married to a guy who owned guns.

      Give your head a shake. You are trusting a dysfunctional premise: that government will protect you. Check the statistics. How many murders or rapes have been PREVENTED by armed police? The sad fact is that law enforcement rarely arrives in time to prevent ANY crime. Contrast that with the 2,000,000 times per year that armed citizens prevent violent crime. Don’t take my word for it, check FBI crime reports. Violent crime has decreased steadily as more and more states adopt carry laws. The facts don’t lie.

  6. I’m not sure were you’re coming from.

    Is it stupid to try to save the lives of your loved ones and other innocents or is it stupid to just wait for the gunman to reach you and get shot? It appears you didn’t listen to the testimony.

    The daughter, when a chance of escape occurred, went for it and managed to escape. Quite sanely, she didn’t return to a place of mortal danger. Are you suggesting she should have? On what basis?

    Her gun was not against the law; again, did you pay any attention to the testimony? It was illegal to carry it in a purse into the diner, so she, lawfully, kept it in her vehicle.

    It appears that you would have had them attempt “rational reasonable conversation” with the deranged gunman instead of allowing them firearms to protect themselves. This is about as rational as expecting police to protect us from these types of crimes. In most cases, by definition, cops are only involved after the initiation of the crime.

    Further, it appears that you base your opposition to weapons on your philosophical view of violence. While you’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how far removed from reality, that is no basis for policy decisions that effect our safety. After Lott’s studies, which show that gun ownership reduces crime, that most defensive gun use does not result in violence (the mere display or warning shots usually suffices), and that there is under-reporting of these benefits, no one argues that they increase crime (even if they argue that he did not prove the above benefits). That you do so, displays your ignorance of the facts.

    At this point, I think the vacuity of the cartoon has been established, and the rational evidence for increased law abiding gun ownership has been presented. You’ve started to veer into increasing amounts of ad hominem attacks and to excursus on a sundry of unrelated issues, so I leave you the floor and the last word.

  7. Introducing more lethal weapons will not prevent deaths. Anyone who believes in this does not understand what they’re saying when they mean increased gun ownership. What the right wing means is that those who lose their lives (keep in mind, the thought takes place only within an anecdote) are those whose lives are not meaningful, be they criminals, people they disagree with, minorities, etc. They assume a completely rational and perfect world in which people do not kill others out of passion, nor prejudice, nor idiocy, nor mistaken intentions. They understand guns as a morality play between the good and the bad- if the good guys had just had a gun they could have stood up to the bad guy (and implicitly killed or maimed them).

    When your public policy sounds like a western movie, you probably shouldn’t involve yourself in politics.

    1. Now you’re conflating issues. The reason guns are allowed is because it a right conferred by the Second Amendment, not because of any benefits they might bring. They are there to protect the People from a Tyrannical Government (to use the spelling of the time of the Constitution), so the more lethal they are, the better.

      What leftists argue, in part, is that we should restrict this right because of the amount of injury and death that results. That is what I was responding to, the assertion that gun control inevitably leads to less death. This is more a philosophical assertion then one based on any evidence. In fact, if there is any evidence, it points to more guns = less death. Take a look at the Wikipedia page on John Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Concealed_weapons_and_crime_rate). One thing is clear there is no evidence for your assertion of more crime resulting from more weapons.

      Leftists assume a world that runs according to their philosophy, where if the law disallows it then no one will have guns. Nice and tidy. Reality is otherwise, with criminals obtaining firearms, and the law abiding citizens being defenseless. Guns are incredible easy to obtain illegally, so it is a Leftist fantasy that stricter gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All it does is leave regular citizens dependent on law enforcement, a reactive response to crime, one that leaves them not in control of their personal safety, resulting in less legal weapons = greater death.

      When one’s public policy is based on philosophy and fantasy as opposed to reality, they shouldn’t be involved in politics. Period. No probably about it.

  8. Lott is highly controversial if not with merit.
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
    wikipedia is no source for issues of debate as it is placed and set by any readers; it is not a fact check of important information. Who was in a rock band, okay, but not political or historical considerations alterable by whoever is passing by on the internet.
    Sammie ol’ buddy ol’ pal, thank you for allowing me my opinion even though you disagree, you may, and indicating my opinion is wrong. What I have to write is censurable (look it up), so I will not do so. For you the world is simplistic and phallic. The issue of guns is based on fact and on fiction, so I will keep my bias and hope people will be responsible.
    PS-Keep the Iroquois, the Huron, and the Mohawks off your lawn. You want a gun as the was written in the Biill of Rights, Amendment 2? Then turn in your collection and exchange for your very own flintlock. Now you will be armed as intended. And do not call for help, small government, you are on your own.

    1. Let it be clear that the link you posted, if anything, supports Lott’s claims. It definitely disproves your repeated claims that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will lead to increased violence.

      To quote the paper’s conclusion: “This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. (149) To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

      Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition: ‘If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.’

      (149) 1. Those who propose to change the status quo bear the burden of proving that change is a good idea; 2. those who propose a new policy bear the burden of proving that the policy is a good idea; and 3. in a free society those who propose to abolish a personal liberty passionately valued by millions bear the burden of proving that abolishment is a good idea. ”
        

    2. Lott’s findings are controversial only to those whose views are challenged by his statistical facts. Here is an article you need to read, written by a self-avowed anti gun scholar.

      http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

      Why, if guns are inherently evil, have all but one state allowed carry of weapons for self defense? Granted, CA, NY, NJ, IL all are dysfunctional in this regard, but even California, New York and New Jersey have provisions to allow gun carry, albeit horrendously limited, so that only the privileged white power brokers, like politicians and movie stars, are allowed the “privilege” of self defense.

      Get this and get it clear: the right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution, just like the RIGHT to free speech, a free press, freedom to worship without government interference, and all the other RIGHTS guaranteed in our Constitution. None of these RIGHTS are “privileges” to be doled out at the whim of politicians or bureaucrats. Do you have a permit to express yourself? A permit to worship as you see fit? If so, did you get those permits from the local police? And if such permits were required, wouldn’t you scream bloody murder?

      You cannot cherry pick the Constitution for only those provisions you like: like it or not, an armed citizenry is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. You may choose to remain unarmed, vulnerable to armed violence, trusting government to defend you. That is your choice. Do not presume to choose the same for me: I choose to be armed, to take responsibility for my own safety and the safety of those I love, as is my RIGHT, guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, a document all elected public servants and law enforcement and military are sworn to protect and defend.

    3. Duck, check your legal precedents: the Second Amendment refers to weapons in common use. That is a provision which allows for modernization. We are allowed weapons contemporary with those in common use by government. Granted, I can’t afford to buy an aircraft carrier and all its planes, so the government still holds all the aces. Nor can I afford to buy an Abrams tank. At least I still have the right as a law abiding citizen to own a semi-automatic rifle and/or pistol. I certainly have no access to machine guns, despite what the media and other misguided uninformed sources may tell you.
      Your point about waiting for the cops to show up is well taken: when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

      By the way, a single shot flint lock will kill you just as dead as a semi-auto Glock, and will do so from considerably father away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>