Bandaid | Buy Reprint Rights | License Candorville | Get Candorville In Your Paper | Buy Candorville BOOKS
January 22nd, 2013
Bandaid
Discussion (17)¬
…or via Paypal
COLLECT CANDORVILLE BOOKS
COLLECT POLITICAL CARTOON BOOKS by DARRIN BELL
COLLECT RUDY PARK BOOKS by DARRIN BELL
great comic, i shall read some more, came here for the first time through a google link 🙂
Before the overflow and easy access to super fast rounds of guns, teenage "baddies" (greasers, etc.) used brass knuckles and switchblades, which were violent, but used one on one. Now, a bad guy can easily take out 20 to 50 or more people in less than a minute. I think, gun violence is SOMETIMES preventable. If gun control can help prevent even one death of a child or loved one, I say go for it.
It's far more likely to lead to the death or serious injury of your child or loved one. Look at the real-world statistics. We don't have to guess and play "what-if" games. We've been trying assorted forms of gun control for decades and it fails every time, both here and overseas.
I wouldn't even mind if it was a bandaid, but to me its more like he's offering a bottle of water to the guy – "Here you're losing fluids, this will help"
Yes, there's plenty of evidence that there's a lot of gun violence in the U.S., but it only accounts for a quarter of the violence going on. Show me that removing guns cuts down total violence by even as much as the number of guns taken off the street and I might believe this will work. But people are remarkably adaptable, and if we remove one means of committing mayhem, they will simply find another way.
I do think that the pro-gun group needs to find a better solution than "arm everyone!!!"
You mean like the security guard, a 32 year veteran of the sheriff's department and gun instructer, at the school in Lapeer, Michigan, who left his gun (unloaded) in a school bathroom?
About the best that I can say about that is that at least A) it was unloaded this time. And B) no students were involved. Hopefully they'll be able to learn from the situation to make sure that it never happens again.
Our most respected leaders from Jesus to Ghandi to Dr. King have all advocated turning away from violence. Violence never solves anything and only begets more violence. We have to break the chain or it will go on repeating. I still believe in their dream of a world without violence. Maybe I am a bit naive, but I feel it's better to reach for that dream and fail than to select a lesser of two evils.
While it's a noble ideal to say that violence never solves anything and only begets more violence, it's simply not true. Specifically, in relation to the discussion at hand, it can solve the problem of someone else already violently attacking you. Practically nothing else will solve the immediate problem, unless you're so lucky as to be able to somehow escape or summon help. (Usually in the form of police, with their own implicit threat of violence.) Perhaps in the long-term, being a martyr instead may exert some tiny pressure on the societal problem at large, but that doesn't help you right now.
That said, though, you're right in that *initiating* violence, as a means to solving some *other* problem, will indeed rarely (though not quite never) solve anything.
Some juicy quotes from respected leaders:
"He who has no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one."
-Jesus
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-Gandhi
And Dr. King had several guns himself. He tried to get a concealed carry permit, but was denied. (Not surprising, being black in a Jim Crow state in the Jim Crow era.) I know few would believe me if I backed up that claim with something from, say, the NRA, or a conservative web site, but here's the HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-an…
Juicy quote: 'Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as "an arsenal."'
Some may think it hypocritical, but he advocated non-violence, not disarmament. Big difference. I'm perfectly fine with "don't start a fight, but if someone else starts one with you, do what you have to do to survive".
[polldaddy 6846420 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/6846420/ polldaddy]
More like a tourniquet around the neck. The big problem is, as a form of crime control, gun control isn't just ineffective but downright counterproductive. Look at the crime stats of American cities, even of similar socioeconomic makeup. Compare which ones have high vs. low crime, then tight vs. loose gun laws. Same comparison. If gun control worked, Washington DC and Chicago would be wonderful safe havens… but no, the reality is that they usually lead the nation in crime, violent crime, murder, and (most damning of all) murder by gunshot. Gun control kills the innocent by leaving them at the mercy of the strong violent criminals.
Have you considered that high crime rates lead to stronger gun control and not the other way around? Considering that, it seems pretty likely that looser gun control laws in DC or Chicago would lead to more shootings.
Actually, Max, yes I have… but the data does not support that.
Take a look at the crime rates practically anywhere in the world, be it a city or a country or in-between, before and after they tighten or loosen their gun control laws. Almost every time, when there is strong gun control there is more violent crime — usually including *gun crime*.
There are two main categories of exceptions. Almost all of them are just continuing an existing trend, which then breaks within a couple years, goes strongly the other way, and does not come back (unless the laws change again). The second is quite debatable, and that is when the *government* is committing the crime, and it's therefore "not a crime" in some people's view. There may be a third category, but I'm not personally aware of any examples. Feel free to point them out.
Lastly, thank you for the calm rational reply. It's a welcome change from the spittle-flecked vitriol I usually get on such threads, from the people who accuse gun owners of being so hateful and violent….
It should also be noted that state gun control laws are made ineffective by the ready availability of guns in neighboring states with much less restrictive laws.
Only a little bit. It's illegal to buy a handgun outside your home state. You can buy a "long gun" (rifle or shotgun), in person, but handguns are the vast majority of crime guns. I'm not sure of the stats on shotguns, but rifles of any kind are only used in about 2% of gun crime, despite the recent outcry on so-called "assault weapons" (which are used in about 0.25% of gun crime).
Also, most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders, usually with many prior felony convictions. Federal law says that anyone already convicted of any felony, or misdemeanor of domestic violence, plus any habitual illegal drug user or person already adjudicated insane, can't possess (let alone buy) a gun, or even a single round of ammo… or even *try* to. It's a mandatory five-year sentence in federal prison. Any purchase from a dealer (whether at their store or a gun show or whatever) *must* go through a background check, which will reveal any such conviction.
(BTW, the federal government's record of prosecuting those is horrible. Denials on such basis usually run several hundred per year… prosecutions, a dozen or so… convictions, low single digits, the rest usually being plea-bargained away. Grand total so far, last time I checked: 45. If you want to cut down on gun crime, there's an obvious starting point that even the NRA won't object to.)
So, having a state next door where *honest* people can buy a gun, doesn't really do anything for most criminals. (Except of course for straw purchases, but that applies anywhere, and stretches the definition of "honest".) Criminals usually just steal them, or buy them on the black market, which thrives anywhere the legal market is suppressed.
Oh, supplement. I just found this:
18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 178.29 (i.e., the relevant Federal law re buying a gun in another state) says:
A person may only buy a firearm within his own State except that he may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.
So, even if the state next door (or wherever you happen to go) has looser laws, the purchase still has to be legal under the laws of your own state. (The term "licensee" above refers to a gun dealer.)
No one is talking about restricting handguns. Assault weapons are the main thing that we're trying to control. Most people that would conceal carry would be carrying a pistol. Hell, you could still keep a 12-gauge shotgun in your house in case of a break in. But who's carrying an AR-15 in the mall?
Maybe nobody contributing here is talking specifically about restricting handguns, but the comic is about mass shootings, which sometimes are carried out with handguns. The recent ones being mainly with "assault weapons" is probably due to copy-catting; these scum want big media coverage, so they ape those that got big media coverage.
And I did kinda diverge onto crime in general, sorry, I got a bit carried away. 🙂
As for carrying an AR-15 openly in a mall, yes, I would find that very suspicious. If he just bought it in the mall's sporting goods store, or is bringing it in for repairs or upgrades or whatever, it should be in a case. Maybe he's part of the Open Carry movement, but let's just say I have Serious Disagreements with them, especially ones THAT insensitive. If the mall had a no-guns policy (as the ones that got shot up ALL did), I'd probably call security on his @$$. Even if not, I'd probably alert them to his presence, and haul my own @$$ outta there… and I don't think any of my gun-buddies would blame me.
Some say band-aid solution…. others say a tourniquet solution. The facts remain that more people have died from gun violence since 1968 than have died in all the wars in the history of the U.S. More children under 18 were shot and killed in 2008 & 2009 than all the soldiers killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And maybe the scariest of the stats, more children under 5 were killed in 2008 & 2009 due to guns than police officers in the line of duty.
But we don't have a gun problem here in the U.S.
I can include links with information if necessary.
You are so intelligent, Slipstick!