Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
neither would I
I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but both of you have totally missed the point. I am in full agreement that having an "armed and trained gunman" in every classroom is a terrible idea. But having an armed and trained responsible citizen in every classroom is a great idea, we need more of those.
Article VII, Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States of America states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If a person(s) had been utilizing that right, that day of the killings, things probably would have gone a lot better. Honestly a "gun-free" zone does nothing but help crime in that area, it screams 'if i sneak a gun in here no one will challenge me!!!'
Honestly which is the greater evil? Putting a bullet in the brain of a criminal before he can do more harm? or Cowering in a corner hoping he starts to feel bad and stops? Chances are that if that are was not "gun-free" less people would have died.
And it would have been legal to kill the killer also!
Model Penal Code -
Section 9.33. DEFENSE OF A THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
1. Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 93.2 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
2. The actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
And regarding trying to learn in that environment, most people would have a concealed carry permit, you would never know.
Sorry I get carried away, I love this stuff =D
But really I hope you get my point.
PS - In line 15 I meant "area" not "are"
Bottom line.. Guns were created for the sole primary purpose of killing. Not for self protection, not for target practice. You can spin it any way you like and give me a reason for having one, but I hope you have been checked out and licensed and you are smart enough to keep it from being stolen.
finally someone gets it!
guns will not protect people - they do the opposite - kill them!
having a gun to "defend yourself" will not actually stop the bullets going through your heart
i think america would be MUCH better of if they banned guns like in britain
there was a film on a while ago (documentary type) in which the guy presenting it walked into a bank and they gave him a gun for opening an acount!!!
is it just me or is that a VERY stupid thing to do!!! he could have held them at gun point - or worse just killed them while he stole money!
oh wait! they have guns to stop the bullets going through their heads dont they!
You bloody twit! That movie, was Bowling for Columbine, the hack was Michael Moore and it was a total fabrication that Moore designed to make it 'LOOK' like you could just open an account and get a gun.
Moore actually went there a month before, asked the bank manager to give him the gun on the day he walked into the back: 30 days later...after he had a full background check--and yes, guns are kept in the safe...300 miles away, not in the bank! Then, he gleefully says on film, yep, just opened an account got a gun--what total BS!
The guy is a HUCKSTER going all the way back to his lackluster crappy editor days at the National Review. For those of you who were in the press then, and remembered him being fired because he wouldn't go against the Sandanista line by refusing to print an article on attrocities committed by Daniel Ortega's govenment, eventhough Amnesty Int'l begged to differ, Moore's messing with the facts is just a situation normal!
I wish all these true-believers who've puppy-dogged up to people like Michael Moore would do some actual fact finding, easy to do on-line these days, before they pick their next guru. Especially when the only one benefitting is Michael Moore who left every 'real' documentarian in the financial dust ONLY because of his deplorable tactics he calls journalism. Oh, and did everyone catch that his company owned Haliburton stock???
Please see Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine's "Manufacturing Dissent" by Canadians, who Moore always tries to say he loves: wait 'til you see how he treats the real Canadian documentarians when all they want to do is get his response to his own documented words.
And check out http://moorewatch.com/ that I learned about in the above honest look at Moore. The guy's a scum and I think worse than the people he says he's trying to protect people from for what he's done to honorable professions of journalism and documentary film-making. The interview on Phil Donahue in which Flint residents, actually hit by carmakes leaving, asking him to donate money to Flint, MI--yeah his scumbag tactics go all the way back to "Roger and Me"--is priceless. Total PIG!
Do your research, people and stop trying to convince based on shoddy laziness...and contrary to what people like to believe, Canada, Britain and Australias' gun-related crimes have increased sharply since the new gun laws...Gun laws only control law-abiding citizens...what's a criminal 'legally' doing with a gun???
Yes, a gun won't protect you from being shot in the most direct sense, but the would-be attacker fears for his life too and is much less hesitant to attack when he knows that you can shoot him.
If you think otherwise, put a big sign on your front lawn which says `THIS HOUSE IS GUN-FREE''. If you find doing that somewhat uncomfortable you agree that previous argument has some merit.
Yes, one can argue that gun-control would eliminate guns from bad people too; but (as was already mentioned) it's impossible to regulate posession of some goods completely -- vide prohibition, current problems with drugs, etc.
- Paranoid anti-social tendencies?
- The desire to address feelings of inadequacy?
- Living out violent/'macho' fantasies?
Let me see Washington DC has the most extensive some might suggest repressive gun control laws in the country and the highest number of crines committed by guns. Englnad outlawed guns and now has more gun crines per capitia than the US. Canada is in the same boat. Switzerland, Germany and Israel are amoung the most armed countries in the world and have some of the lowest crime rates. HUMM might I suggest that an armed society is a polite society?
ummmm canada doesn't have that high a gun crime rate. Most parts have 0. Its only in the big cities like Toronto, Montreal, Thunder Bay that you see rising gun crime rates (i might add it's because they are close to the american borders and smuggling occurs non stop due to a lack of sufficient enforcement on both sides of the border) I do admit that baning hand guns doesn't work.
So i guess the question is what do you do?
me i say BURN THEM ALL let them use knives like normal people.
There's always someone who cites the examples of Switzerland and Israel in these discussions.
Compared to the United States, private firearms ownership is _heavily_ regulated in Switzerland. You need to obtain permits to possess, purchase, and carry firearms. The situation is similar in Israel.
What I never hear about:
1. countries with stringent gun control laws that have low crime rates (Japan)
2. countries with practically no enforced laws that are practically anarchies (Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan).
Great point indeed. I lived in Switzerland for nearly four years. In Switzerland all males must join the military. The government long ago decided to issue a weapon to these men to keep in their homes. This doesn't prove the NRA's "Guns for all crazies" line of reasoning for two basic reasons:
1. All males from 17 to 50 (more or less) must perform 3 weeks of military service every year. They MUST take their gun and all ammunition with them each time. IF ONE BULLET is missing, it's jail time. All government issued material must be intact, no exceptions, when the male returns to do their 3 week obligatory service.
2. There is not the percentage of crazy people living in Switzerland as there is in the US. I never felt safer in any other country. Just one example of the millions out there to demonstrate my point: My sister-in-law lost her purse one day at Balexert, Geneva's shopping mall. She had over SFR500 along with several credit cars. Just after she arrived at her father's place, the phone rang. It was from the security people at Balexert. Someone had found her purse and had turned it in. When she went to pick it up the security person asked her to verify that ALL contents were still in there. They were.
In the US, the gun lobbyists pay a lot of money to Congress to ensure that all crazy people in the US be given access to firearms. They lobby relentlessly so that the mentally insane have full access to as many firearms as they need. "It's the fundamental right of every unstable person in the US to be able to purchase as many killing devices as possible." The proof is easily shown. The guy who went bezerk at the VT campus was already identified as a lunatic by several teacers at the school, yet he was completely free to buy as many guns as possible.
That is a sick policy and keeps the US as one of the deadliest nations on Earth. More murders with firearms are committed here than almost any other country on Earth. I guess as long as people can cite the second amendment as our forefathers' undying desire to arm all certified lunatics, we will continue to see tens of thousands of Americans killed for that very same rationale.
Get the facts straight. Most every home in Switzerland has a firearm. Many of the apartment buildings have tanks or anti-personnel carriers. Switzerland is very heavily armed, and the regulations that are enforced are similar to ours.
As for Japan having a low crime rate, having lived there for a number of years, I can tell you that one reason their published murder rate is so low is that if they don't catch the perp immediately or suspect that it's yakuza-related, they classify it as a suicide. When I was there, a man "committed suicide" by tying himself upside down on a chainlink fence, cutting out his own tongue, and shooting himself twice in the head. Pretty neat trick, eh?
Guns are a great deterrent. If you can see that I'm carrying, I'm not the one you're going to rob.
Wow, you talk about "getting the facts straight" and then you write just the opposite. I lived in Switzerland for nearly four years and I NEVER saw a tank or anti-personnel carrier in front of ANY apartment building. That's just total bs, period.
As far as their gun regulations are concerned, the are MOST DEFINITELY not the same as ours. Again, you write total bs. The reason most households have a firearm in them is because the males of Switzerland must go through military service, and their military issues a firearm to each soldier. But if even one bullet is missing the next time you do your yearly duty, you go to jail, period. We don't even have a law like that.
Next time, why don't YOU GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT before posting inanities.
Oh yeah, that sounds like a great idea, lets all move to Iraq or Afghanastan. What a retarded comment that was. Guns don't kill people on thier own. A killer is going to find a way, regardless if he/she has a gun. Don't disarm citizens and take away the right they have to prtect thier families.
So, somebody explain to me how disarming law-abiding citizens makes them safer from the law-breakers who have guns... If that logic works, we should also disarm police officers for their safety.
I love these straw-man arguments.
The gunman who started shooting in a school in illinois was relatively law abiding. People said that he was a good person. Then something made him lose it and all of the sudden he started shooting people.
Lets recap: Law abiding, good natured citizen suddenly starts shooting people.
If YOUR logic works (which I doubt it does), then he was a law abiding citizen so he should have the ability to kill a bunch of innocent people.
reply to gunman who started shooting. My understanding is that the children who have done the killings, yet were recognized a good kids, were all on, or had recently been on dangerous, mind altering, perscription drugs. It seems to me that people should look a little deeper into what these legal drugs do to people. Some drugs have been known to cause people to kill themselves or to kill others, yet these drugs continue to be legal.
I really don't think this cartoon suggested disarming law abiding people. Crazy people should not have guns. Very simple logic.
Drunk people should not drive.
Children should not play with matches....etc.
Dumb rednecks will ALWAYS confuse "gun control" with "gun ban" or "disarmament"
Controlling something that can be potentially bad is a very sound idea.
Those who push for TOTAL gun bans are the ones who are the problem.
don't you think that the whole "dumb rednecks" thing is just a tad rude. I agree with your overall logic though.
Oh yes you are correct.
Dumb rednecks are indeed a tad rude.
Not many citizens are law-abiding 100% of the time and having a gun increases both the likelihood and the consequences of a lapse into violence.
So your 'logic' is simply faulty. The right logic is to make gun-possession a very serious crime in itself, as it is in many countries that are far more safe for 'law-abiding citizens' than the US. If law-breakers have guns that provides an easy way to put them away in jail so they can learn a proper job.
I can't stop laughing at your imbecilic post.
You make the grave error of bringing up "logic" in your statement.
Ok,let us use your same logic:
"...having a gun increases both the likelihood and the consequences of a lapse into violence"
Does the presence of a child increase your likelihood of pederasty?
Does the presence of gasoline and matches increase your likelihood of arson?
Does the presence of a computer increase your likelihood of hacking?
And more evidence of your sad confusion:
"...If law-breakers have guns..."
LAW BREAKERS DO HAVE GUNS you moron.
It IS already a serious felony for criminals to have guns.
A gun law banning ALL guns will remove my gun which I have already legally defended myself twice with(I didn't even have to fire a shot either time). How come the drug laws haven't removed drugs from the dealers and addicts?
You aren't a very smart person.
There *may well* be such a thing as a 'gun/weapon effect' on people's psychology.
Does the Gun Pull the Trigger? Automatic Priming Effects of Weapon Pictures and Weapon
Craig A. Anderson, Arlin J. Benjamin & Bruce D. Bartholow
University of MissouriÑColumbia
More than 30 years ago, Berkowitz and LePage (1967) published the first study demonstrating that the mere presence of a weapon increases aggressive behavior. These results have been replicated in several contexts by several research teams. The standard explanation of this weapons effect on aggressive behavior involves priming; identification of a weapon is believed to automatically increase the accessibility of aggression-related thoughts. Two experiments using a word pronunciation task tested this hypothesis. Both experiments consisted of multiple trials in which a prime stimulus (weapon or nonweapon) was followed by a target word (aggressive or nonaggressive) that was to be read as quickly as possible. The prime stimuli were words in Experiment 1 and pictures in Experiment 2. Both experiments showed that the mere identification of a weapon primes aggression-related thoughts. A process model linking weapons as primes to aggressive behavior is discussed briefly.
Well here is a reply to your reply: no having a gun does not increase your likelihood of becoming a criminal. Perhaps the opposite, as you might think twice before starting a fight. But here is where your arguement falls apart: sure many law-breakers have have guns, the idea is to restrict the selling of guns so the mentally ill and convicted criminals can't get their hands on a gun legally.
Obviously having a gun can be a life-saver, which your story is a testament to. However, you are carrying it too far when you suggest that all law-breakers have guns. I know that's not what you mean, but if you are going to say he is a moron, and that his arguement was entirely wrong, you should read his comment more carefully. He said he didn't want a total gun ban, and you seem to be claiming the opposite. I won't call you a "Dumb Redneck" as he did, nor will I say you "aren't a very smart person." I will say, though, that your arguement is just as flawed as you claim his to be.
drug laws havnt removed drugs because they are ADDICTIVE .
quite unlike guns.
also teens think that guns are cool so they will want them & will muck about with them. if you couldnt buy guns then there might not be so much of a problem.
"Does the presence of a child increase your likelihood of pederasty?
Does the presence of gasoline and matches increase your likelihood of arson?
Does the presence of a computer increase your likelihood of hacking?
Ok, here's the key mistake. Having a child has many options. You could do bad things, or many many good things. Having a computer, again, offers multiple choices as to what to use it for. Matches and gasoline are the same. Yes that's right, you don't have to be a pyromaniac in order to use them. Heard of candles and cars?
Now a gun on the other hand, is made for the purpose of firing bullets. Not a lot of choices there. Even if you do use them solely for defense, they still can only kill. And yes EVERYBODY, especially people with certain mental disorders, can get relatively violent when they are angry. Without a gun it would be harder to hurt somebody than it would if you had one.
I will end by saying that all of the rude and utterly useless words that you threw in to your comment did nothing but show just how desperate you were to make a point. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but somebody who makes random rude comments and turns what people say into something else, is much less likely to actually succeed in making a good point.
The rudeness was your silly logic.
My analogy was a perfect mirror reflecting it's idiocy.
I have used my firearm for defense twice and NEVER fired a shot.
Your ignorant assertion that guns can "only kill" is right in line with your other false statements.
I saved my own ass twice and NOBODY even got hurt.
Also,even if I had fired--according to totally correct and verifiable statistics:
More than 90% of all gunshot victims survive.(this statistic is derived from the nation's trauma centers)
Oh,and speaking of trauma centers--there are two a**holes currently in the hospital because they were wielding knives when they kicked in the front door of a nearby neighbor of mine who was armed with a pistol. Better than the outcome of another home invasion also close to my neighborhood in which several men charged into the home of an un-armed immigrant. They stabbed his wife to death in front of her
family. Why don't you argue your asinine logic with those folks?
What is "rude" to you,moron?
My truthful comments OR a woman bleeding to death in front of her family?
Strong language is a sure sign of a losing argument.
Reasoning by analogy is very weak and leads nowhere. Drugs are addictive, and policies against them are extremely misguided and counterproductive in the US.
If (legally owned) guns are plenty, criminals or potential criminals will always have access to them. They may even use your own gun against you and your family. If not, you're lucky.
In a safe country you do not need to defend yourself with a gun. There even is a strong case for not having ordinary police carry a gun, or other weapons that are often used unnecessarily. Of course, armed back-up will always be needed.
Do you think this is a safe country? Where do you live?
Hmmmm... why not post your address? I'm sure the criminals that DO exist in this safe country would love to pay a visit to an unarmed household.
"Strong language is a sure sign of a losing argument."
good point there.
i enjoy "strong language." i find it particularly cathartic.
I'm sorry to hear this.
Contrary to 'popular' belief, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not simply state that "the people's right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now, if that
were ALL it said, there would be absolutely no doubt that the writers of that amendment had intended for people to own and brandish firearms without restriction. However, and
here's the kicker, the 2nd Amendment actually says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed." So rather than giving people carte blanche to keep and bear arms, which the authors of that amendment could easily have done by stating that simply, unmistakably,
and unequivocally, they added the 'Militia' clause, making the 'right to keep and bear arms' subordinate to it. In other words, the keeping and bearing of arms was necessary ONLY
should the need arise for a well-regulated militia to defend the nation. Then, people who had those arms could be recruited to those militias. Anyone who passed bonehead
English should understand the difference between dependent and independent clauses.
Anyone who passed fifth grade history should know that the term 'militia' at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment meant any able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.
If you are making the argument that you need to be an able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to purchase a firearm, at least you'd have SOME ground to stand on.
That comma makes all the difference.
Read the whole thing through.
"The people" are guaranteed this right.
Everywhere in the constitution "the people" means THE PEOPLE.
There is a comma between the militia part and then the people part.
The founding fathers clearly intended citizens to be able to arm themselves.
It was basically armed citizens who defeated King George's army.
It was our founding fathers who wished to prevent our government from ever becoming like King George's.
y'know, there are TWO commas in there that have been bugging me for a LONG time, and i think we could clear up a lot by removing them.... although it would take a Constitutional Convention to do so, right?
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
which, in my extremely non-humble opinion, is what i think the Founding Fathers REALLY meant.
putting those two commas in really screws things up. try reading the Amendment with only the one comma in it, after "State."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This is the version of th 2nd Amendment ratified by the states. This is taken word for word. It still says that the right to bear arms shall not be be infringed. When do you think that a militia is needed? If there are no guns, how do you think they will be armed? If weren't such a simple minded dilettante, you would find that this a more sensible definition of regulate in the context.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
This is the definition of the militia according to federal law.
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
If you don't like guns, don't have one. It is just like all of our other rights, and perhaps more important.
For everyone who says that the National Guard is a militia, they are wrong. It is a military entity controlled
by the federal government, just look how they are being used today. Fighting a nonsensical war in Iraq, for god knows what
reason. There was a new law passed (sorry I have no citation)that allows the federal gov't to use the troops without there home State's consent.
The Constitution provides rights to protect the citizens against tyranny. The second amendment allows the people to have just as much power as their gov't.
Basic Questions to Decide on Guns
What is acceptable use of guns:
-Self-defense by threat?
Really, how common are the Danger Associated with Guns:
-Children obtaining guns?
-Criminals using guns more often? (Solving a stabbing murder is easier then solving a gun murder)
-More spring of the moment including family murders?
What options do we have:
-All out ban on all guns
-Only allow some guns
-Strictly regulate guns
-Freely regulate guns
Here's my opinion. These could halve crime from guns
-Ban all automatic or semi-automatic guns, they have way more danger then potential benefits
-Keep track of all guns based on hidden identifiers to track down the sources of criminal's guns
-For self-defense only guns make the removing of the safety of the gun summon the police (unless done in some complicated way at gun ranges during practice) this would add more safety for legitimate user
-Make contraceptives, and abortion more easily avalable, stop the create of the desperate people early
-Increase sex-education programs, they have been shown to work
-Legalize marijuana (see http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/707) this diverts huge amounts of money from crime and into government as well as freeing up large amounts of police reasorces
-Broaden the campaign against violence
-Keep people active
-Teach everyone first-aid and basic self-defense (e.g. how to get away)
-Teach people problem solving and relationship skills
-Work to end poverty and prejudice
All you would have to do is
-Work to end poverty and prejudice
and crime would seriously greatly reduce.
At that point the only real effect of gun-control would be to disarm the country
amen! for many years, i've advocated that it would be LOTS cheaper for everyone in the country if "Uncle Sam" were to just BUY the drugs from the source-countries and bring it here and burn it [assuming they could get the permits from OSHA and the EPA]
sounds like a good idea to me.
Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the ten years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, there were 478,248 people who received permits to carry firearms.19 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 39% during that 10-year period.
Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.23
Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
Justice Department study:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."28
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."29
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."30
In 1998, a study conducted by a British professor and a U.S. statistician found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study that was published by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's.
According to the Clinton Justice Department, crime has decreased even while the number of guns increased. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research arm of the Justice Department, reported in 2000 that while the number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10% during a recent five-year period, gun-related deaths and woundings dropped 33%.139
* Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%
i was going to give you a website where you could go to find the truth, but i figured that since you are so set in your ways you would not even think about going to it. i wont even bother giving it you you. but since you probably wont even look up switzerland, or the prohibition, i will just give you some good, hard, facts. which is one thing barely anyone knows now because everyone is glued to the TV watching the news that they want you to hear. are you a battery? think about that... yes i did take it from the Matrix. but it is a good point.
Looking at the comments, the pro gunners have presented their arguments politely.
The anti-gunners have used insults and ranting, along with unsubstantiated inuendo.
Guess who I want to be near me when the excrement hits the air mover.
Always remember, when seconds count, (as when the crazy opens fire) the police are only minutes away!
I don't like guns
why would you?
More information about formatting options