Gun cartoon of the day



Totally ignoring the facts that the NRA represents far, far, more people than the largest anti-gun group, the Bill of Rights is generally considered “mainstream”, and guns in the hands of private citizens are used to protect innocent life more often than they are used to commit crimes.

8 thoughts on “Gun cartoon of the day

  1. I was reading the Gun glossary (http://ahorsethief.blogspot.com/2010/04/gun-blogger-glossary.html) and saw your 2004 question cited (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/). Regarding the question: cite one case where restricting gun rights has made an average person safer:
    Prison sentences for violent criminals
    Death penalty for violent criminals
    Screening of Gaza to prevent influx of weapons

    I would have posted in that thread, but the comments closed.
    Please let me know what prize I’ve won.

  2. Also most gun homicide and basic robbery, assault, and murder is often committed by gang members or other people who did not come by their guns through legal channels.

    Of course one of the most common complaints for non NRA gunnies against the NRA is that they don’t spend much time at all defending some of the more benign people who are banned from possessing guns. People like Olofson, and the massive blanket restriction against people covered under the wide canopy of “Misdemeanor Domestic Abuse” and non-violent felonies.

    So not only is the cartoon false on its face, but also it neglects one of the big COMPLAINTS against the NRA that actually falls on the SIDE of the cartoonist.

    I totally love this series, Joe.

  3. “Also most gun homicide and basic robbery, assault, and murder is often committed by gang members or other people who did not come by their guns through legal channels.”

    What do you know about gangs? Are you talking Boston gangs or LA gangs?

    A certain percentage of murders in all areas of the country are committed by family members or friends. I don’t know how those can be stopped though I believe having a gun makes it easier to kill multiple people. Prohibiting Daddy from owning a gun might not help Mommy but it might help the three kids escape out the back door.

    “Domestic Abuse” is only non-violent if you haven’t experienced it. A lot of it never gets reported, so to even get a “Misdemeanor Domestic Abuse” charge means quite a bit. Most women put up with quite a bit of abuse before they ever call the cops.

  4. @ Dusty

    It’s a bit disingenuous to call locking up people for committing crimes a “restriction on gun rights”, wouldn’t you say? You have no right to be a violent criminal and if you choose that path then you are surrendering your rights-all of them. As far as Gaza goes, can you show definitively that the government of Gaza (Hamas in this case) has curtailed private firearms ownership? I would argue that the Israeli blockade is much closer to keeping arms from criminals than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. After all, we are talking about a population that consistently elects (by a wide majority) a gang bent on the criminal enterprise of Jewish extermination. Hell, you might even be able to argue that fewer Arabs in Gaza died when the Israelis held that territory, administered it and allowed the private ownership of firearms.

    @ ubu-You quoted Weer’d, and then flatly failed to refute his assertion. Why would you do that? Is it because you know that the data does not support your contention? Let me give you a few bits to chew on: 90% of adult murderers have adult criminal records spanning on average of 6 years with 4 convictions of major felonies (Kleck and Kates, Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, 2001); “The vast majority of people involved in life threatening violence have a long criminal record” (Delbert S Elliot, “Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A focus on Prevention”, Colorado Law Review Vol 69)

    “A certain percentage of murders in all areas of the country are committed by family members or friends. ” No shit? Has it occurred to you that the career criminals responsible for 90% of the murders in this country are not homeless, friendless orphans? They have families, friends and associates, just like you and I, only they are far more likely to kill them.

    The rest of your post is so bigoted, offensive and lacking any worth at all that I will not say more save this: If you desire to throw around unsubstantiated bile implying that we support or make light of domestic violence, you should be prepared to back it up. Please indicate where any of this blogs authors or regular commenter (or any gunblogger for that matter) have made light of domestic abuse. Good luck with that.

  5. ” Please indicate where any of this blogs authors or regular commenter (or any gunblogger for that matter) have made light of domestic abuse.”

    I only read four blogs on a semi-regular basis and I’m happy to report that I think those four bloggers are well-adjusted men who have good relationships with women. I don’t know what goes on on other blogs because I don’t read them.

    I do notice on “forums” or bulletin boards, questions get asked about misdemeanor domestic violence convictions and restraining orders fairly regularly. While I can’t comment on restraining orders, I believe it takes some proof to get a conviction for “misdemeanor domestic violence.”

    Weer’d Bill’s statement above: “People like Olofson, and the massive blanket restriction against people covered under the wide canopy of “Misdemeanor Domestic Abuse” and non-violent felonies.” is the one that got me.

    First off, “misdemeanor domestic abuse” is a misdemeanor, not a felony. I haven’t a clue who Olofson is. A non-violent felony has nothing to do with a “misdemeanor domestic abuse” conviction.

    Why are some people convicted for felony DUI’s while others are convicted for misdemeanor DUI’s? You can blow the same numbers and be convicted of either one — so what is the difference?

  6. Weer’d Bill,

    Seriously, when you talk about gang members — are you talking about Boston gang members or gang members everywhere?

    See, here in LA, we got gang members who are 90-years old. The gang thing is something passed on down through the family. We’ve got gang members who are NRA members too. I know that probably sounds nutty, but that’s how it is. There was one guy arrested last year who said “I’m a lifetime NRA member” in his defense. (He’s like a 60-year old guy who runs the gun library where the gangs just check out the guns to use in crimes.)

    The NRA does absolutely nothing anti-gang. I guess being “anti-gang” conflicts with their core message.

Comments are closed.