As if this has ever happened except in the minds of the anti-gun bigots.
Like this:
LikeLoading...
Related
Share
21 thoughts on “Gun cartoon of the day”
Ahhh a recent one!
And I can point out the massive data set of Starbucks and open carry protesters, as well as people who simply prefer to carry openly, we have exactly ZERO data points of such an event, or one remotely similar occurring.
Change “Starbucks” to “All Businesses” and in this expanded study set the number of incidents rises SHARPLY to ZERO.
Loading...
It’s never happened but at least it’s kind of funny!
Loading...
Why am I not surprised that antis like ubu care little about the lives of others…
Loading...
ubu52,
I don’t find it funny at all.
Do the substitution with your favorite minority instead of a gun owner and think about it then.
AntiCitizenOne,
I think you are overstating the situation some. I think they care. I think the problem is that they either are unaware or, perhaps willfully, ignore the benefits of gun ownership and carry in public places.
Loading...
Well, actually, it did happen in DC, but hey, that’s DC:
Of course, the perp was a known scumbag, and being DC ~1997 handguns were illegal, as was self defense.
So the atrocity wasn’t actually committed by a law abiding citizen, and was actually a law breaker looking for disarmed victims.
I think what I love most is that they compare carrying self-defense tools legally to things that are often banned by law for hygienic purposes. All Starbucks said is they were going to respect local laws governing the matter. Local laws in many places say thou shall wear shirt and shoes in restaurant. All they can do is cause a ruckus like this because as you pointed out Joe, they don’t actually have the numbers to fight.
B
Loading...
She takes delight over the dead, and laughs at a reinforced stereotype without ever doing research that befits a thinking human, and promotes a cause that promises “world peace” and “nonviolence” and “harmony” at the expense of individual liberty – they will just see you as projects to be micromanaged, not as capable human beings – just as wrong as many of today’s corporate offenders.
The death of an individual in many cases is NO laughing matter, and I don’t think it’s the first time I’ve seen antis (or even on the fencers) like her cross such a line.
Loading...
A shooting occurred at a Starbucks store, but was it because a customer was refused service? That is what the cartoon implies will happen. That, I claim, is bigotry against people who carry guns.
Loading...
As a published cartoonist I’m offended by the lack of humor, the obvious smug gloating, and the patently ridiculous fantasy world exhibited in the graphic.
Loading...
No one thinks it’s funny that the cartoonist states “macchiato” and not “cup of coffee”? I think that is the part that makes the whole cartoon humorous.
He could have cut out all the gun references and just had an angry man screaming and turning red faced, with the same caption, and it would have still been amusing.
Loading...
Ah, the famous ten-shot S&W revolver… must be a 617, with cop-killing .22 caliber bullets punching holes in those windows.
I shouldn’t be surprised: the artist already demonstrated a complete lack of research.
Loading...
Quit being coy, it’s not working, and macchiato is the same thing as coffee.
Loading...
“He could have cut out all the gun references and just had an angry man screaming and turning red faced, with the same caption, and it would have still been amusing.”
Could you explain how, please? Because I’m honestly not getting it, and I want to understand what you mean.
Loading...
And as if someone who would kill over coffee would somehow be disuaded by a “no guns” sign. What an amazing level of ignorance, and yet I’m glad some people choose to show their ingnorance and bigotry. It proves that everything we’ve said about the anti gun movement is true– that since it has nothing to do with crime or safety, the anti gun rights position must to be supported with delusions.
Loading...
Substitute “scone” for “macchiato” then.
It’s like Niles (Frasier’s brother) getting angry over the wrong ingredients in his latte.
It’s that “angry gormand” thing — the guy who would never order a cup of coffee when he can order a macchiato. I’m sure Niles would have thrown a fit if they had cut him off after his first two lattes, and people would have found it funny.
Loading...
The anti-gun creeps don’t think anyone will kill in a Starbucks where carry is permitted. Quite the contrary, they want Starbucks to very publicly back down so that it becomes very public knowledge that it’s a gun-free zone–so that some lunatic will then shoot it up. That way they can use the ensuing mass murder as propaganda.
Plus, they frankly just get a kick out of people dying who aren’t like they are. Starbucks may seem somewhat bohemian to very conservative people, but to the hard Left, anyone who hangs out anywhere other than a head shop or a BDSM club is too “square” to have a life worth preserving.
Loading...
By supporting this type of anger, ubu, you are supporting irresponsibility and thus you are actively egging on people to violence for your own ends – hypocrisy at it’s highest.
Loading...
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I’m not understanding how a crazy person killing someone else in a psychotic rage over being denied a third serving of something is supposed to be amusing. That’s what I would like explained.
I do understand that some people find freakish caricatures amusing. Those just above the dregs of humanity have been entertained by the gimp pit show throughout history.
What I don’t understand is why identifying the trivial pretext for a psychotically enraged murder by such a freakish caricature is supposed to be amusing.
So, now that I’ve clarified that, could you explain how, please? I apologize for asking twice, but I’m still honestly not getting it, and want to understand what you mean.
Loading...
Acksiom,
You’ll need to talk down to me because I don’t understand what you posted at all this last time.
Going from: “Could you explain how, please? Because I’m honestly not getting it, and I want to understand what you mean.”
To: “Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I’m not understanding how a crazy person killing someone else in a psychotic rage over being denied a third serving of something is supposed to be amusing. That’s what I would like explained. I do understand that some people find freakish caricatures amusing. Those just above the dregs of humanity have been entertained by the gimp pit show throughout history. What I don’t understand is why identifying the trivial pretext for a psychotically enraged murder by such a freakish caricature is supposed to be amusing.”
…Really didn’t clarify anything at all. You turned a simple question into mud.
What is a “gimp pit show”? Google show no results when I searched for those terms.
And where do you get the whole “psychosis” in this cartoon? Are you possibly reading too much into it? It’s only a cartoon, after all.
Loading...
Your mannerisms are mimicking mikeys….
rephrasing the question: Why do you think this PARTICULAR murder is funny?
Loading...
It’s a CARTOON, not a MURDER! It’s like Tom & Jerry or the Roadrunner! That dead guy will get up and walk in the next frame!
You guys are way too serious for me.
I actually thought it was a joke when the Brady lady talked about taking her kids to eat scones at Starbucks. It’s not only the angry gormand that makes me laugh, it’s the faux gourmet that gets me too. (Her town doesn’t have bakeries? Does she buy her kids lattes too? It’s Starbucks, not McDonalds.)
Ahhh a recent one!
And I can point out the massive data set of Starbucks and open carry protesters, as well as people who simply prefer to carry openly, we have exactly ZERO data points of such an event, or one remotely similar occurring.
Change “Starbucks” to “All Businesses” and in this expanded study set the number of incidents rises SHARPLY to ZERO.
It’s never happened but at least it’s kind of funny!
Why am I not surprised that antis like ubu care little about the lives of others…
ubu52,
I don’t find it funny at all.
Do the substitution with your favorite minority instead of a gun owner and think about it then.
AntiCitizenOne,
I think you are overstating the situation some. I think they care. I think the problem is that they either are unaware or, perhaps willfully, ignore the benefits of gun ownership and carry in public places.
Well, actually, it did happen in DC, but hey, that’s DC:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/march99/starbucks070897.htm>
Of course, the perp was a known scumbag, and being DC ~1997 handguns were illegal, as was self defense.
So the atrocity wasn’t actually committed by a law abiding citizen, and was actually a law breaker looking for disarmed victims.
I think what I love most is that they compare carrying self-defense tools legally to things that are often banned by law for hygienic purposes. All Starbucks said is they were going to respect local laws governing the matter. Local laws in many places say thou shall wear shirt and shoes in restaurant. All they can do is cause a ruckus like this because as you pointed out Joe, they don’t actually have the numbers to fight.
B
She takes delight over the dead, and laughs at a reinforced stereotype without ever doing research that befits a thinking human, and promotes a cause that promises “world peace” and “nonviolence” and “harmony” at the expense of individual liberty – they will just see you as projects to be micromanaged, not as capable human beings – just as wrong as many of today’s corporate offenders.
The death of an individual in many cases is NO laughing matter, and I don’t think it’s the first time I’ve seen antis (or even on the fencers) like her cross such a line.
A shooting occurred at a Starbucks store, but was it because a customer was refused service? That is what the cartoon implies will happen. That, I claim, is bigotry against people who carry guns.
As a published cartoonist I’m offended by the lack of humor, the obvious smug gloating, and the patently ridiculous fantasy world exhibited in the graphic.
No one thinks it’s funny that the cartoonist states “macchiato” and not “cup of coffee”? I think that is the part that makes the whole cartoon humorous.
He could have cut out all the gun references and just had an angry man screaming and turning red faced, with the same caption, and it would have still been amusing.
Ah, the famous ten-shot S&W revolver… must be a 617, with cop-killing .22 caliber bullets punching holes in those windows.
I shouldn’t be surprised: the artist already demonstrated a complete lack of research.
Quit being coy, it’s not working, and macchiato is the same thing as coffee.
“He could have cut out all the gun references and just had an angry man screaming and turning red faced, with the same caption, and it would have still been amusing.”
Could you explain how, please? Because I’m honestly not getting it, and I want to understand what you mean.
And as if someone who would kill over coffee would somehow be disuaded by a “no guns” sign. What an amazing level of ignorance, and yet I’m glad some people choose to show their ingnorance and bigotry. It proves that everything we’ve said about the anti gun movement is true– that since it has nothing to do with crime or safety, the anti gun rights position must to be supported with delusions.
Substitute “scone” for “macchiato” then.
It’s like Niles (Frasier’s brother) getting angry over the wrong ingredients in his latte.
It’s that “angry gormand” thing — the guy who would never order a cup of coffee when he can order a macchiato. I’m sure Niles would have thrown a fit if they had cut him off after his first two lattes, and people would have found it funny.
The anti-gun creeps don’t think anyone will kill in a Starbucks where carry is permitted. Quite the contrary, they want Starbucks to very publicly back down so that it becomes very public knowledge that it’s a gun-free zone–so that some lunatic will then shoot it up. That way they can use the ensuing mass murder as propaganda.
Plus, they frankly just get a kick out of people dying who aren’t like they are. Starbucks may seem somewhat bohemian to very conservative people, but to the hard Left, anyone who hangs out anywhere other than a head shop or a BDSM club is too “square” to have a life worth preserving.
By supporting this type of anger, ubu, you are supporting irresponsibility and thus you are actively egging on people to violence for your own ends – hypocrisy at it’s highest.
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I’m not understanding how a crazy person killing someone else in a psychotic rage over being denied a third serving of something is supposed to be amusing. That’s what I would like explained.
I do understand that some people find freakish caricatures amusing. Those just above the dregs of humanity have been entertained by the gimp pit show throughout history.
What I don’t understand is why identifying the trivial pretext for a psychotically enraged murder by such a freakish caricature is supposed to be amusing.
So, now that I’ve clarified that, could you explain how, please? I apologize for asking twice, but I’m still honestly not getting it, and want to understand what you mean.
Acksiom,
You’ll need to talk down to me because I don’t understand what you posted at all this last time.
Going from: “Could you explain how, please? Because I’m honestly not getting it, and I want to understand what you mean.”
To: “Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I’m not understanding how a crazy person killing someone else in a psychotic rage over being denied a third serving of something is supposed to be amusing. That’s what I would like explained. I do understand that some people find freakish caricatures amusing. Those just above the dregs of humanity have been entertained by the gimp pit show throughout history. What I don’t understand is why identifying the trivial pretext for a psychotically enraged murder by such a freakish caricature is supposed to be amusing.”
…Really didn’t clarify anything at all. You turned a simple question into mud.
What is a “gimp pit show”? Google show no results when I searched for those terms.
And where do you get the whole “psychosis” in this cartoon? Are you possibly reading too much into it? It’s only a cartoon, after all.
Your mannerisms are mimicking mikeys….
rephrasing the question: Why do you think this PARTICULAR murder is funny?
It’s a CARTOON, not a MURDER! It’s like Tom & Jerry or the Roadrunner! That dead guy will get up and walk in the next frame!
You guys are way too serious for me.
I actually thought it was a joke when the Brady lady talked about taking her kids to eat scones at Starbucks. It’s not only the angry gormand that makes me laugh, it’s the faux gourmet that gets me too. (Her town doesn’t have bakeries? Does she buy her kids lattes too? It’s Starbucks, not McDonalds.)