Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for January 25, 2011

Two men discussing one’s “bulge”. Good stuff Trudeau.

We call that a sock job. Notice there’s no mention of where the bulge is.

But is the sock loaded??

If Fox is so undesirable, why is this character always watching it?

No, I’m just happy to see you

Why conceal your weapon at all? Wouldn’t deterrence be served best by a weapon carried in plain sight?

The law permits you to carry UNconcealed weapons just about anywhere, as I understand.

But human nature is human nature, and if people didn’t have guns they would use other means, right? As in Ireland, Holland, and Denmark where the violent death rate is about 1 person per million per year, instead of the USA’s 50 per million per year.

Some say more guns means less crime and violence. They why is violent crime more common with us than with people much less well armed, like the Dutch, the Danes, and the Irish?

Right now there is almost one gun for each American. How many do we have to have to become as safe as the Dutch, the Irish, or the Danes, or for that matter, the Syrians? In fact, our violent death rate is higher than in many middle eastern and Muslim countries.

Of course, even the US rate is a small fraction of the worst places, like El Salvador with 700 per million, or Mexico with 150, or Iraq with 75. Yes, Iraq is only marginally worse than the US when it comes to death by intentional violence. Of course all these countries have a weak and ineffectual governments. The sort that are small enough to drown in the bathtub, so to speak.

Ah, but liberty is grand, and liberty without ANY government interference is even better – as you find in Somalia.

JRC123, Mike Doonesbury is conservative.

Doughfoot, nicely put.

I think this ten-year-old “Frazz” strip explains the true appeal of “concealed carry”:

http://comics.com/frazz/2001-09-07/

It’s just lingerie for the second-amendment set…

Even if Rep. Gifford had an assault rifle strapped, it would take super-quick reflexes of a contract merc to lock and load, draw a bead and drop the perp.

In the Mecca of right wingnuts, no one was around to pull a legally carried gun to stop the atrocity?

^ there was a guy there with a legal carry. He pulled his gun and was about to shoot a guy he saw who was holding a gun, a guy that he thought was the shooter.

But at the last minute he realized his target was actually one of the people who had disarmed the real shooter moments before.

He was a second away from killing one of the “heroes” that had stopped the shooting.

Mike watches Fox News for the same reason I do; comic relief. Fox and Friends? I don’t think so. My friends are intelligent. Why does Fox News put such insipid minds on the air? To make Sarah Palin look like an intellectual.

Why watch Fox & Friends in the AM?

1) It’s entertaining, with a touch of drama (Fox’s winning strategy is drama, not conservatism)

2) The Fox women are the hottest in the news business

1) Would you rather be watching “The View” or a “People’s Court” rerun?

Doughfoot, good thoughts, but:

1) Unconcealed weapons depend on the state. In many states (such as mine), I can ONLY carry concealed weapons. If I let any of it show, it’s considered intimidation and I can be arrested and lose my permit. It’s the opposite in some Western states.

2) Most of the deaths from violent crime happen in the inner cities, where there has developed strong cultural influences that promote violence. This isn’t new… if you’ve seen “Gangs of New York”, it’s a pretty accurate depiction of what today would be portrayed in “Do the Right Thing”. Most of the concealed carry permits are in response to this culture.

3) Many of the other guns are for hunting. Quantity means nothing in the equasion - Westerners will often have half dozen guns (inc. rifles and shotguns) each, and these folks have few accidents, and virtually no crime.

Philosophy aside, if you look at statistics of states where legal permits are readily obtained, and contrast them where they are not, the fact jumps out at us that there are fewer gun deaths where permits are allowed. Or, perhaps we could model China, where there is little violent crime and the government has all the guns.

Arizona is the ONLY large state in the country that allows people to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Yet somehow with all those theoretically-armed citizens, that shooting took place anyway and no one did anything until the perp was busy reloading.

Nice try, right wing moonbats.

And exactly what stats are YOU looking at, Nemesys? The 2009 state LEO reporting stats has heavily urban, gun controlling Massachusetts with 457 violent crimes per 100,000 and a murder rate of 2.6.

Meanwhile, wide-open he-man New Mexico has a violent crime rate of 619 and an eyepopping murder rate of 8.7. Texas has a violent crime rate of 490 and a murder rate of 5.3. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 702 and a murder rate of 5.9. And take Arizona, with a violent crime rate of 508 and a murder rate of 5.4. All states with large stretches of rural area, all Western states, all states where carrying guns is widely accepted.

The notion that guns = safety is a LIE.

Roland’s sock bulge is really his way of covering up another of his shortcomings.

Ravenswing, I actually do agree with you that permits (and associated training) should be required, and have said so here. This guy should not have been able to legally get a gun. However, it’s dopey to think that a mentally-deranged nutball would worry about other people who were armed. His plan was probably to go out in a blaze of glory in a shootout with them and with law enforcement.

Armed citizens did rush to the scene in Arizona, and had this murderer been able to reload his gun, they might have saved many lives. As it were, they did what they were supposed to when they realized he was already subdued, which was nothing.

In Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, who exactly is doing all the shooting, and who is being shot? Citizens? I suspect that if Massachusetts was on the Mexican border (as is every state you cited) and in the midst of a fierce drug cartel war, you’d see much higher numbers. Who’s going to shoot them in Mass, the Rhode Island mobsters?

Nice try, left-wing loon. Do you really think that the citizens of those western states would be safer if all their guns were taken away?

We only killed two cops a week last year. I guess we don’t have enough guns to make us safe yet. It’s a good thing I’m not in charge. I’d melt them all down and make Tonka trucks.

Favorite instrument is the glock-and-spiel.”

Nem: where do you think the Mexicans shooting at them GOT THE GUN? They came over the borders and bought them and took them back in. Mexico once had every piece of metal traced because they were worried about rebellions. Thanks to USA citizens buying their drugs and selling them weapons, that has radically changed. It’s really kind of ironic to see them bleed over into the states where they likely bought the gun. This is actually a very good case for stronger restrictions AND better immigration enforcement.

The myth of the wide open west has perpetuate all the Gunny dreams. When it acts like it, then they see the case of more guns where their ancestors saw the case for taking them away altogether when cowboys rode into town.

corzak, you make an extremely good point, and one that ties into what I was taught by my CCW instructor(who has been teaching said classes for 15 years and is certified by my state’s DOJ).

The guy heard shots, ran outside, and almost fired at one of the ppl who had disarmed Loughner. Either he didn’t know proper procedure or he panicked.

If you, as a CCW(or even open-carrier) are in a situation like that, where you come onto the scene after the fact, you have no legal standing to discharge your weapon, as you did not witness the chain of events. What if the guy you shoot was only defending himself against an attacker; perhaps the other dude’s gun fell somewhere you couldn’t see it. What if it was a fight instigated by the man with the gun, and now he’s ending it permanently?

In order for a shooting to be considered justified, you must either be acting in defense of your life in a way that a reasonable person could be expected to, or in defense of others lives in the same way. If you go into a situation half-cocked(no pun intended) without knowing the whole story, not only do you run the risk of wounding or killing an innocent or a victim, but also of spending a considerable stretch in jail.

The most that someone in that position should do would be to cover the armed people with their weapon and order them to disarm, and even that is not the best idea in the world, which was why my instructor warned us to never get involved in a shooting such as this unless it was obviously a large-scale assault.

Sandfan - maybe he thinks the possibility would cause enough “fear.” IDK

Doughfoot - It is hard to compare two unrealted groups of people to draw a conclusion. It is harder to compare 6,7,8 etc. There are too many extraneous variables to account for.

Potrzebie - A cop was not around to pull a legally carried gun to stop the atrocity, either? What is your point?

Corzak - And he didn’t. Your post can also be read in such a way that the man with a gun was cautious enough to not do what the “Leftwingnuts” are afraid of.

Ravenswing - 1) a person was there, but didn’t have to act. Use of deadly force is described as the level of force that is necessary to stop the threat. He did not need to shoot, so he didn’t. That would be evidence of proper use, not improper use. Drawing the weapon may be a different issue. 2) Again, the absence of someone with a gun is not relevant. The absence of a cop is! The absence of security is! The absence of a banker, or car saleman, or cook with no gun is not relevant!

@ prfesser, the “Left-wing loon” comment was intentionally directed singularly to Ravenswing in direct response to his “Right-wing Moonbats” general smear to everyone who disagreed with him. Agree with me or not, there’s no reason for you to feel hurt that I called you a name… I didn’t.

It is kinda interesting that some folks traditionally start off conversations by name-calling as part of their routine, but heaven forbid that anyone else hold a mirror up to them and call them on it.

Oh, well. Call me names if it makes you feel better. And as I said, I agree with you in that if Arizona (as Ravenswing said) allows people to carry concealed weapons without any kind of permit/screening/training process, they do indeed need to rethink that. In my state, which requires multiple screenings, recommendations, background checks, fingerprinting, trainings, competency assessments, etc. that would not have been allowed to happen.

freeholder, alot of the weapons that the mexican cartels are using are military, and illegal to own in the U.S.

Habogee said, about 1 hour ago

We only killed two cops a week last year. I guess we don’t have enough guns to make us safe yet. It’s a good thing I’m not in charge. I’d melt them all down and make Tonka trucks.

Those were criminals. Laws only affect the law abiding, not the law breaking.

freeholder, you’re probably right in that’s where many of the Mexicans get their guns (they also smuggle them in directly). They shouldn’t be able to buy them in the Arizona free market… and frankly, Arizona should know better than to let that happen to themselves. Your irony is well placed.

You’re also 100% right that illegal immigrations and American citizens who buy drugs are fueling the violence. Both of those issues are being largely ignored by our government. What is a private citizen caught in the middle supposed to do to protect himself?

They used to take the guns away from the cowboys because most cattle drives didn’t allow them to drink while on the job. When they did hit town, they’d spend most of their back wages in whiskey, get blasted (as it were), and get in all kinds of fights over the saloon girls.

Guns still serve a practical purpose in the West. One of the most popular guns is the Taurus “Judge”, a six-shooter that also accepts .410 shotgun shells. Many folks use it to control the rattlesnakes on their ranches and homesteads.

About 18 or 20 years ago, I decided that I needed a pistol, since I was generally alone and in this rural area, I could be dead and buried before the local constabulary could get here. There was then and still is a person in my life that I consider dangerous. However, it took me a year before I actually bought the gun. For one simple reason: I had to come to terms with the actuality of my intent to kill a person.

“I have a gun for self-defense” is abstract. “I have a pistol to kill someone” is much more concrete.

How many people consider the effect killing someone has on their own soul?

annamargaret, an excellent point. You have the ability to deliver deadly force, and it is not something that you can do half way if the time comes. I hope you keep in practice with it.

It’s not always people, though. I was at the bus stop when I was 8 years old and a rabid racoon came out of the woods and started chasing the kids. My father came out of the house and dispatched it with his S&W .22 magnum. He had to answer to the State Police for that but he came out ok.

That’s because you’re Roland Hedley. You’re better news if you get shot. They might arm O’Really & Geraldo. Ollie & Palin brought their own.

If Roland bleeds, he leads.

Whenever I use a rolled up sock, I stick it down my pants and hang out at the bus station. Then if anyone invites me into the men’s room and starts to mess with me, I whip out my sock and let him know that what he saw is not necessarily what he might get. Then I threaten to beat the snot out of him if he does not pay me enough money to keep me from calling the Police to charge him with solicitation.

I don’t take no s h i t !!

I tried the sock thing too, but it doesn’t seem to work.

Maybe I should move it around to the front?

@ mrroberts, Military guns are illegal in the US? Only if they are fully automatic. Look at the weapons used at WACO. There you had legal weapons up to 50 caliber altered to fire fully automatic. It isn’t hard to do.

Does Stark Raving Conservative sound too much like name calling?

Nemesys has been watching too many San Francisco movies and thinks he has all the answer for all the nollas.

Gotta go and listen to the State of the Union address, it’ll be great. I mean it will be great after Barack gives it.

Justice, I mean Grenade Launchers, .50 Cal machine guns, grenades. Also, I said WEAPONS weapons are grenades, rockets..etc.

Also, full auto isn’t neccesarily illegal. It must be registered, and the owner must have a FFL (fed. firearms liscense.)

Please, justice, give me one place in the US where I can buy the weapons I just mentioned, legally.

Mike’s profile in panels 1 & 3 gives him a hang dog look of Garrison Keillor.

11 LEO murdered in two days.

And these folks can “carry” all they want – open or concealed, but if one of them shoots someone even in a situation like that in Arizona, they are quite likely to face charges and spend years in court – if not in jail.