Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for January 24, 2011

If all these people qualify for concealed weapon permits and actually carry, they’ll be a whole lot safer than they are now. Armed law abiding citizens are the worst enemy of the bad guys.

I wonder if this strip was done before the Arizona shooting, anticipating it, or after, responding to it.

Since I believe that the Reps in question all said that they would be carrying concealed after the Tucson incident, I would suspect that this was written in response and not before. But what do I know?

@Coyoty: After, but not long after going by those names.

Supersurfer, did you read about the armed Safeway customer who heard the gunshots at Rep. Giffords’ event, rushed outside, and came within a hair’s breadth of shooting the heroic innocents who had just disarmed Jared Loughner?

Here’s a link to the story:

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

Sigh.

Another gun nut leads off.

Carrying a firearm and being proficient in its use, is no guarantee of safety. The recent shootings in a Detroit police station and the deaths of four police officers in Washington state coffee shop are grim testimony to that. Without sufficient reaction time, all the firearms in the world will not avail you.

I strongly support gun ownership, but the posturing by the Congressmen that Trudeau mentions is just plain silly. Absent knowledge of a specific threat by a specific individual, any public figure can be assassinated, as long as the assassin is willing to be caught or killed.

I’m glad to belong to a country with hardly any guns … and no Fox News!

I’m sure the NRA will be happy to sponsor those representatives.

And I’m sure the “Brady Bunch” will be happy to punish everyone that DIDN’T DO the Arizona shooting…

I think this is just slapstick funny-as alot of comics are meant to be. Why??? Because, given the environment of America, these days, we need a good laugh!

This isn’t a strip about gun laws; it’s a strip about politicians posturing.

And now lunatic Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) wants to carry his guns on the floor of the House of Representatives. What’s his plan? Pick off Democrats until the R’s have a veto-proof majority? Guns in congress. This must be the new civility I’m hearing so much about.

@GrimmaTheNome: Please tell me the name of that country, I’d like to move there. Seriously……

You probably have maternity/paternity leave, decent national health-care, and a great quality of life. Maybe high taxes yes, but ya get what’cha pay for…..

Having a concealed handgun strapped in its holster won’t help if the other guy’s already got his gun drawn, pointed and cocked.

I also wish I lived in a country with hardly any guns, but until the criminals and the police turn all theirs in first, I’ll be keeping my carry permit active.

As to news, I wished I lived in a country where Keith Olbermann was fired for incompetence and… wait! What do you know… some wishes DO come true!

I like living in a state where anyone who is not a felon or has not been in a mental hospital can get a concealed weapons permit. I live in the country but I feel safe driving the 15 miles to shop at Walmart……OOPS.

I, too, live in a country with very few guns and no Fox News. Like, you know, a lot of the world ;-) (At least if we’re talking fewer guns and no Fox News.)

My country is Denmark. I’d say you’d be welcome here, but then we do have insane immigration laws…This country has its flaws, too. Every country does.

I knew a couple Black belts who could totally kick butt. One was sitting in diner when one of his old opponents came in with a blanket, tossed it over him and pummeled him while he was trapped in the booth. Another got robbed while he was in a Men;s room and his black belt was down around his ankles in one of the stalls.

Self defense, unarmed or armed, is a tricky thing at best.

I believe Aaron Burr would agree with the recent trend. But he had a duel personality.

Yet again, our friends from the wrong wing fail to learn from history.

Interesting, Supersurfer. You DO know that 75% of all gun assaults and deaths in the United States are at the hands of family, friends and acquaintances of the victims?

Yep, that’s right: the person who shoots you isn’t going to be the Dark Skinned Drug Addict of your fantasies. It’s going to be your next door neighbor after you get in that shouting match over the fallen tree, or else your kid’s best friend gets it because they found your pistol in a drawer and played with it, or because Uncle Rufus was drunk out of his gourd and screweing around.

Don’t take my word for it - call the National Association of Police Chiefs. That’s THEIR stat.

I was discussing this topic (carrying a gun to protect yourself against other armed “thugs”) with a friend and he made a very valid point. Shooting a gun at a target on a shooting range with all the time in the world is a very different thing from trying to shoot another human being who may be busy shooting at you. Granted, I have not served in the military but I suspect a lot of vets will agree that there is a huge difference between training camp (even live fire training) and your first genuine fire fight in combat.

Proof positive of the fallaciousness of the argument that carrying a gun protects others happened in Texas shortly after they passed their concealed gun law. Someone started shooting in a club and some yahoo pulled out his gun and proceeded to shoot a completely innocent bystander. The stress in that situation tends to make you as dangerous or more dangerous than the initial shooter.

Denmark has a lot to offer to its citizens, but…

1) Most of their media (including almost every radio station) is owned by a monopoly, DR. However, they can easily stream Fox News just by going on the internet, and many people do, so don’t think there’s “no Fox News”.

2) Denmark has a miniscule military. It fought long and hard against the Nazi’s in WW2, surrending in about 2 hours. It’s a good thing that someone else had a military to rescue them.

3) Denmark has a long history of easy immigration, but now has tightened that up with a merit-based “points” system due to abuse of that policy. It seems that many of the recent immigrants are very conservative, and refuse to assimilate into their new liberal country’s society. Btw, new laws make it illegal to build a mosque in Copenhagen.

4) Denmark’s generous welfare system is being overloaded by immigrants, who likely chose the country to move to based upon it.

It will be interesting to see how Denmark handles the changes being made to its society over the coming years. We know how Greece handled it.

I sold my 3 handguns about 20 years ago when I read the statistic that I was 5 times more likely to shoot a family member in anger or by mistake than to shoot a burglar.

I’ve since come to the conclusion that the more fearful you are, the more guns you need, and you need them always at hand.

I pray for those who are so afraid that they believe that they, and others, would be safer if everyone carried guns. As the stories posted here, and the statistics clearly show, nothing could be further from the truth.

At the time the constitution was written, a single man could not possibley enter a restaurant or school and kill 13 people in a few minutes. Muzzle loaders just aren’t very efficient. Those brilliant men would have written it differently if they’d seen the mayhem that a Mac10 can create in a few seconds.

Many of those gun death statistics include suicides. The “someone you know” includes yourself.

In those states where gun ownership has been made very difficult, such as Mass. and N. Jersey, suicide by train has become popular instead. Every commuter railroad offers grief counseling for its engineers and conductors, and there are very few of them with more than a year’s experience who haven’t been involved in an incident.

People kill people. It’s trite, but true. If the Arizona guy had, instead, driven his SUV into the crowd with Rep Giffords and killed and maimed people, would we be having this conversation?

True, many people aren’t particularly “qualified” to handle high stress situations involving guns; but then again a lot of people, including veterans, lifelong gun users, etc. are both qualified and willing to protect themselves and family.

The Giffords incident shows that thoughtfulness. The young man in Walgreen’s ran out with his hand on his concealed gun; assessed the situation, including recognizing that one individual had picked up the gun the killer used; and then assisted in subduing the killer. That young man had no particular training, but was equal to the task.

Why not any thoughtful, law-abiding citizen?

Also, there are NO countries without guns. There are a lot of countries where only criminals and the government have guns - and that’s the problem.

Vets and long-time gun owners are qualified and willing. This is one of the box-of-rocks stupid statements I have ever seen. I knew fellow Marines stationed in Vietnam who didn’t know which end of their rifles was dangerous. Anyone who ever went to Red Beach knows of what I write.

I know gun owners who would probably shoot themselves in the foot carrying their pieces to the closet. Being a Vet and/or long time gun owner does NOT in some omnipotent way qualify one to react to dangerous situations with guns or kbars or delecate little fisties. The Wallgreen guy? Probably did a lot of assessing looking through the front window on the way outside. Also, there are often a few, very few people who react well in crisis. The implication here is that this is a large crowd and could be larger. That is simply foolish.

Once again the drumbeat ensues with the so-called pro gun crowd claiming if they carry they are safer.

I would ask you folks to take out your pieces, lock and load, and walk into an ambush.

If more guns means less crime, then Kabul must be the safest city in the world.

Fairportfan2, I don’t know what the stats cited include, because I can’t find any references that cite it. In fact, I can’t even find an organization with the source name that was quoted, although there are several similar ones.

However, I have found some other stats while searching:

*A 1994 survey found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year ( U.S. Centers for Disease Control, 1994) *U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year (Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2000) *A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim and *40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun” (Book: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms) *83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime in their lifetimes (US Dept. of Justice)

I’m a long-time gun owner. I’ve been shooting since I was 6 years old, and I’m qualified and willing. I imagine that there are some who are not, but what does that have to do with me?

Family & friends are 75% more likely to know if you need to be shot. For mayhem I prefer a fire ax. You may not rack up the body count, but projectile weapons are too impersonal. If I wore a viking outfit, bystanders would think at first that I was shooting a commercial, & the shock value would give me a few more seconds.

So how come I only ever hear maybe ONE news story where a crime was foiled by a private citizen packing heat for every… I dunno, 20 stories about a “Murder 1” or an accidental manslaughter with a firearm?

Tell me too why America has among the laxest gun laws, yet SO MANY victims of gun violence? Well, hey, yeah, there’s Mexico beating us, but where are THEY getting the weapons?

Fort Hood. Four police shot inside a police station yesterday. So much for “armed” citizens preventing a shooting. These WERE “trained and armed professionals”. In the police station, their body armor seemed to do more good then their guns in the initial contact.

Maybe moms and their kids should wear body armor before going to Safeway? Maybe a little sound reality on restricting access to guns would help more?

Wildcard, perhaps you should consider widening your news sources. Newsweek, the NY Times, and MSNBC won’t carry this kind of story:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/fla-jogger-wont-charged-shooting-teen/

dsouth, mexico has strict gun laws, and thats not working out.

In the U.S., the states with concealed carry, and lax gun laws have lower + violent crime rates than states without concealed carry, and strict gun laws.

Wildcard, the FBI has estimated that between 1-2 million people use a firearm to protect themselves and others every year. However, 100,000 people use a firearm in a crime.

nemesys, what is your problem with the police?

Suddenly realized I don’t even know which is my “FOX” station via cable .. there’s the NBC affiliate .. the CBS affiliate - CNN - IS WB still there? – hmmmm living in the boonies may have its compensations!

Nemesys, he shot the kid 8 times, for punching him in the face. Sounds like a responsible gun owner to me. Good Lord, how can such a response be justified? Granted, there could be details left out, but 8 times? At the very least the guy needs more target practice.

I think the problem is really enforcement of the laws we currently have.

Mr. Roberts, I have no problem with police. I do have a problem if the police are the only ones with access to firearms. I think that’s why the Second Ammendment was included in the Bill of Rights.

In my not-so-humble opinion, the Second Ammendment is one of the main reasons why the United States was able to avoid the political upheavals that Europe and much of the rest of the world went through in the 19th and 20th centuries. An armed populace doesn’t pay much attention to would-be dictators, who usually take these arms away from citizens as soon as they can as part of their strategy.

Your statements about “carry” states having lower crime are not only true, but there are compelling statistics from individual states that show dirrect correlations between new gun laws and higher crime, and vice-versa.

I doubt having a gun would have heped Gabby or any of the others. Except for a few, Trudeau fans have alot of common sense.

I am a small women, somewhat handicapped by a childhood bout with polio, and have had to draw a gun to defend myself twice - once in a stairway at 3:00 am (I’d worked late), and again on a boat anchored offshore in the Caribbean. The rest of the time I shoot handguns for fun - like a arcade shooting gallery but louder - and to keep in practice. It’s certainly true that I have rarely had to draw a gun, but the times when I did, having one and being familiar with how it worked saved my and my companion’s lives.

Nemesys: “I do have a problem if the police are the only ones with access to firearms. I think that’s why the Second Ammendment was included in the Bill of Rights.”

The justification for the Second Amendment is included in the amendment itself: “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.” The U.S. originally had little to no standing Army. In case of threats from OUTSIDE the State, they relied on calling up militias, “citizen soldiers” such as today’s National Guard. If you ain’t in the National Guard, if you aren’t on call to fight ON BEHALF OF Civil Authority (not AGAINST Civil Authority), you ain’t part of a well-regulated militia. In 1787, not only were municipal police forces rare (Philadelphia had one; Boston, New York, and Richmond did not), but so were pistols; the “Arms” you’d be expected to keep would have been single-shot rifles that you’d keep in your home; unless you were out hunting or trail-blazing the wilderness, you wouldn’t carry it around with you.

Militias at the time of the writing of the Constitution were not run at the state level, but were local organizations. Ify my state demanded that I join a local militia in order to carry, I don’t think that would go over too well by most anti-gun folks. Still, I’d be happy to oblige, if there were any, which there isn’t. I guess I could create and well-regulate one. In times of national crisis, I hope someone will.

I wouldn’t mind slinging my .30 carbine over my shoulder instead of carrying my Sig, but I think the locals might object.

^ Fritz,,, Thanks.

Question for thought,,, Where do most criminals get their weapons? Ohhh! From that lawful gun owner who has one in his glove box or closet to protect himself and his family. They are CRIMINALS! They don’t buy what they want.

There can’t be anything more hilarious than an NRA goon who think he can actually protect himself with a firearm. He is much more likely to shoot a friendly by accident than to actually defend himself.

A few pertinent issues:

1) professionals with range training have a very bad record of actually HITTING their targets. Example the 4 police officers who shot the UNARMED man in NYC. They fired 41 bullets AT POINT BLANK RANGE and hit the guy 11 times. A friend of mine witnessed a shoot out in front of the tenaments in front of Newport News Shipbuilding. The shootout went on for several minutes. Most shots were fired less than 40 feet from the target. Not even ONE shot hit its target. Loughner fired 31 shots with only 6 dead.

2) if I choose to take you out, I am bleeep WELL not going to tell you I’m coming. You won’t have a chance to draw your concealed weapon before you are dead. I don’t need a weapon to make that happen.

3) currently, people who commit a crime ASSUME EVERYBODY is armed and act accordingly. What that means is, a criminal will shoot you whether you are armed or not and THEN take your wallet. This happened to someone I know. They figured he MIGHT be armed, they wanted his wallet. They simply shot him IN THE BACK, reached down and took his wallet. Fortunately, my friend survived. So, everyone is now at greater risk because there are more guns on the street, because of the tendencey to shoot firstt, firgure out if the other personis armed second.

Justice, nevermind the fact that they are breaking the law to get a tool with which to break yet another law.

Punish the law abiding, right?

I’m pro gun, but I do think there should be some type of training required to have a firearm. That said, a person is going to have a hard time trying to get my mosin-nagant and my 12 gauge shotgun away from me.

misterwhite, a friend of mine was murdered by a person using a knife, you going to outlaw those? Dont forget the 1-2 MILLION people who use a firearm in self defense every year, 98% of the time without firing a single shot.

Point: the NRA came about because there were angry civil war vets who weren’t allowed to keep their government guns after the war. It was never about free ownership but about getting a government handout some vets thought they deserved. Keep that and Fritz’ history lesson in mind when you hear the historic ownership argument.

Nemy: The word militia derives from the Latin for solider (mil) and itia -activity. It came to mean military service. There is only one reason to have the right to bear arms for a military service to be available to protect the country, with a non-standing army. The State Police have been called the militia in many states (don’t know if they still are). You might join them if you like. Or the National Guard which were long regarded as STATE militia entities before the re-thinking of our armed services.

And you guys are hilarious if you think an army can’t take your guns away. The FBI learned it’s lesson after Ruby Ridge and Waco and now grabs gun “enthusiasts” going to their cars where they fold like meek kittens and cry about their rights. The NRA has even expanded the definition of an automatic weapon to include the main part you need to convert a semi to a full. The ruling just isn’t enforced because of court challenges.

If the government wants to come for you, they have your addressfrom all those handgun registration forms the NRA wanted you to sign so you could buy the guns that support them. They have your address from the NRA’s public record membership files, from the registration of ammo bought in many states, from gun club records of use and membership, from national petitions signed to support guys like our Congressman Dingell. The computer is more deadly than the sword.

And here’s a real flash. The guys you want to elect to protect your rights will be the first ones to send in the troops when the time comes. Simply because they know how dangerous it is to have all those weapons out there if you change your mind.

yep, justice. That’s where they get them, stolen from owners who wouldn’t spend the time or money to protect them properly and from the gun shop guys that sold to them anyway without gun locks or safes.

The Militia, as defined under the Constitution, is vastly different from the types of local militias (little more than posses at best, or Vigilance Committees at worst) that you’re thinking of, Nemesys. The Constitution recognize THE Militia, not many mini-militias.

Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectvely the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The “well-regulated Militia” called for by the 2nd Amendment, again, is to help UPHOLD Civil Authority, not to provide a “safeguard” against it.

Given my congressman Heath Shuler’s reputation for accuracy he established with the Washington Redskins, I think I’ll be skipping the next time he comes to town.

OK, I kid because I love. To be a Democrat successfully reelected in this district requires reactionary pandering.

fritz, free, what about “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”?

wow, start on the right to bear arms in the US and the comments come flooding in! I live in the UK, where only specially trained Police are allowed to carry arms. A quick google of ‘list countries gushot deaths’ lead me to a page on wikipediea which gives annual deaths /100,000 population. US 10 or 15 (two different sources) UK 0.58, 0.46, 0.38 (Scotland , Wales England), Denmark 2.6 (85% suicides) The difference is more marked for Homicides; US 7; UK between 0.1 and 0.2 ; Denmark 0.23. So the Homicide rate is ~35 times higher in the US. Clearly ‘safer’ in a country with the right to bear arms. Nemesys, more interesting Statistics, but do those respondents reply honestly, or reply in a manner they thought would reflect best on themselves?

Mike

mroberts88, I actually believe it means what it says, and that it’s an absolute statement like the others, even though it’s the ONLY one which is predicated with a justifacatory/explanatory clause. However, the absolute right to free speech has been interpreted NOT to include the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or to protect slander and libel. We also infringe upon the right of convicted felons to bear arms. So we’re comfortable with the idea of some restrictions, but not others. So, how would mandatory education and/or training and/or registration and/or licensing actually infringe on anyone’s right? Anyone can exercise their right (until and unless they get a felony conviction), they’d simply be required to take other steps as well.

The arms which were available in 1787 were single shot muzzle loaders, with minimal stopping power and very bad accuracy. I’d agree that the 2nd Amendment as written unfortunately DOES extend to machine pistols and Saturday Night Specials and exploding ammunition and private arsenals, but I can’t believe that those are the sorts of things it was INTENDED to include.

The justification for the 2nd Amendment is to provide for a well-regulated Militia, but it opened the door for a lot of unconscienable modern conditions. My MAIN argument is with those who argue that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so individuals could take arms against their own government.

fritz, felons can own firearms in TX. I never said I was against mandatory licsensing/training. Actually, I’m for it.

The firearms available in the 1700s had the ability to go through several people.

I’m not sure, but I think exploding ammo is illegal in TX also.

It’s also possible that the part about the militia is saying that the Fed. Gvt. cannot make a law outlawing private militias.

“There can’t be anything more hilarious than an NRA goon who think he can actually protect himself with a firearm.”

misterwhite, the only thing funnier would be an anti-gun loon who suddenly needed to protect himself (and hopefully not his family) but had talked himself into the idea that he didn’t have the right to.

Sorry about your friend, but people have been ambushing others since the beginning of time. Many muggers will take your money and THEN kill you, or just beat you up for fun. If you think that the solution to violent crime is for legal citizens to turn in their firearms, I think you’re very mistaken.

fritzoid, I’m perfectly fine with mandatory safety training for firearms, which is already mandatory in my state anyway. I think more of it should be required as part of the condition to keep one’s permit, as I’ve seen some bad habits develop on the range with some people.

The wording/phrasing of the Second Amendment has been argued by lawyers for centuries, and I’m no lawyer. We can equally guess about what its intent was. However, the amendment was authored by James Madison, who was VERY concerned that the citizens be armed and protected from their own government and wrote extensively about it in the Federalist Papers. Here he discusses the potential force of a citizen militia as a guarantee against a federal military coup:

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government: still it would not be going too far to say that the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger… . To [the regular army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affection and confidence. ”

“…Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

Granted, Madison is giving militia organizing power to the states, but as a hedge against the FEDERAL government - NOT in support of it. The individual right to carry arms “shall not be infringed” because the authors saw it as a deterrent to Federal shenanigans.

Nemesys, if an officer of a militia is appointed by the Gvt., wouldnt that make the militia a Gvt. entity?

Mr. Roberts, yes it would… a state government entity, which begs the question that the Second Amendment was included as a states rights protection by virtue of “near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves”.

JohnHerbison – thanks for noting that story and providing the link.

Over 1 million gun deaths in the US since 1968 – what a legacy to be proud of in this country.

Interesting side note: the Constitution went through several drafts prior to adoption, including the 2nd Amendment.

July 21, 1789: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

August 25, 1789: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

September 4, 1789: “A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The final version passed by the Senate on September 9 was “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The House voted to accept the Senate version as written, but was actually entered in the House journal as “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.”

In the USA murder per capita by firearms are 0.0279271 per 1,000 people.In the US you can buy firearms to defend yourself against criminals. In the US deat penalty is a reality in many states.In my country the rate is 0.00257732 per 1,000 people. And in the UK it is 0.00102579 per 1,000 people. The figure for Denmark is actually pretty high compared to how it used to be. A few criminal Hells Angels connected groups are fighting to dominate the drug market. But one thing is significant: In the UK and in Denmark possession of ordinary firearms are limited to the military and the police. And capital punishment is absolutely unaceptable in Europe.http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_man_percap-crime-manslaughters-per-capita