This would be a compelling argument…if it was true:
Both sides have a similar recursive argument. The pro-gun side notes that gun control empowers criminals and makes us less safe, which results in more bloodshed and the antis use this to call for MORE gun control.
The anti-gun side notes that more guns means more “Gun Death”, and that leads us to call for less restrictions on gun owners.
Of course where do the mass shootings happen? Where are some of the most violent places in America? How do they compare to where the most liberal gun control laws are, and where the most restrictive are? As gun laws get less restrictive what has the result been?
Also it’s fun to note that our side discusses this issue in rational terms, and welcomes the other side to join. The other side does not join, and when we take the discussion to them they screen their comments or close them entirely. Further they choose to invoke childish and hyperbolic cartoons, which I suspect are more to be rallying propaganda to their own kind rather than persuasive arguments to further their agenda.
I also note the old “we don’t know how bullets work” issue is in full play for this cartoonist. He depicts full cartridges flying around.
Putting the kind of people who credulously make/circulate these cartoons in charge of gun policy would be akin to putting the Amish in charge of NSF. Actually, I imagine the Amish would be far fairer.
See, at first, I was wondering why they were under assault by bar darts…
Yep, I agree. I thought they were arrows.
If the artist would ever stick his nose out of the bastion of liberal thought
<He has entertained readers in The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, USA Today and Newsweek magazine.
He might realize that the actual crime numbers are going down, that there are fewer firearm related deaths, injuries and crimes. But that would require a person to objectively evaluate the evidence.
Hey, man, everything OK with your site? It’s been down for a few days.
I’ve screwed something else — having trouble with connections; either the wordpress installation is effed or the hosting service is the problem.
Been working too many hours a day to get it resolved.
I hope to get it fixed this week.
Thanks for asking.
best of luck man!
I’m entering my seventh decade, and I’ve never heard a gun fired in anger. A non-gun owner these days, I can’t even recall the last time I heard plinking or hunting gun shots. I live in an SMSA that includes a city that I work in that had a onetime horrific murder rate, too. The cartoon’s funny, but not realistic.
I’ve done a bit of small-time politicking. Political arguments have a sort of life cycle, and a sort of internal validity, or lack thereof. Plus, lobbyists, those who make political arguments, happen to like the Washington lifestyle, whether they’re doing good, ill, or nothing at all.
I’m no expert on either pro- or anti-gun arguments, but I’d wager that the anti-gun people will angle for a financial “settlement’ with gun and ammunition manufacturers, and perhaps an excise tax on guns and ammunition. The anti-gun people of recent decades may have started with genuinely felt, if misguided, passion, but I’ll guess that’s not where there at now. Jack/OH
We could just replace the word balloons:
“We need to ban guns!”
“More gun bans!”
“Why does this keep happening?? We made guns illegal!”
Pingback: More Guns Equals More Danger?
Pingback: More Guns Equals More Danger? | State Of Tactical