Doonesbury confuses an illegal alien...

[onehandle]

[krispos42]

1. This should be interesting...

:popcorn:

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Yup, they're just getting out of bed now.

[onehandle]

39. They're here.

And they brought their 'friends.'

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Doonesbury is great, as usual.

:thumbsup:

[gratuitous]

3. Shhhhhhh!

You're not supposed to inject facts, it's all about feelings and faith for the HCRV.

[tekisui]

5. knr!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kingofalldems]

7. K and R

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. Still clever, after all these years.

Thanks for the toon.:hi:

[NuclearDem]

9. Gun laws are the bandaid to domestic spending's antibiotic

Gun laws might be a temporary fix, but they won't do anything to eliminate the root causes of gun violence or crime in general.

[texshelters]

15. Well put

there are root causes, and economic desperation is a big one.

But instead of dealing with those, we debate tax cuts for those that don't need them.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[MisterP]

16. well, more like staples and sutures for a near-amputation involving large arteries nt

[Paladin]

10. Don't Get Upset, DU Gun Enthusiasts.

If Doonesbury doesn't reflect your views on gun policy, there's always Mallard Fillmore.......

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

20. LOL...

NGU.

[hack89]

22. I just find it funny how he neglects to mention

that those laxer gun laws coincide with a falling murder and violent crime rate. He (just like you and me) has never been safer his entire life.

[ClassWarrior]

29. I just find it funny how you neglect to mention...

...any sort of statistics or links to back up your assertions.

NGU.

[hack89]

31. Are the FBI Uniform Crime Reports OK ?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[joshcryer]

34. I thought crime decrease was common knowledge among intelligent progressives.

I mean almost everyone I know knows that the only reason we hear about crime so much is because reporters are better and better at reporting it, even if at times it is extremely trivial. The reality is a continual downward trend in all crimes, including murders.

[mdmc]

12. r

[xchrom]

13. Awesome. nt

[tosh]

14. Spot on.

[old mark]

17. Right - it's humor...just like Rush Limbaugh...nt

[Electric Monk]

18. I reposted it in the gungeon. Lets see how that goes, lol.

k&r

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x376961

[hack89]

23. They will simply point out that violent crime is at historic lows

and still falling. So explain to me why we need to worry about laxer gun laws?

[ClassWarrior]

30. ...without providng anything to substantiate their claims.

NGU.

[hack89]

32. Are the FBI Uniform Crime Reports ok for you?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[hack89]

33. Here's a good one

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

[BrklynLiberal]

19. HAH!!!!

[LAGC]

21. 270,000 killed by gun-fire? Really?

Of the 270,000 U.S. gun deaths cited in today's strip, half were suicides. Before you blame guns for encouraging U.S. suicides, remember Japan leads the world in suicides with 30,000 deaths per year. And this is from a country with the strictest gun control laws on the planet -- where owning a gun is all but non-existent -- and one of the best standards of living. People will kill themselves or others with or without a gun. Witness the stabbing incident in Brooklyn this week, where a man stabbed three people to death and hit another with a car he stole. Shall we outlaw knives & cars?

[Gormy Cuss]

24. So what you're saying is that 135K gun deaths weren't suicides?

That's still an average of 4.5 times the deaths annually as the 9/11 toll.

[LAGC]

25. We have a high murder rate, no doubt about it.

But if guns weren't available, surely some other weapon would have been.

The tool the murderer uses is really irrelevant.

Why do so many people resort to murder in our stratified society? Isn't that the question we should be asking?

[joshcryer]

26. 368,893 people were killed by cars in the same 9 year period.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

42. And Just Look How Many Car Laws We Have

Go get your State's Traffic Code. Then go get your specific municipality's traffic code. Stack them on top of each other and try to lift the two of them.

"Lift with your legs, Hercules!!!"

"I cannot lift those two books. I can lift one of the smaller books."

Wanna know why there are so many "Car Laws" on the books in every State, including regulations on licensing of drivers, equipment safety, and safe operation standards? Because EVERY lawmaker understands that cars are inherently dangerous objects that, unless regulated properly, can hurt lots of people.

And injuries from cars are incident to their specific use. A gun's specific use, it's reason for existing in the first place, is to cause injury. It HAS no other purpose. It is therefore INHERENTLY more dangerous than a car. So when there are as many gun laws on the books as car laws, then we can have a real discussion. So let me ask this question: is it your contention that repealing or loosening our traffic laws will make our roads safer?

By the way, I specifically ignored the, "what would those numbers look like if gun ownership were as prevalent as car ownership AND if people spent as much time with guns in their hands as they do behind the wheel of a car?" argument just in the interest of not muddying the waters.

[LAGC]

46. "A gun's specific use, it's reason for existing in the first place, is to cause injury."

Nice try. I'm sure that's news to the vast majority of gun owners who only use their guns to target shoot.

Way more crimes are prevented by simply brandishing a gun, with the implied threat of force, than actually having to use force.

Why penalize the vast majority of lawful gun owners with more gun controls simply because a very small minority misuses them?

And I don't recall the "right" to drive a car being mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

47. Playing The Semantics Game = Fail

When you have to resort to playing around in the gray areas of language, you've lost your argument already.

"I'm sure that's news to the vast majority of gun owners who only use their guns to target shoot."

Yes, people use guns for all sorts of things that don't include hurting people or things. But that's not their specific purpose. I might use a gun to prop up a wobbly table leg that's shorter than the others, but that's not its specific purpose. I might use a car as a paperweight, but that's not its specific purpose. Target shooting is nothing more than practice to make yourself more able to successfully use the gun for its specific purpose should the need ever arise. It's like taking your golf clubs to the driving range.

"Why penalize the vast majority of lawful gun owners with more gun controls simply because a very small minority misuses them?"

Gee, I don't know. Why "penalize" the vast majority of lawful car drivers who are able to do things like drive 100 mph, or plow through intersections without crashing, or speed through school zones without hitting children, just because a very small minority can't handle it? Why should I be "penalized" by having to turn on my headlights at night just because SOME people can't see in the dark? Why should I be "penalized" for driving after I've had a few drinks just because a very small minority can't handle a vehicle when they're drunk?

Are you SURE you want to play the "why do laws have to apply to everyone" game?

"And I don't recall the "right" to drive a car being mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights."

Funny, but I don't recall the Bill of Rights saying anything about "guns" either. See? The semantics game CAN be fun!

Oh, and I also happened to notice that you didn't bother to answer my question, so I'll ask it again. Do you believe that repealing or loosening our traffic laws will make our roads safer?

[LAGC]

48. The problem with your car analogy is this.

You point out that there are many laws governing the USE of vehicles on public roads (don't drive drunk, obey traffic signals, etc.), but how many laws are there on mere possession or sale/transfer of automobiles? You do realize that you don't need a driver's license, registration, or insurance if you keep a vehicle on private property? Only if you take it out on public roads.

Yet, most every "sensible" gun control proposal out there involves restricting the mere sale or possession of guns! Either that, or cosmetic restrictions on the manufacture/importation of certain gun types. We already have laws governing the use of guns. You can be charged with murder or involuntary manslaughter or aggravated assault or aggravated battery if you mis-use them. In most states you have to get a license and be certified to carry concealed. What more laws do we need?

What additional "reasonable regulations" do you think needs to apply to guns or gun owners that isn't already covered by laws already on the books?

[Gormy Cuss]

27. No other weapon provides the ease of use for murder.

I'm not a "gun grabber" BTW. I just think it's silly to ignore that guns make it easier to kill other people than most other weapons out there.

I do agree that we should try to answer the question of why so many commit murder.

[joshcryer]

28. Poverty by and large.

[Gormy Cuss]

45. Yes, but that's a symptom. Addressing the why involves identifying &removing the incentives to kill.

That's the harder question to tackle.

[-..__...]

35. Such wit!

I'll be looking forward to more of his "humor" in the coming years as even more gun control legislation is defeated and/or overturned.

Should be a real belly laugh.

[onehandle]

36. The same people who are weakening gun control laws are fighting abortion rights this week.

Instead of working on important issues.

What a real belly laugh.

[LAGC]

37. And thanks to those "liberals" who are pushing for more gun control...

We'll have even more people in the swing states turned off who won't vote Democratic next time around.

What a winning strategy! Sacrifice issues that really matter all on the altar of gun control -- just so we can have more "feel good" laws that do nothing but alienate and piss people off, while doing nothing to prevent crime.



Face the music, the tide has turned.

[LanternWaste]

44. I imagine dogmatic positions deny us the ability to laugh at ourselves

I imagine dogmatic positions deny us the ability to laugh at ourselves and instead deride the joke... regarldess of the amount of passive-aggressive posturing it takes to do so.

[WatsonT]

38. If strict gun control laws correlated to a reduction in gun deaths

this would be an amazingly witty and clever cartoon.

But math is hard, just go with what feels right.

[elias7]

40. What feels right to me would be to decrease gun production and availability

But common sense is hard, so just go with your simplified, conclusion-directed math

[WatsonT]

41. Wait .. . are you serious?

You're really saying we should ignore the statistics and go with feelings instead?

So if someone were to say that abstinence only education just 'feels right' to them as the best way to prevent teen pregnancies they'd be right, regardless of what the stats show?

My interest is in coming up with laws and programs that are not only intended to make the world a better place, but actual do so. Some people seem to think the intent matters for more than the outcome it seems.

[elias7]

49. No, that's not what I'm saying

The fact that strict gun control laws don't correlate to a reduction in gun deaths tells me that there is no comprehensive gun control plan that also decreases gun production and gun availability. You can't show me statistics about that because there has been no real comprehensive gun control laws. The DC stats are misleading in my view. Homicides were flat for 10 years after law enactment, shot up hugely over the next 6 years, then dropped over the next 16 years back to baseline. The area under the curve represents a 73% rise, but from the day of law enactment to the day of law repeal, the rate was actually unchanged, as the homicide rate had dropped down by the time of repeal.

If you're really interested in coming up with laws and programs to make the world a better place, realize that a handgun ban and trigger lock law are just pieces of a much more comprehensive effort that never happened to decrease handgun availability. All that your precious statistics show is that just a ban is not enough, just as just passing out condoms without sex/STD education is not enough, or merely using abstinence-only measures is not enough. The DC law was a nice start in a huge battle zone of a city, but without the backup of additional laws and policies to stop criminals from getting guns, stop guns from being made and distributed, and stop fostering violence in the inner city, the statistics regarding a single law have little power.

Trudeau "gets it" as well as anyone out there, and has "gotten it" for decades. And he has made the world a better place. What have you done?

[WatsonT]

50. So a failure to reduce crime is proof that this program works

it just doesn't go far enough?

High gun ownership rates do not correlate to violent crime.

You know what does? Poverty.

Work on making everyone wealthy or at least comfortable and then we'll talk about gun control.

The problem is that so many people have started this whole discussion backwards: they 'know' guns are the problem then look for evidence to back their prejudices. Rather than starting with an open mind and being guided by the data.

[elias7]

51. Talk about working it backwards

You guys are just trying to defend your ownership of guns and select your own stats. But you say, "High gun ownership rates do not correlate to violent crime."

The data I find shows a direct correlation between murder rate and firearm sales, guns causing 70% of all murders, the single greatest cause of most murders being an argument, 1% of all murders being justifiable homicide, and an undeniable correlation between handgun ownership and murder rates in international data.

You fail to acknowledge my point that it is gun production and availability that much be part of any meaningful gun control plan.

Your argument is parallel to nuclear arms buildup for deterrence, whereas most efforts at real reduced risk of nuclear war focus on complete disarmament. Are START treaties just a waste of time in your book?

[WatsonT]

52. Then present this data that shows a strong

direct correlation between gun ownership rates and gun crimes after all other variables have been accounted for.

[pampango]

43. How do we know that alien is illegal? Is Doonesbury guilty of planetary profiling here?

:)