Interesting Signe Wilkinson political cartoon, “IT’S the GUNS! & IT’S the CRIMINALS WHO USE THEM!”

[jody]

[patrice]

1. The "third way" in action. nt

[SteveM]

16. Here is where Signe Wilkinson really stands on gun issues:

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/bysubject/gun/index.php?p=13

I wonder how many royalty checks the NRA issued to re-print.

[jody]

29. Thanks for the link. It gives a different perspective on Wilkinson's work. n/t

[SteveM]

30. The cartoon seems to be a "fallback" from earlier ones. Wonder why.

[Lasher]

2. It's not my guns.

I have lots of guns and so far today I haven't murdered one single person. Why do you want to punish me when I haven't done anything wrong? That's kind of like preemptively attacking a country to disarm them because you think they might someday do something you don't like.

[patrice]

3. The sign doesn't say it IS your guns, unless you're a Criminal. nt

[Lasher]

4. Sign says, 'It's the guns'

No indication of any exclusion there. The guns.

[patrice]

6. & means AND, means +, means ALSO, means in addition to

... but nevermind, believe what you want, anyone who is capable of NOT seeing anything more than s/he wants to see isn't worth arguing with.

And you all wonder why you don't get any support from anyone but yourselves.

[Lasher]

7. And you people don't get any support from anyone but yourselves either.

But guess what, I am supported by the Constitution. You're not.

[patrice]

9. The Constitution gaurantees that you can have guns. It does not gaurantee that Criminals can. nt

[Lasher]

12. OK so you agree the Constitution gurantees I can have guns.

But I can't remember ever having seen where it makes a distinction between criminals and others. Will you please direct me to the section of the Constitution where this is addressed?

[patrice]

15. My error. That's a States' Rights issue. The laws of most states prohibit criminals from owning

guns.

So, you're in favor of criminals owning guns?

[patrice]

18. ?? . . . ***crickets*** nt

[Lasher]

26. Oh wow. That means I have nothing to say in response, right? Clever.

I have better things to do than sit at the keyboard all day. But since you still want to play, please you show me where I said I was in favor or criminals owning guns.

[maxidivine]

33. Lighten up francis

And besides, "criminals" is an awfully broad term. Anyone here ever go over the speed limit? Ever have a drink before 21? Ever break any minor law?

So I think what most people are in favor of is punishing criminals who are criminally using a firearm, instead of putting the burden on everyone since we will just allow our violent offenders to be paroled or given light sentences anyway.

[SteveM]

8. "you don't get any support...." Are you speaking of MSM?

You have an admonishment ("anyone who is capable of NOT seeing anything more than s/he wants to see isn't worth arguing with"), but fail to follow your own advice. Hang around and hear the arguments instead of declaring victory and pulling out.

This editorial cartoon is hardly the standard from which debate flows. Or doesn't.

BTW, we DON'T "wonder why don't get any support from anyone but selves." Past surveys indicate there is a lot of support in DU for RKBA. Now, on a personal level, who knows?

[patrice]

10. F--- Corporate Media. They're certainly no standard to go by.

Re the cartoon: Of course it's not a standard either, just an example of trying to re-define the discussion away from mutually exclusive, deadlocked, unproductive polar opposites and thus avoiding the issue being used as nothing more than a jobs program for vote herders for folk who ultimately end up doing us ALL harm.

[SteveM]

13. I'm not sure of all you say, but I tend to agree with some of it...

For some time, the NRA has actually paid royalties to editorial cartoonists (with a strong anti-gun viewpoint) for rights to re-print in its house publications. It would seem the NRA believes anti-gun arguments (and "art") helps its cause more than hurts it.

[patrice]

17. Given how our Constitution has been raped by our Government these last 8 years,

I'm in favor of gun ownership. And, though Police can be some of the worst fascists there are, I worry about the problems that good officers have, especially because of assault weapons. Putting an end to the worst aspects of "the War on Drugs" might help some in this regard.

And of course one has a strong emotional response to gun-happy jerks who seem to be looking for excuses to use their weapons (like that guy a few years ago who blew a trick-or-treater on his front porch away for little apparent reason) but there's not much we can do about such folk other than let "the law" take its imperfect course.

[maxidivine]

21. Assault weapons?

Methinks you should really look into "assault weapons" learn about how often they are used in crimes.
From the Bureau of Justice website on crime characteristics-(I was actually looking for a different page that was REALLY detailed, had it broken down nicely)

"Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons. "


So in other words, ALL other guns, other than hanguns, all rifles and shotguns together (and that includes so-called assault weapons) are about as much of a threat to officers in the line of duty as knives are. I'm betting that a good number of those "other" guns are ordinary 12ga shotguns, just like the ones used to shoot trap and skeet, plink, harvest deer, turkey, ducks, whatever.

[SteveM]

22. Agreed. "Gun happy jerks" always make the news. The rest of us...

remain in obscurity, which ain't a bad thing. The War on Drugs is yet another form of prohibition that has to end. This will help. But overall economic and political reform is needed in this country to reduce the violent crime rate; we used to talk about such things as poverty, lousy family life, poor schools, no jobs, etc. Now we talk about guns instead.

[patrice]

24. What we talk about is a measure of how extreme things are getting. nt

[maxidivine]

32. What do you mean?

Not sure what you mean, could you please clarify?
What is getting extreme?

[benEzra]

28. "Assault weapons" aren't a crime problem.

And, though Police can be some of the worst fascists there are, I worry about the problems that good officers have, especially because of assault weapons. Putting an end to the worst aspects of "the War on Drugs" might help some in this regard.

"Assault weapons" aren't a crime problem.




FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2006
Table 20, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

And that's for all rifles COMBINED, not just the ones the MSM and gun-control lobby call "assault weapons."

They ARE the most popular centerfire target rifles in the United States, though.

[maxidivine]

5. Yep

Clearly a sign that states "it's the guns" when trying to press for action on a topic only means CRIMINAL guns, not just all guns.

Wait, no, it obviously is an anti-gun poster/cartoon, and people wonder why the word "anti" is so hard to shake.

It isn't YOUR guns, it's the BAD guns we want to remove from citizens' posession. Right, whatever.

[Lasher]

11. Bad guns?

Like I said, I have several guns. How can I tell which ones are bad? I've had several things turn up missing lately. Do you think one of my guns is stealing from me?

[SteveM]

14. My gun was bad, wet its box. Had to change its ammo...

I think Maxidivine was being sarcastic about BAD guns.

[maxidivine]

19. Right on

Yeah, I was being sarcastic, since just about every anti who is sane enough to keep from screaming idiot things like "death sentences for gun owners" has a tendency to qualify their 'ideas' about citizens rights by only focusing on one scary sounding thing at a time. Like when people are against "semiautomatic-assault-weapons-with-high-capacity-magazines", yet don't understand that there is no such thing as a "semiautomatic assault weapon", in fact there is no such thing as an assault weapon period! It is a contrived term to make uninformed people believe that they are the same thing as full automatic true "assault rifles", which is NOT a contrived term for a political agenda but a real technical term.

Then there are the people against ALL semiauto firearms, again usually not having a clue about what semiautomatic means, and the people against all handguns. Those people always qualify their "arguments" by claiming that 'nobody NEEDS those weapons' or 'what does anyone NEED that for?"

And they always try to brig it right back round to hunting, because that is seen as a safe way to not totally alienate themselves. Well my bet is that if they ever have their way and get all semiauto firearms banned and confiscated, their next step will be "high-powered-bolt-action-sniper-rifles-capable-of-killing-babies-and-children-from-a-thousand-yards!"

That is the tactic. Just like trying to ban "explosive-armor-piercing-hollow-point-teflon-coated-expanding-cruelty-to-animals-only-exists-to-murder-people-super-lethal-handgun-bullets", the next thing would be to go after "high-velocity-pointy-tipped-boat-tail-high-ballistic-coefficient-sniper-rifle-bullets".

[SteveM]

20. Yeah, run all the adjectives together & no one will accuse them of ignorance!

[maxidivine]

23. Seriously

I know my post must have looked terrible, borderline rant-ish, but stringing along every single possible technical aspect of a firearm and using that as the description is the approach that they take to make them sound more dangerous and deadly.

For instance, my mom, bless her but she knows nothing at all about firearms. I was telling her about my rifle and how excited I was to have been called back after the delay from NICS, and she asked me why there was a background check, and so I started to tell her about the NICS a little, explained that I needed to go through it in order for the FFL to transfer my rifle to me because it is a centerfire rifle. So she immediately asks what is so special about centerfire guns. I had to be careful not to put forward too much information to retain, but that is a sample of a gun-ignorant person, when they hear a technical term they tend to assume it is something "extra" or "different" than "ordinary" guns.

[SteveM]

25. I see your point. Frankly I think MSM is not ignorant of the terms of debate...

They intentionally persist in getting it wrong because they see an advantage in conflating "assault weapon" with "automatic," or FMJ with "cop-killer" (when any deer rifle will penetrate armor). In the last several years, stories by MSM which get it wrong (the ABC series about Timoney in Miami) are called out by many knowledgeable writers, yet they persist with the same "errors." This is intent and it is unethical.

[Lasher]

27. Oh, sorry.

Should have checked the safety on my keyboard. Duh.

[maxidivine]

31. It was funny

I got a good laugh out of the post, wasn't confrontational or anything, no worries. But don't think that means you can just stop making sure your guns are all cleaned up and tucked in at night, don't want 'em feeling unloved and roaming the streets causing gang violence.

We need to give all these abused guns good, safe, loving homes so they can begin to recover from the years of abuse! No longer shall any pistol be forced to endure being held sideways, or unneccesary mexican carrying, unless of course that pistol happens to be a Jimenez, Lorcin, Davis, Jennings/Bryco, or what have you!