Have I mentioned lately how much I love Doonesbury?

[Electric Monk]

[bananas]

1. What brand of coffee is that?

Looks like a disposable cup.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Funny that you'd mention it. So do I.

:thumbsup:

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. self delete

[jpak]

3. kick

yup

[yellerpup]

4. Kick.

and recommend.

[CTyankee]

5. As always, Doonesbury nails it!

[elocs]

6. Here's a K&R 'cause the gungeon hates this. n/t

[X_Digger]

7. So Trudeau's endorsing starting wars and stripping rights because of 9/11?

I mean, that's the corollary, right?

[Sinistrous]

10. Major fail.

[X_Digger]

28. How so? Seems like he's endorsing it as a response to gun death.. n/t

[Sinistrous]

37. I suppose it does

to someone with your limited grasp of logic.

[X_Digger]

38. Predicate and corollary.. *snort* n/t

[cleanhippie]

55. Both of your responses are nothing more than personal insults.

Tell me again, who has the limited grasp of logic?


pot, meet kettle.

[hack89]

8. Why do you think he neglects to mentioned that the murder rate is falling

as we liberalize gun laws?

[spin]

24. Because it would undermine his message.

source: Dept of Justice: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfa

In 2004 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1970, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1965. Overall, the national crime rate was 3977 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 4852 crimes per 100,000 residents thirty years earlier in 1974 (-18%).<2>


The violent crime rate of the United States, 1960 to 2005.


The property crime rate of the US, 1960 to 2005

[Kolesar]

33. due to the aging population

not weaponization

[hack89]

35. The point is that more weapons had no negative effect

more guns did not equal more deaths. So why are laxer gun laws an issue?

[Kolesar]

39. The point is RW paranoia sells: armed Mexicans, Moslems, gang bangers, purse snatchers, gun grabber

Buy gold, buy guns, build a bomb shelter, build the friggin' wall!

None of which is attached to reality.

[hack89]

43. The desire to ban guns is not attached to reality either. nt

[Kolesar]

44. Wow, eleven whole words

College kid?

[hack89]

45. I like to tailor my replies to the intended audience

looks like I still over shot.

The point is simple - Doonesbury had to ignore some inconvenient truths to write that particular cartoon. He and you have never been safer from gun violence. So explain to me what harm laxer gun laws have caused (without a childish rant about RW talking points.)?

[Kolesar]

46. see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x376961#377315

[hack89]

51. Since the number of guns and strictness of gun laws is irrelevant

to America's crime rate, then what exactly is the cartoon's point? You are basically agreeing with me that violent crime rates are not impacted by increasing the number of guns or relaxing existing gun laws. What are we actually arguing about?

[Kolesar]

62. You don't know what drives crime rates

conveniently ignorant

[hack89]

64. More guns have not increased crime - that is a fact.

surely you can't disagree with that?

I don't understand your point. The cartoon is implying that it was unwise to relax gun laws in the face of so many gun deaths. Doesn't the fact that murder rates are falling negate the entire point of the cartoon? If violent crime rates are falling(regardless of the cause) what harm was inflicted on society by relaxing gun laws?

[sylvi]

36. That wouldn't fit into a 8-frame cartoon

That wouldn't fit into a 8-frame cartoon intended to entertain the simple-minded.

[lawodevolution]

9. Fail. Over that time period gun ownership has been increasing and murder rate and gun accident

Rate have been going down.

[lawodevolution]

11. So I wonder if he'd like to have a gun ban like Nigeria or Mexico.

How are those strict gun laws working out there?

[DirkGently]

12. Very nice.

[LAGC]

13. 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?

[DirkGently]

14. If guns are no different from other arms, no one needs to own one. It's not the "Right to bear guns.

[LAGC]

15. I think it was pretty clear from the Founding Fathers' writings...

That they meant the same level of armaments (well-regulated) as the common soldier has access to.

So at the very least, we should be able to own the same weapons the military has access to now, including assault rifles and sidearms, without restriction.

(After all, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting.)

[DirkGently]

17. Why, when people can kill each other with knives & cars?

You can't have it both ways. Either guns kill better than dinnerware and cars, and thus need to be regulated differently, or they don't.

[LAGC]

18. Well, ideally, the goal isn't to kill each other.

Its to have a check on the power of the military, so they don't run roughshod over all our liberties.

Kind of like the nuclear arms race. Everyone has the power to kill everyone else, so no one dares make the first shot, since it will mean mutual annihilation.

I think the U.S. military would think twice before trying to stage a coup, because so many civilians are armed, it would be difficult to control the population.

But there's no doubt about it, one person with a gun can control many people without guns.

I'd rather not be on the receiving end of such a situation. Would you?

[DirkGently]

20. Why does the specter of "fighting the government" outweigh the reality of people getting shot?

[LAGC]

21. Well, what would happen if we just magically got rid of all civilian guns overnight?

You think the murder and violent crime rate would significantly decrease?

Or would people with criminal intentions just use whatever other weapons are available?

Are guns really the cause of our problems, or are they more of a symptom of something else going on in society?

[DirkGently]

22. I think fewer people would get shot. That's what happens everywhere else with reasonable laws.

[LAGC]

25. You're probably right.

Fewer people would get shot. But how many more would get stabbed or beaten to death instead?

With guns, at least the would-be victim has a more or less equal chance against a more physically powerful perpetrator.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need tools for protection. But reality is there are bad people out there who have ill intentions, predators who prey on the weak and unarmed. The only thing they understand is force. It would be nice if the police were everywhere when you needed them, but that's not the reality. A lot can happen in the 10 minutes it takes for a cop to show up. You can either choose to be a victim, or assert yourself in the face of danger. Why hinder those who would choose the latter?

[GreenStormCloud]

27. He doesn't care as those who are killed by knives aren't as dead...

...as those killed by guns. /scarcasm

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Still beating that dead horse? N/T

[beevul]

16. Including suicides again?

Not really relevant IMO.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Ahhh... Are they "lesser" deaths?

:eyes:

NGU.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. They would have killed themselves using a different method.

Over 34,000 commit suicide in the U.S. annually. Since gun suicides only account for about half of those then it is obvious that a gun ban such as you desire would simply cause most of the gun suicide to find a different method. Since about 17K kill themselves without guns, then it is obviously fairly easy to do it.

[LAGC]

30. Easiest way to commit suicide is to just tie a bag over your head.

And eat a bunch of sleeping pills before hand. Completely painless. You fall asleep and never wake up.

I don't get why people use guns, makes for such a mess for relatives to clean up. And a shot to the head isn't guaranteed to kill you, leaves people crippled in many cases. Stupid.

[Kolesar]

34. It's the American way...eom

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

31. It's pretentious to assume you can stop a suicide by removing the gun.

Someone determined to commit suicide doesn't need a gun. Cars, razor blades, gravity, death by cop, poison... it doesn't really matter. If anything, I guess you could say someone using a gun is both very determined and also a fan of efficiency (since guns are so effective).

Furthermore, I would contend that NO ONE'S rights are violated when a gun is used to commit suicide. People most certainly have the right to end their life because after all, it's their life. To put have someone in a situation where they will choose death over life... now that should be a crime.

I find using suicides as argument for more gun control decisively disonest, intellectually.

[beevul]

32. I'm so glad you asked.

"Ahhh... Are they "lesser" deaths?"

Did someone say they were?


I tend to view a persons life as being wholly owned by that person, and by extension, all decisions of self. Tatoos, abortions, piercings, drinking, smoking, ingesting, I think you get the picture how I define that.

I can not therefore hold the belief, that someone committing sucide is anyone elses business, in the sense of I or anyone else having any say in such things.

If as an adult, someone else presumes to determine those things for you, they presume that one does not own ones life wholly.

If you don't own your own life wholly, who owns the parts you don't?

Its somewhat along the same lines as "my body, my choice".

You might have heard of it.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Look at you, projecting and automatically assuming a scenario not in evidence.

The solution to suicides is easy access to mental health care, and other social safety nets. Removing firearms does not prevent suicides.

[Euromutt]

41. During those same nine years, 410,000 Americans were killed in motor vehicle collisions.

Our response? We bailed out the car manufacturers.

That one works too, and the body count's half again as high.

It's fairly easy to find a nine-year period, incidentally, in which the number of deaths by firearm were higher while the gun laws were tighter. The number of homicides is currently at a level not seen since well before the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. Maybe, just maybe, violent crime isn't directly correlated to how stringent the laws are.

Eh, why do I bother? In my opinion, Doonesbury jumped the shark when B.D. lost his leg.

[Starboard Tack]

42. 410,000 Americans were killed in motor vehicle collisions.

because half of'em were either drunk or texting and the other half were playing with their guns

[pipoman]

47. I'm sure you can cite some source for this?

Of coarse you can't because it's nonsense.

[Starboard Tack]

57. How perceptive of you

Of course it's nonsense in response to nonsense

[Euromutt]

65. You're missing an "in response to nonsense"

Your post was nonsense, in response to my nonsense, in response to Trudeau's nonsense.

[Callisto32]

49. You are aware that this doesn't even make sense, correct?

Like, it's not an argument, its just to be absurd, right?

[Starboard Tack]

58. Well done

absurd begets absurd

[cleanhippie]

56. Wow, the ignorance...

IT BURNS!!!!

[Starboard Tack]

59. Don't it just?

[cleanhippie]

61. You tell me.

I'm not the one burning up.

[Kolesar]

63. Did you sit on your gun and commute to work? eom

[cleanhippie]

66. Hahahahahahaha!

No, I was not laughing at your post, I was thinking about something else. Your post was nonsense.

[Callisto32]

48. Doonesbury:

Too preachy to be funny, too poorly drawn to be art...

Generally a failure of the "comic" genre. I put it right up there with "Funky Winkerbean" on my list of "stuff to ignore in the daily paper."

[pipoman]

50. It is astounding how many on the left

who, on most issues abhor obvious dishonest reporting/propagandizing, cheer lead completely dishonest commentary on this one issue...especially since we are speaking of an enumerated civil liberty. Dems and Progressives should always advocate for liberal interpretation of all civil liberties and leave the conservative interpretations to the conservatives.

[DonP]

52. Well, he sure showed them on that Guns in Starbucks" issue didn't he?

He spent two weeks drawing strips that positioned Law Abiding Open Carry individuals as violent, dangerous, mouth breathing slobs. Each was lovingly posted here by sycophants that can't think for themselves and get all their public policy insight from the funny pages.

The result of all his effort and al the repostings? Nothing, no shootings in Starbucks, no change in their policy, no reduction in their sales for all the people that swore they would never buy there again. Ha!

Maybe it's time for Trudeau to retire and raise organic, free range chickens in his back yard.

[oneshooter]

54. As a side note, sales at Starbucks increased during that time. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

53. I don't get it. n/t

.

[Starboard Tack]

60. That's because you're atypical