Steve Kelley for January 09, 2013

This is lame. Not up to your usual standards.

The last panel should have about a dozen bodies lying around for it to be accurate. And holding an alledgedly semi-automatic weapon.

The problem isn’t there aren’t other ways to kill people, but only guns allow you to kill a lot of people in a very, very short time.

OK. Now it makes sense. We DO need to have average vigilante citizens stockpile assault weapons..Thanks Steve.

How often does the first panel happen? How often does the second panel happen? How often does the third panel happen? How often does the fourth panel happen?

No, they are not. The first thing one learned (from the OLD NRA of the seventies) in gun safety classes was that guns are weapons, first and foremost. Targets and clay pigeons are used to practice and hone your skills for KILLING a live target. EVERY gun is designed to kill. That is its purpose.

@HOWGOZIT

Yes and it’s a good thing they do. People are alive (and free) today because they do.

Gracias,

Glenn

My brother in law says that if you are going to kill someone, you should strangle him.

I guess you are saying that is OK because it is up close. The person will be just as dead.

I must be out of the loop…Exactly when did mass-garrotings start happening?

Blame the shooter, knifer, strangler, or hammerer for the first kill. Blame the weapon for the second through twenty-sixth.

All of you lib idiots barking about how many “kills” each weapon claims is just plain STUPID! You’re all missing the main point: It’s NOT the weapon, it’s the PERSON behind the weapon! I canNOT believe how many willingly ignorant people there are out there!

If Kelley were honest, there would be a bigger pile of bodies in the last panel.

Sandy Hook was the last straw. We now need meaningful gun control legislation & ban assault weapons once again. While not advocating a repeal of the 2nd amendment we do need a national database of registered gun owners & require people to take a safety class on using guns. Someone with a bat or knife can’t begin to create the carnage that a gun can.

YOUR solution is to take away guns from law abiding people because criminals aren’t responsibile with guns!And IF that happens all that will happen is that criminals will STILL have the guns and people won’t have a gun to defend themselves with because YOU took their guns away from them. THAT is NOT acceptable!

Pray tell, what is your solution? Ban all firearms? Are you going to pay fair market value for confiscation? What about the millions of firearms that are not currently registered. Do you think the people will just hand them over? I have posted solutions to reduce the holes in the system for purchasing and more, ad nauseum. How about the conflict of declaring someone mentally ill and violating his civil rights? Wht about therapists that knew patients (the Colorado shooter) were a danger and had weapons but neglected to report them (as required by law)?

Timothy McVeigh didn’t use guns. Lets outlaw vans and fertilizer too then?Andrea Yates didn’t use guns. Shall we outlaw bathtubs as well?

Banning guns so shottings will stop is like banning cars so there won’t be drunk drivers or do away with roads instead. After all, if there was no roads, drunk drivers would be offroad all the time therefore not running into & killing innocent people everyday. Banning guns will NEVER take guns out of killers hand – only away from the citizen’s

Really? They didnt have clay pigeons when the first guns were made. Wow what an idiotic response. Guns are made for killing, period. Trying to argue anything else shows how desperate you are to make a foolish argument. WOW

It IS their only purpose. Which firearm was designed without the intent to kill either a human or an animal? Which gun does not have the capability to take a life not within its inherent design? EVERY gun is designed to kill a living target. Whether you use it for that purpose or not is irrelevant. I use a bow for target practice, but I am very aware that it is a weapon and can kill a person. Anybody who owns a gun and does not wish to admit it is a weapon designed to kill, is delusional and breaking a key rule of gun safety.

Because elementary school kids are generally armed.-Remember Columbine? Where the first person taken out was the armed security guard?-Capacity is far more of an issue than what fires it. What’s more likely to kill more, a loaded 30 round magazine, or a hunting rifle with 30 bullets and a 5 round clip?

You will note, however, that nobody has proposed banning those types of weapons. Thus, your point is meaningless. Assault weapons, on the other hand, were designed to kill people. You might use it for a different purpose (like shooting the crap out of an old car at a junk yard ‘cuz it’s fun. A bunch of clever young lads did that…), but this doesn’t change the fact that they’re designed to kill lots of people quickly and efficiently.

You’re wrong about the 2nd Amendment being a “check” on the government. That is a new argument that never made it in discussions at the time. The three branches of government are the checks and balances designed into our system, and voting is how we get rid of leaders we don’t like. Only the delusional think their little weapons will somehow save them from the big bad government which the people voted into leadership.

I’m still waiting for a lib to explain how just ONE or a FEW more gun laws on TOP of the already 20,000+ gun laws America ALREADY has is going to stop a criminal from getting their hands on ANY type of weapon, assult or otherwise.

“Hey, Carl, let’s go shoot up the local gas-mart”“I can’t, Ted”“Why NOT? It’s easy pickin’s! It’s a gun-free zone”“Didn’t you HEAR? They just passed a new gun law!”

Just take Texas in 2011, a “gun friendly” state. 1,089 homicides, 497 handguns, 37 rifles, 48 shotguns, 175 knives or cutting weapons (think Lizzie Borden), 134 “other weapons” (hammers, cars, bats, clubs, etc), 81 fists/ hands/ feet.(Kung Fu Alamo!!- okay, old fashioned bar fights.

As with every state, for homicides, handguns win, hands down, as weapon of choice.

California was the only state with more homicides in 2011 than Texas. 1,790 homicides, 1,220 with firearms, mostly handguns.

while other weapons DO kill people, “Nobody does it better, than with a gun.” apology to James Bond theme song.

Steve,Good point! Thank you.

Typical conservative, that wants to tell me and the rest of the country that more high powered assault weapons are “good” for us all!!

Perhaps we should be ALL openly (no concealed about it) be so armed! Would that satisfy your gun lust?

Then every fender bender becomes a potential fire fight. Would that make us safer??

A good friend of mine is a police officer. He wears a 10mm Glock and carries a 12g shotgun in his cruiser. He has not yet been in a situation where he needed more firepower, and if he did, he’d call for it. I didn’t ask him what weapons the backup would have, but expect that it would include assult weapons.*So my question to those who want the average citizen to be able to buy assult weapons is: Why do you need more firepower than most police officers?

Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with mine. (I didn’t say anything about expecting the police to protect me.)*Does the pro-assult weapons crowd think that most police departments are deliberately under-arming their people? If a handgun and a shotgun are enough for the typical police cruiser, why isn’t enough for a homeowner?

If you believe a policeman is NOT there to protect you you are frighteningly paranoid. Hence their motto: “To PROTECT and Serve”

M ster: one night we got a call from the Sheriffs, two departments, to set up a road block to stop a car full of bank robbers. As they came around the bend, they saw our car, spotlight, and two shotguns pointed at them. They immediately complied with our instructions over our PA to throw their weapons out, and “be calm, peaceful, and alive”. They fully recognized what those two shotguns would do to them, and their weapons. Would we have fired and killed them had they fired a shot? You betcha! Just two rounds of 00 would most likely have killed all in the car, and they knew it. WE weren’t upset though that six police cars from three departments rolled up soon after the stop.

How about a compromise? You get to keep your precious toys if we get universal healthcare? That way, the crazies can be identified and treated BEFORE they get a hold of some assault weapons, and I don’t have to go bankrupt AGAIN when I get shot AGAIN.Also, if you think arming teachers is a solution, be prepared to give them everything their union asks for. The last thing you want is a disgruntled teacher with a gun in a room full of children whose parents just voted to cut back on their benefits and pay.

sigh again…..how again are you going to keep the guns away from the “rageaholic paranoid idiots” by passing a few laws? By taking the guns away from EVERYONE that just leaves the “rageaholic paranoid idiots” with all the guns. Also, all of these “rageaholic paranoid idiots” always target the gun-free zones so they know they can do more damage before they’re stopped. So, by taking the guns, any guns, away from the lawful….you’re helping who exactly…???

No, its still a means to destroy. What it means is it can be used to other things than shoot people – doesn´t mean its made for other things (than shooting / destroying).

You’re doing stupid pretty well enough on your own.

Guns are nothing more than inanimate objects, just like the other three. Also for anyone that says guns are the fastest way to kill people, I would think the fastest is to just drive fast down a busy sidewalk…So I guess cars should be banned also. It’s all about how the person using the tool uses it.