Michael Ramirez for January 17, 2013

Only EIGHTEEN mass shootings with an assault rifle?!.What were we thinking?! That’s NOTHING!

IMHO we should tax the crap out of guns, require background checks for ALL guns sold at gun shows, restore funding for mental health treatment and increase the number of school nurses educated in psychiatric assessment

It’s suddenly clear to me! Remove all hands and feet! There will be no more driving (drunk or otherwise), no more handling guns, hammers, knives, screwdrivers, etc., and no more punchings or beetings! How obvious and simple the solution is! Thank you, Ramirez, for showing us the light!

I’m surprised people don’t get this. If people don’t have guns, arguments and psychotic states of mind don’t become lethal, and even if they do (like with knives and fists) less people die. If you have good guys with guns shooting bad guys with guns, other good guys (and kids) die in the crossfire. Guns are bad, period.

Suraj(posting from a gun-free country)

It’s time to put the blame on the INDIVIDUAL and not the objects.

You have deaths by guns totaling less than 7,000. Where are the other 5,000? Please try to keep your facts straight. More NRA propaganda.

Ramirez is using FACTUAL NUMBERS to inform clueless Americans who view cartoons….to prove that a crusade against gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment is not in need of federal infringement!-Fact, also, is that Criminals with murder in mind do not care about Laws and they don’t care about the Right to Life and Liberty for all other Law-abiding citizens. Criminals only care about Laws after they are arrested and charged with crime.-Obama/Biden have opened a crusade against law-abiding gun owners…..hidden in the 23 Executive Orders is a new inroad into forcing physicians to spy on law-abiding patients and their households, without reason and violating privacy rights of Americans. No doubt Obama’s regime plans to prosecute Doctors if they havn’t reported patients to the Feds, with info of what guns they own, where they keep them, names and addresses for a Federal List for future confiscation.-Egads! Do you Obama voters really want an American repeat of Stalin…Mao…Fidel….with using children as a cover to subvert citizens’ rights?

So, why don’t we put the same restrictions and stigmas on guns that we put on drunk driving in the 70s? You know, when the drunk driving rate was 3 times what it is today. Just because something isn’t 100% effective doesn’t mean it’s 100% ineffective. Also, you have the right to own guns; it doesn’t mean they can’t be a pain in the ass to acquire.

The point of the cartoon being. . . what? Do nothing?

We do regulate cars and liquor.I like the cartoon as it offers perspective. Two of our recent shootings used guns that would not be part of the ban. The very best part of what Mr. Obama has put forward is the 100% background check, and stiffer penalties for illegal guns and straw buyers.People are still going to be shot. People still die in DUI related accidents. If these laws are enactied, fewer people will die over the next few years from gun deaths, just as fewer people die from DUI accidents now.There are no perfect solutions until people can live with respect and have hope. Even then, there’s going to be bad days, but it can be better, if we are.Respectfully,C.

“that they have a “right” to react violently when they’re pissed-off or bat-$h1t crazy!!!”

Nobody is saying any such thing. Lighten up man, go for a walk, get away from your computer or you are going to end up “bat shit crazy.”

olfart,

When will you put up a REASONED response?

RIGHT!

And your post is “rational discussion?”

Bruce, thank you for posting that. Spot on. Secondly, for all those who think banning “assault weapons” (aren’t all weapons used to assault another?) will halt shooting rampages these unbalanced individuals go on, you are sadly mistaken. All it will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining them in a legal, safe, and responsible manner. Criminals will always find a way to get what they want, laws be damned. How do I know this?We can’t keep illegal immigrants out of this country from our southern border. What makes us think we can have any hope to keep illegal arms out of this country if we can’t keep illegal people out of our country? I also ask this question: Why is the NRA (a private entity) the loudest voice in protecting our second amendment rights? Why aren’t our duly-elected officials screaming and yelling about the attempts at violating the constitution. People forget that the 2nd amendment was designed to protect us from oppressive government. So why do we need “assault rifles”? Simple: Equal arms.If we carry this out to the extreme worst-case scenario and the Obama administration finds some way to coerce the military to take up arms against their own citizenry (which an all-voluntary force likely would sooner desert than do that), the only defense against that kind of dictatorial, oppressive and fascist action would be to rebel with what we have at our disposal. If all we have are handguns and shotguns (which both have notorious poor long-range ballistic performance), we will be at a significant disadvantage compared to the military which as access to long-range, magazine-fed, rapid-fire weaponry. It will make rolling over the citizenry that much easier. I’m not saying this is going to happen, but it COULD. Adolf Hitler proved that it can. He was elected. He disarmed his populace, dictating that only his military could have arms. And when the Jews were thrown into oppression, they had no way to resist it. He made sure Russian weapons were confiscated as he moved east. Why would he do that? Simple: Little to no resistance means an easy dictatorship.I can certainly say that I don’t care what Obama’s executive orders are, I will not follow them. They are not laws. They were not passed by both houses of Congress. Despite them being a bunch of dysfunctional twits, on both sides of the aisle, they are at least there to prevent unconstitutional laws from being passed. And I know there are many people out there who will not voluntarily submit to firearm registration, nor would they submit to handing in their high-cap magazines. People can’t see that this is Prohibition redux. The difference is this is now them violating the Constitution to boot. They are turning law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight for no reason other than their prior-lawful ownership of a firearm now violates a newly-drafted law. Just imagine how people would act if the US Government attempted to prohibit ownership of sports cars, and if you own one you are breaking the law. How stupid is that?

Keep up the encouragement! Most of us can do without the guns, but not so much the knives, cars and hammers, which have other more important, useful purposes.

There statistical comparisons of non-comparable events might be good for a trivia contest, but not much else.

It isn’t rational Dr. Comparing apples and oranges rarely is unless considering the value of vitamin C or growing conditions. Mr. Ramirez, despite his talent as an illustrator, is drawing to a base that seems to want NO gun regulation. This cartoon is a radio that has just landed on Rush’s radio show and caught our ear, or in the art’s case, eye. It does do one very good thing. It asks a question instead of trying to frighten us. How much art today has suggested we will become victims to crime or tyranny now that 100% of gun buyers must have background checks and will only be able to fire fewer than a dozen bullets before reloading? Mr. Ramiriez is insisting there are other issues more important than the firearms themselves, and he may be right. However, something needs to be done and it should be done by the legislature, not the President. Yet, I can almost put myself in his shoes when he read one of those kids’ letters and knowing an executive order only lasts as long as the executive, made a decision about future killings like the one in Sandy Hook.“Not on MY watch.”Sometimes you have to do something…even if its wrong. Erring on the side of fewer bullets isn’t as bad as some things.Respectfully,C.

This is great illustration of statistics. How about including ‘weapons’ used to kill the unborn babies?

Why is Ramirez using the phrase ‘average homicides per year per category’ if he doesn’t indicate which years and which country? There are lies, damn lies, and statistics….

Dishonest – the cartoonist is just talking about murders with guns – and discounting the suicides, which are just as lethal. A classic example of lying with statistics.

Just a note; the DUI fatalities are part of that 32,000 auto deaths, and auto deaths have fallen from over 42,000 a few years ago, design, safety features, and cracking down on drunk drivers have all helped. BTW, that 32,000 figure is about the same as the road death numbers, IN 1936!

Gun deaths are down slightly from the record high, but rapidly approaching it again. All statistical data indicates that gun deaths will soon, very soon, exceed auto deaths, and that is gun HOMICIDES, not “accidents”!

… The big boys just want to have the right to take guns into schools, movie theaters, and churches.

Lessons From Guns and a GooseBy NICHOLAS D. KRISTOFPublished: January 16, 2013 404 Comments

When I travel abroad and talk to foreigners about the American passion for guns, people sometimes express a conclusion that horrifies me: in America, life is cheap.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/kristof-lessons-from-guns-and-a-goose.html?ref=opinion

oMQ R: Please refute this:“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.”That is a direct quote from Hitler himself. Why would he want to disarm “subject races?” Please, will someone explain that to me if it was for any other reason than to prevent an uprising against a conquering/oppressive government power. Or are you going to discredit my direct quote from Hitler instead?

Doc, as I mentioned in another thread, we will never be able to stop gun murders in this country. With illegal immigrants and others coming through our porous southern border, firearms will always find a way here into gangmembers’ hands. Chicago had 400+ gun-related deaths (most from handguns) in 2012, and most of those were gang-related. New York had 300+. LA similar. And I’m willing to bet most of those firearms were purchased out of the back of a van or from a cartel or three. You could ban the sale of firearms, confiscate all firearms, and ban the sale of ammunition in this country (all violating the 2nd Amendment while doing so), and you’d still have gun violence in this country because we don’t have border security for spit.That doesn’t mean to just ignore the gun violence, but what should be done is to take a rational and even-handed approach instead of the knee-jerk actions that are being taken now. If criminals want to get a firearm, they aren’t going to go to the local firearm store and purchase one. They are either going to steal one or buy one illegally. The Republicans are right on this matter. First, we need to enact and use the laws we have in place now instead of drafting new laws that won’t do one bit of good to curb violence. Just like immigration “reform,” drafting new laws while not enforcing current laws will mean whatever else you come up with won’t do diddly squat.Secondly, they need to make a more robust early-detection system for those with mental disorder. We can’t have a psychologist blocked by HIPAA in reporting someone who is clearly homicidal to the police. IMHO, we should make a list of red-flagged citizens who have been reported as mentally unstable to trigger a background check flag, instead of forcing a registration of law-abiding citizens into a national database, like the idiots in Washington are suggesting. The list will be smaller, and protect the privacy of many more individuals. One thing that I struggle with understanding is the liberal mentality on this subject. They insist on a registry of all firearm owners, but their entire platform is supposed to be about individual liberty. So why are they pushing for more government oppression instead of sticking to their base concept?

“…Yup, religion was sufficient…” Wow. In baseball- That was foul ball into the Stands.

Great comic. Maybe it will enlighten many who have been brainwashed by the news media and liberal politicians.

Based on what I have heard coming from NRA spokespersons, I find it risible that some folks here think the NRA defends their Constitutional rights.

Get serious. Think.

Canuck, in response to your points (by point):1) No. Because it would violate the Constitution and the rights of the people. I’m sorry, but I cannot condone the concept of disarming 50 million people and stripping them of their rights to save maybe 10,000 a year. I know that’s cold and calloused, but that is a statistically small percentage (.02%) of the 50 million who would be saved (assuming something else doesn’t kill them). If we were truly concerned about people dying, we would outlaw smoking.2) The lunatic fringe, because I have seen comments by people who believe no one needs to have a gun, including some posters on these forums.3) Local law enforcement, if states weren’t so busy bankrupting themselves. Or border patrol, to keep people (and guns) out of the country. The FBI would be another agency that I know hasn’t been gutted. There are a lot of agencies out there that are capable of the task, but no one has given them a directive to take aggressive action. But it doesn’t eliminate my point. If we aren’t enforcing the laws we do have, what good will passing more laws do?4 & 5) I’m not saying we have a fool-proof way of doing this. I’m saying that if we have a list of people whose disorders have a statistically high probability of causing violence, then don’t let them purchase firearms. Paranoid Schizophrenia might be one. Or those with aggressive tendencies. Or others. We have been studying these disorders for a while now, so I’m pretty certain we can say with a reasonably-high chance of certainty that they are predisposed to act violently. And those people would simply be put on a list that prevents them from purchasing firearms. I never advocated locking them up. You need to read my points more closely. Also, I am an auto claims adjuster, so I know quite a bit about auto claims and premiums. And I know that while we can’t accurately predict accidents, there are statistical models that show 16 year-old males who just got their licenses are significantly more probable of getting into an auto accident when compared to a 42-year-old female who’s been driving for 26 years. That’s why rates are cheaper for said 42-year-old female driver compared to that of the 16-year-old male. Your comparison is flawed.However, your last point is very accurate: “And where in your Constitution does it say “everyone may own guns except people we think shouldn’t?” By all rights, everyone should be able to purchase a firearm. IMHO, everyone should also be able to carry them on their person at all times, openly. So which are you advocating? Gun restrictions because you feel (in point 1) that we should do so to restrict deaths or gun freedoms (in your second post) so that no one is prevented from owning firearms? You can’t have both.