Lalo Alcaraz by Lalo Alcaraz

Lalo Alcaraz

Comments (43) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ODon

    ODon said, about 3 years ago

    No but they receive major funding from gun manufacturing, hence they love gun sales.

  2. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    ^You, never mind, well, you’re just to ignorant and bigoted, but we’ll just again write it off that your I.Q. is a bit less than your “number”.


    Just for once, put aside your vile nature: you need to express an apology to all my Democratic friends on “The Wall”, and in Arlington after Iraq and Afghanistan.

  3. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, about 3 years ago

    Billy, why do you keep spamming this, and then running away with your tail between your legs instead of answering replies?

    From what you write, the only conclusion possible is that you feel that we should all just accept shooting rampages and not attempt to do anything about them because:

    1) Some people abuse cigarettes, alcohol and food.

    2) Some people are killed by modes of transportation…modes that are ironically heavily regulated to prevent far more deaths…yet you feel any attempts to do the same to guns means the end of our Constitution.

    Tell me I’m wrong, and you actually have a more rational point?

    Do you also feel we should do away with driver’s licenses, road rules, car safety requirements? After all, people die from obesity, so why try to reduce car deaths?

  4. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 3 years ago

    @Anthony 2816

    There you go again. Remember that we are sort of, kind of friends as I say this please.

    No one – including Billy please reread his comment – said anything about doing away with the current regulations on any of the items mentioned. The comparison was to the “death total” and which activity resulted in the highest number of casualties. By far, the heath related and transportation related deaths win the contest. Do you dis agree with that fact?

    Now, yes the analogy is a tad lame comparing self inflicted health issues and running a ton of steel around while putting on makeup or texting or changing the station on the boom box to a person who is mentally deranged getting a firearm and shooting others.

    However, the regulations and laws currently on the books are sufficient to insure that those of us who will read, comprehend and observe said laws and regulations do not shoot innocent people.

    So rather than berate poor Billy for having an opinion – regardless of what YOU think about it – why don’t you just think about the suggested scenario and answer the implied question?

    Do you think that an action plan with the proper training and equipment supplied – and this on a military base for Pete’s sake – would have prevented some of the deaths?

    Then think about this as well. In every one of the situations observed, health, cars, guns, what would the effect of prohibition be?

    You can look into the prohibition era for some ideas about what happens.

  5. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, about 3 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    “Do you dis agree with that fact?”

    I disagree with his contention that the fact more people die from other things means we should ignore this problem. Should doctors refuse to treat anything but heart disease, since that’s the leading cause of death? According to Sargent’s “logic” that’s how it should be.

    “Now, yes the analogy is a tad lame”

    I’d say it’s well beyond a tad lame.

    Otherwise, you seem to be under the impression that I am for a prohibition of guns, which, being untrue, makes it difficult to respond to your post. But as far as the “proper training and equipment supplied”…that sounds like another of your rhetorical questions…like in the Tony Auth thread you abandoned 4 days ago.

  6. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Keeping track of over 300 million people’s private lives is both unconstitutional, and “difficult”.


    There ARE more cars than guns in America, every one is registered somewhere, and if the owner hasn’t done anything illegal with it, the state has no interest in seizing it. Every new car IS registered and licensed, guns can be tracked as well. If the license number of a vehicle is obtained leaving a robbery, it can be traced, and may,or, if stolen, may not be the actual perp, but gives a place for police to start to track the bad guys.


    btw, “58”, I meant of course “liberals” who actually think regarding their world, and not just “Democrats”, who have died, or sacrificed, defending this nation. That of course doesn’t mean chickenhawks with five deferments, or going AWOL and deserting, or just otherwise planning wars that will kill other folks, and only bring them profits, and/or power.

  7. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, about 3 years ago

    “The US should never have drafted and sent into combat Liberal bed wetters.”

    You honestly want military eligibility to be based on political affiliation??? How would you check for that?

    Or are you just trying to lower the average IQ of the military?

  8. ThePupUnbound!

    ThePupUnbound! said, about 3 years ago

    We now know conclusively that liberalism causes MORE, not less, gun deaths- just look at Chicago and other urban-war zones and the fact that all except for two killings with multiple gun victims in the last 50 years have occured in actual or de facto gun-free zones. Shall we ban the Democrats and their un-intended consequences?

  9. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Hmm, that would include the dozens of draftee “bedwetters” who received the Medal of Honor, right, onguard?

  10. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, about 3 years ago

    @ThePupUnbound!

    “We now know conclusively that liberalism causes MORE, not less, gun deaths”

    To whom do you refer by “we”, Puppy? You mean there’s someone else beside you that “knows” this?

    And how does this “conclusive knowledge” apply to the more liberal countries that have far less gun violence than the US?

  11. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 3 years ago

    @Anthony 2816

    you need to take a deeeeeep breath and relax.

    point out exactly where anyone has said that there is NO problem and we should ignore that non problem. You are reading something that isn’t there.

    I had to look again at what I said. Nope, didn’t say anything about what I think you are for or against other than your low estimate of your brother’s opinion.Which is your right.

    However, the current democrat thrust now and in the past was to take small steps and regulate away gun ownership. Yes. If you are honest, you have to agree that those taking the lead in congress on this issue have stated that is their idea of the perfect solution.

    Now slow down and answer the question. It’s only that, it isn’t a trap. Do you think that IF people trained for workplace violence prevention AND they were properly equipped to handle the situation that lives could be saved?

    Yeah, I read a cartoon and skim through the comments and IF I have an opinion I may voice it. But follow up? Dude, what is this all I have to do? Besides, I’m an American and my attention span is short.
    Second

  12. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, about 3 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    “point out exactly where anyone has said that there is NO problem and we should ignore that non problem”

    I don’t see any other reason for Billy Sargent’s post than that, which is what I stated in my reply to him. He didn’t correct me on that, and in fact spammed the same post to several other threads the next day.

    “Nope, didn’t say anything about what I think you are for or against”

    I couldn’t see any reason for you to start asking me about prohibition unless you thought I was a proponent of it.

    “Do you think that IF people trained for workplace violence prevention AND they were properly equipped to handle the situation that lives could be saved?”

    Sorry, I thought by labeling it a rhetorical question you’d have taken my answer as “yes”. How could it not?

    “But follow up? Dude, what is this all I have to do?”

    My own approach is to only participate in a limited number of threads, but to always honor replies to my posts with a follow-up. If a thread goes 2-3 days with no activity, only then do I abandon it.

  13. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, about 3 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    I hope I didn’t just waste my time again answering your questions like I did on the 9/12 Tony Auth thread.

  14. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 3 years ago

    @Anthony 2816

    no waste of time I suppose…unless you skipped work to do it.

    I too think that perception is reality. However, I’ve come to understand that in certain circumstances the things people say are best dissected and reduced to the lowest common denominator.

    Plus, nothing stated here – regardless of the “proof” provided – is anything other than that persons opinion. So an attack is not warranted/.

    Now,back to the discussion.

    It seems to me (my opinion) that when a tough problem presents itself the first thing government wants to do is “prohibit” one from what the perceive as the root of the problem.

    As in the demon alcohol. What happened? Well, those that were aware of human nature became rich, criminal gangs took over, black markets flowered and the demon alcohol use was escalated.

    The same thing with the “war on drugs”.

    Now those two examples should indicate that if you prohibit weapons then only those with nefarious intent will have them as every transaction will involve the criminal element in some fashion.

    How is that a good thing?

    SO as to the “rhetorical” aspect. How can I know what you are thinking and assume that you agree with anything I say unless you actually say it?

    I try to follow up for a day or two but….duty calls. Taking care of an invalid spouse takes time and energy for an old guy like me…….(excuses excuses…..LOL)

  15. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 said, about 3 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    “So an attack is not warranted/.”

    I think I chose to “attack” Billy Sargent not only for the fact that he suggested that we should ignore gun massacres because cars and cigarettes kill more people, but also because he spammed the same post to multiple threads, and then did no one the courtesy of responding to replies.

    How is that a good thing?

    I completely agree with you that a blanket prohibition on guns is an awful idea…which is probably why no one is seriously proposing the idea, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. I have, however, seen multiple posts saying that we already have sufficient gun laws so-why-not-just-enforce-those. Looking at the most recent shooter, Jon Stewart pointed out that despite his well documented mental problems and prior gun arrests, nothing he did legally stopped him from procuring the guns he used for his crime. All attempts at computer consolidation of background information that would have red-flagged him have been successfully blocked by the “gun safety” NRA, who have also blocked enforcement of existing laws. Perhaps rather than prohibition this might be an avenue to pursue? Or perhaps if we applied analogous laws to guns that we do to cars (training, registration, use laws, etc.) things might improve?

    How can I know…

    Point taken.

    Taking care of an invalid spouse…

    My condolences. I only hope that you are fortunate enough to have a relationship to your spouse similar to mine, which would make such care an honor more than a duty.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (28).