Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (47) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Yup, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, U.S., Iraq, Israel, not at all like ruthless Japan, England, Australia, New Zealand, or all the other nations were reasonable limits are in place.

  2. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    How long has the NRA been dead set against them violent video games that cause those mass killings?
    Was it before last Friday?

  3. Stipple

    Stipple said, almost 4 years ago

    Name the game that caused this latest mass killing and you will find the NRA is dead set against it.
    Since before last friday.

  4. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, almost 4 years ago

    Whoever said, An armed society is a polite society" was phantasying about a “good old days” that never existed… Tombstone Arizona in 1880, maybe? King Arthur’s Court?

  5. Darren Blair

    Darren Blair said, almost 4 years ago

    Thomas E. Woods’ “33 Questions You’re Not Supposed To Ask About American History” notes that the Wild West wasn’t as wild as most people think it is.
    Rather, the combination of “strict private property laws” and “common firearm ownership” helped serve to keep the crime rate in check, such that for some towns the murder rate was almost non-existent.

  6. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Mr. Blair, I applaud you. The vast majority of people don’t realize their ideas of the wild, wild west were inspired by penny novels and early Hollywood films. They had nearly total gun control in towns, which is why when someone used a gun to kill someone in a town the event was doubly horrifing and made a place for itself in history. And the prevelance of guns didn’t come until after the Civil War when excess manufacturing capacity encouraged the gun makers to expand their marketing thru myth making – read: general lying.

  7. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    Not sure, but I think it was Robert Heinlein, whose “armed” society also provided basic needs such as food, housing and medical care despite its liberterian leanings.

  8. William Bednar

    William Bednar GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    As far as I can recall, the NRA has not mentioned violent video games, as a possible cause of weapon related crimes, before last Friday’s announcement. I may be wrong on this, but I doubt it. Maybe the video game industry hasn’t been making generous enough “contributions” to the NRA lately? Is that the reason for them being singled out? I wonder.

  9. daves306

    daves306 said, almost 4 years ago

    Hey Nick, Try carrying an AR-15 slung over your shoulder down the sidewalk in your neighborhood and get back to us on how that turns out for you. Because responsible gun owners walk around like that all the time.

  10. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, almost 4 years ago

    ^The NRA is practicing it’s 3 legged strategy. The first leg is to insure the drafting ineffective laws, so they can point at the them after an ‘incident’ and say that laws are ineffective (were the earp brothers in dodge city?). The second leg is to distract the conversation to anything else. video games, mental health. while these are societal problems that the NRA certainly doesn’t care about, they make a fine scapegoat for un-educated liberals. The third leg is to refuse to discuss guns, as that guns are not and have never been the problem.

  11. Craig Linder

    Craig Linder said, almost 4 years ago

    The NRA’s position is effectively the personalization of the Cold War concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In the Cold War the U.S and the U.S.S.R. were deterred from using nuclear weapons because the first to use them would have started a chain of retaliation that would have led to the destruction of both countries.

    Fortunately, no political madman or set of circumstances took us down that path (although the Cuban missile crisis came too close for comfort). But there were only two main actors in that drama. With millions of armed individuals, someone is bound to step over the line and start a chain of shooting that will leave many dead and wounded. I’ll even go so far as to predict it would lead to more dead than our current situation.

  12. dapperdan61

    dapperdan61 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Guns are like cigarettes, their only purpose for existing is to kill. They fatten the pockets of the NRA & gunmakers but do nothing to advance the betterment of mankind. The only people that should have them is the military, law enforcement & responsible hunters that have learned to shoot straight.

  13. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 4 years ago

    If you read about the real history of the OK Corral and the “Wild” West, you will find that they had a tight rein on the guns. In fact, guns were banned within city limits in Tombstone and had to be checked in. See, for example, this:
    Robert Heinlein coined the phrase “an armed society is a polite society,” but as much as I like his work, he was naive in the extreme when it came to people and societies, and I speak as a motivational psychologist and researcher.
    His error was this: He assumed the presence of guns would inhibit violence, because people would hesitate knowing the opponent was armed. This is not true, as indeed the history of the US demonstrates. Impulsive behavior is just that — impulsive. This is also why the death penalty is not, in fact, an effective deterrent. You have to be the kind of person who can think ahead instead of reacting. And everybody reacts impulsively under the right circumstances, e.g., fear, startlement, stress, rage.
    The only way Heinlein’s idea would work is through evolutionary change, which would take a while. And even then the impulsive might get an advantage by killing off the reasonable first.

  14. markjoseph125

    markjoseph125 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Nice job of moving the goalposts. Look, dtroutma’s post, the first one in this comment thread, is game, set, and match. The simple fact that the countries that decided to do something realistic with stricter gun laws have fewer gun mayhem than the massively armed societies refutes the gun nuts’ central argument. So, instead of addressing that refutation, you make the moronic comment “why don’t you move there”, which was already stale in the 1960s.I have to wonder what kind of neighborhood you live in, since you repeatedly make the comment that is the last line of your post. Is it really so bad that if your neighbors knew you weren’t armed to the teeth that they would waltz in, beat the crap out of you, and take all your stuff? Or, as seems more likely to me, that is just you projecting your fears of impotence on to the social situation in general?

  15. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, almost 4 years ago

    People who want the freedom to conceal-carry want the freedom to live in fear.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (32).