The Ultimate Sacrifice.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 17th, 2008 at 4:44 pm by Matt Davies.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Loading ...
Leave a Reply
It is a condition of your use of the comment features associated with the blogs that you do not: Use the site to post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law. You alone are responsible for the material you post or send. Refer to the
Terms of Service.
Poignant.
Matt,
This cartoon rings so sadly true.
You blamed the "Gun Culture" for this tragedy. It's time we stopped laying gun deaths # the NRA's door & placed the blame where it really belongs: with us.
Thanks for making me think.
Oh, by the way, a while back a comment on a previous cartoon suggested your readers might confuse their position on issues w/your ability to express them. If so, it suggested,those readers might rate your cartoons higher.
What's wrong w/that. If you hit a chord w/some of us, isn't that what good editorial cartoonists do?
When will we learn….
Instead of the shirt saying "gun culture" it should say "irresponsible media who sensationalize, over-report, and obsess over mass-shootings, which leads to copycat events". I guess they didn't put that because it's too long to fit in that space. But the media are to blame on this. It's solidly established that obsessive media reporting of suicide leads to "suicide contagion" (http://suicideandmentalhealthassociationinternational.org/suiconclust.html). It's obvious that the same phenomenon is at work here, which could be called "mass murder contagion".
Maybe the First Amendment is obsolete and dangerous. Back in the 1780s, the most efficient means of spewing out information was the hand-cranked press. Hand-cranked presses prevented the current problems of suicide contagion and mass murder contagion because news traveled slowly and was not as sensational or obsessive. Now that we have the Internet, web, video broadcasting, and mass printing machines, I think the First Amendment is an obsolete relic. The First Amendment no longer makes sense in an era when one news agency can broadcast a story, complete with video, to millions of viewers around the country in minutes.
So explain to me how Washington DC, a place where "gun culture" has been effectively outlawed, has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation?
Very dumb cartoon. Felipe pretty much nailed it. Cars, prescription drug overdoses, alcohol, and cigarettes kill many thousands more people per year than guns do, but where's the clamor to legislate those killers out of existence? And maybe if the press didn't pay so much attention to these wackos, they wouldn't be trying so hard to imitate each other all the time?
If it is not the responsibility of the murderers for those deaths, then it must be people like yourself that promote "defense free" zones. Saying that adherents of the 2nd Amendment are responsible is like saying that adherents to an unlimited 1st amendment are responsible for the hate speech from bigots, nazis, and islamo-fascists calling for the death of any that disagree with them. That right never causes any deaths…oh, wait. It does. How does it feel to be guilty of thousands of deaths…..
See, works that way too. Don't blame us. Blame the killers.
If my right to keep and bear arms means I am responsible for the death by gun of the NIU students, then your right to free speech and the right to free press makes you responsible for all the hate speech of racist groups like the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Nation of Islam, La Raza, etc.
I hope you are implying that we, as gun owners, should be proud of the fact that a mentally ill person entered a place where weapons are prohibited and slaughtered his fellows with a tool that the college denies the citizenry access to.
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court decided that the police have ZERO obligation or duty to protect the public(See Black Rock Vs. Gonzales) you seem to be unable to fathom that disarming the law abiding actually aids in the slaughter of innocents.
What message are you trying to send? That relying on the cops to protect you(when they have no duty to and repeatedly fail to) and then denying your populace the right to defend themselves is somehow the 'Gun Culture's' fault. I hope not.
Gotta love this cartoon. Full of sensationalism and emotion along with enough misdirected blame to make any yellow journalist proud. Bravo!
How about instead you make a cartoon showing the tombstones of all the dead law abiding citizens who were killed by criminals because they happened to be in a "gun free zone" and therefore were disarmed and did not have the ability to protect themselves? Maybe it could point to the fact that almost all of the mass shootings in the United States have occured in areas where firearms have been legislated illegal, so that the only people who have them are the criminals intent on violence and the police who are usually minutes away once the shooting starts.
Then again, that would be representative of the facts and we couldn't have a discussion based on the facts could we? Emotion and sensationalism make much better fodder to feed to the masses. So, once again, bravo!
Thanks for helping in making me sick. People like you should be on the victim side of a violent crime that was stopped by a law abiding citizen who follows the rules and applies to carry a firearm. Go back to London a village there is missing their idiot!!!
The True Grit, Strong Core Beliefs and a Gun Culture are what saved this great country back in the day.
History proves that we know how to "take the trash out" when need be.
Our country has a distinguished record of evicting tyrants!
By reading your little comic one wonders "if you" would blame your child for a bad grade or the teacher who gave them the failing grade and merely passed the news along in the form of a report card?
The tombstones should actually read: "unarmed – stabbing victims- of 9/11, ...and more"
where is the cartoon about 8 dead from the results of an illegal drag racing in the east coast over then weekend?
hmmm i guess the deaths from a school shooting is worth more than those from an illegal drag racing…
I hope by "gun culture" you mean the glorification of violence and abuse in music, video games, and television. Or why don't you blame a culture that encourages us to just roll over and give up, to give the bad guy whatever he wants, because stopping someone from committing murder, assault, or rape is somehow worse than the original crime.
At least twice as many people die every year from vehicular accidents as from violent crime. Yes, violent crime, not guns. It's been said before, but guns don't cause crime, people do. Why don't we try to fix the actual cause of the problem (ie, the things that make people want to commit violent crimes) instead?
I guess what it comes down to is this: do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves when they are being attacked? Yes or no… and if you say yes, then why do you insist on taking away the only reliable method of doing so? How else do you expect an 80 year-old man to resist three teenage thugs busting through his door? How else should a 120-pound woman defend herself against a 250 pould bodybuilding rapist? There's a reason so many law-abiding people want to carry handguns, and it's not so that they can start waving it around whenever they get upset. They want to carry one because it is the great equalizer, allowing them to fight back even against much bigger, stronger, and faster attackers. All "gun-free zones" do is tell innocent people "I hope you're strong or can run fast, because otherwise you're a sitting duck".
Perhaps it would ring more true if the figure were labeled
"Democrats" instead of "Gun Culture" and the caption read, "They died to further your agenda…"
"Cars, prescription drug overdoses, alcohol, and cigarettes kill many thousands more people per year than guns do, but where's the clamor to legislate those killers out of existence?"
Actually, swimming pools kill three times as many children as firearms do. Guns aren't even on the list of 'top 10 things that kill children.' Well, you have to factor out the 'children' that are 17yr old gang banging rap culture thugs, but even including them, medical errors and car accidents kill many many more. The FBI & CDC stats have confirmed this.
Oh, and the skyrocketing crime rates in England & Australia should tell you something.
Normally a very good cartoon, but I am very disappointed in this one.
Your cartoon was drawn in an extremely narrow mindset. It's not about the weapon, it's about the person. If guns never existed, murders would just use knives, clubs, spears, cars, arson, etc. to carry out their killings.
You have no right to demonize guns, especially those in the hands of law abiding citizens.
Go back to Britain Matt! You will obviously never understand the republic that's given you a home.
Matt – rhymes with @$$hat. Coincidence?
All our mass murders involve more than just guns. 'Gun free zones' and mental illness factor hugely into that as well. Maybe we should look into the mass reliance of powerful anti-psychotic drugs that seem to turn people into mindless zombies bent on killing when they go off them.
Why not focus on our national prescription drug culture?
You want to rely on the government to protect you, only they have no obligation to do so whatsoever. Why kind of mindset or logic is that?
I wonder what kind of prison NIU will build to house their students to keep them safe?
At least you will get your total governmental control and protection that will make you feel safe inside. We all know how safe prisons are.
This cartoon is obviously incorrect. After all, don't we have over 20,000 "gun control" laws?
Of course we do, but they don't work. Gun Control is a FAILURE.
We've had 40 years of "gun control" and IF it worked, crime rates would be lower than 1968, but they're not. Look at your home country, Matt and take note that gun violence is MORE prevelant than before the gun ban. It's the same in Australia. Washington D.C. is, essentially, a gun-free zone but it has one of the highest crime rates in the nation.
It's time to junk most of the so-called gun control laws and, instead of focusing on inanimate objects, focus on penalizing the criminals who use them for criminal purposes.
Giving up your wallet is one thing, but what if the thing your assailant wants is your LIFE?
Saying that law abidding gun owners are responsible for shooting victims is like saying all car owners are responsible for drunk driving deaths.
If society wasn't neutered into thinking that no guns = a safe zone, we'd have these school shooters thinking twice before they opened fire. Its not target practice on the innocent when the innocent are shooting back.
These school shooters are mentally ill, socially challenged cowards that always end up killing themselves too. Doesn't that speak volumes for how dis-simular they are to those of whom legally carry guns for our safety and for that of our families?
THis is just another of the stupid uninformed BS spread by the media——- how about some facts to support your emotional BS?? People kill people—-not guns. Its a freaking social problem that won't be solved by trying to control guns. Just ask Great Britain or Australia if banning guns helps prevent crime. Since their ban on handguns went into effect they have passed the US stats on car jackings, burgularies, and theft! If the current gun laws could possibly be enforced life would be so much better. I think this was and is a stupid cartoon not worthy of putting into circualation.
WAKE UP CARTOONIST!
Unlike your homeland, America hasn't yet passed a law saying that its illegal for me to have a means to protect my self.
Tell us, How's the UK's gun ban doing in preventing crime? Oh, that's right just like Austrailias its a catastrophic failure.
Stop trying to make the people of a free country victims like the rest of the world.
So, you want the US to be as gutless as the rest of the countries that have no guns?
Tell me, when a violent criminal attacks you, your wife, or children… which would you rather have: A gun or a telephone to call someone that has a gun.
The police will get there… just in time to start an investigation about finding your killer.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Illinois is anti-gun. Northern IL is not a "gun culture", especially not in Chicago-land where NIU is.
But why let facts enter into your sensationalism? You've got an agenda to attend to.
Here's an idea for a cartoon, have the press dancing in the streets with the bodies of the shooting victims raised over their heads like they were radical Muslims celebrating with a dead American.
Or would that be too close to the truth for you to print?
People that think this way do not understand why we have guns, or what personal responsibility is. They also do not know what oppression is. Gun laws will not stop crazy people. Look how many gun laws he broke. He was even in a "gun free zone" which only meant that nobody else was allowed to have a weapon to defend themselves. Passing more laws would do nothing.
The reason that we have guns is to not allow others to have power over us, be it the government, criminals, etc. They are a very powerful tool when used appropriately. Wrongful actions do not lie in the tool used, but in the way it is used. If you believe that there is not use for weapons, then why are thousands of guns being made and given to U.S. troops? Why are they given to your local police? Looking at it this way, you see that they do have a correct use.
Tragedies like what happened at NIU are unfortunate but banning guns is not the answer. Banning guns would only put this whole country at risk. Nobody would be able to protect themselves or their families from anybody who had superior weapons or force. In terms of keeping the government in line, as long as the government has a slight fear of the people, they will keep themselves in line. Without this fear, the government, who owns guns, would be able to do whatever they please.
Would you trust another to your personal protection? Well, yes, you have the police. Well who do you call if the police is out of line?
When you try to solve a conflict, you have to ask yourself, what are my options? Banning guns is not an option. As long as anybody else in the world owns a gun, guns are necessary. Unfortunately, we cannot uninvent them. It would be like saying to every country in the world to give up their nuclear weapons. This is not an option since the one who would still have the weapon, would be at a significant advantage over others.
So now look at what the other causes of gun violence are? In my opinion, they are the romanticism of guns in movies, videogames, music, media, etc. If nobody saw movie characters with machine guns looking and acting suave while they are mowing down the police, do you think that an ordinary citizen would just start thinking this way? Where do you think these killers get their ideas and role models from?
Why don't you ask yourself, Mr. Davies, why all of those innocent, defenseless victims were effectively executed while in a "gun free zone?" They were not victims of the gun culture, but of those myopic legislators and school administrators who continue to tout the effectiveness of "gun free zones" in preventing violence, while madmen and psychopaths continue to prove them wrong by using guns to slaughter disarmed, defenseless students and faculty.
When you deny a person the use of effective tools with which to defend their life against a violent, armed attacker, you condemn them to either try to run away, or to cower under a desk and wait for a bullet to the back of the head. Simple as that. The high death tolls in recent mass shootings were not caused by the fact that the killers were able to have guns, but because their defenseless victims were not! If you can't shoot back, you can't stop the madman who is walking from student to student at his leisure and dispatching them with pointblank shots; which, according to reports from survivors, is exactly what happened in most of these school shootings. One student or teacher, suitably armed with a defensive firearm, could have meant the difference between 32 innocents dead at Virginia Tech, or far fewer innocents dead.
How many more defenseless students and faculty must be murdered before we realize that denying law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves from armed attackers is NOT the solution to making them safer? "Gun free zones" might as well have signs posted at every entrance reading, "Killers: For your safety and convenience, all victims in this area have been disarmed. You will face no resistance. Thank you, and enjoy your murderous spree. We'll send someone to tidy up once you're done… The Management." Your cartoon is sickening and the premise it expounds is blatantly untrue. Guns are merely tools, the usefulness of which depends upon the character of the user.
The only people that died for our rights are the fallen soldiers that we lost since the beginning of this nation. Those people that died in the shootings died for 1 reason and 1 reason only, The media. When ever the media makes a big hype about a shooting, Others will follow suit. The more this stuff is on primetime news the more shootings there will be, Sorry but it's a proven fact. People like you who want to disarm the law abiding public are the problems with this country, Your almost as bad as the gunmen themselves.
It is indeed sickening how many people have been sacrificed to the absurd idea that taking away someone's right to defend themselves somehow makes people safer and better off. School shooting victims are the result of anti-gun demagogues having their way become policy. What killed them was the idea that helplessness was good for them and that removal of safety equipment for the situation was a solution to the problem.
Worse, the problem isn't confined to schools. Anywhere self defense is restricted or prohibited, the people are given an impossible choice between being a criminal-
possibly a felon- and being a victim. Thanks to propaganda against defensive arms as necessary safety equipment by opportunistic politicians capitalizing on fear, pompous academics with simplistic utopian ideals, unscrupulous lobby groups, and leftist journalism, too many people are misled or forced into being free targets for murderers, rapists, robbers, and psychopaths every day. The blame lays at their feet.In short, the anti gun culture is what kills people.
Matt Davies is the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for The Journal News. Born in London, he immigrated to the United States in 1983.
Your not even a True American, Your just a POS immigrant with your communist ideals. Go back to England cause nobody wants your foreign ass here.
Gun culture. You mean like in Jamaica, which has one of the highest per-capita murder rates, but guns are… completely illegal? Oh, that gun culture. The one where police can send someone to prison for life just for having 1 round of ammunition (or, in practice, execute him on the spot), but they can't stop the daily shootouts.
Or Brazil, where there are neighborhoods the police won't even go into. Strict gun control, yet Brazil is more violent than the USA.
Gun control is a farce that supposes more laws will affect those who already ignore existing ones.
Besides, if you're talking strictly body count here, nobody can compete with governments for killing the most civilians.
From the majority of responses to this 'toon, I would say that (once again) you have hit the nail squarely on the head, Matt!
Keep 'em flying!
-jp
It is sad that such important issue is debated based on emotions and facts are ignored… One side of the debate is trying to present logical argumens, statistics, etc. but other is just printing simplistic emotional pictures or comments. It makes me thinks that anti-gun crowd is too ignorant to wage a real debate…
I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.
How do you explain otherwise to a shooting victims family?
Mr. Davies—I was sad to see this cartoon. While I can understand the reflexive emotional response any sane person would have to a mass murder, one would hope that in the time it takes to exercise your artistic skills there would also be time to reflect properly on what caused this tragedy.
Was our "airline culture" responsible for 9/11?
Was our "farming culture" responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing?
jp—your interpretation of things is off, I'm afraid. If instead of "gun culture" Mr. Davies blamed, let's say, "black culture" and a hundred African-Americans responded with disgust, you wouldn't say the cartoon hit the nail on the head. You'd recognize that the cartoon was calling out a certain segment of society and blaming it for ills over which it has no control.
The "gun culture" did not walk into that auditorium and kill those students. A man did that. A sick man, a man let down (or at least let loose) by a medical profession that is willing to let dangerously deranged people walk among us because their personal freedom is deemed more important than our communal security. It is thus quite ironic that Mr. Davies and you seem to believe that my personal security and freedom is deemed less important than your political contentedness.
Restrictions on fundamental rights have killed far more people—and societies—than guns ever could.
Stay safe …
Maybe you should try some facts——
here-try this————http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=275
Out of the woodwork come the gun-totin' folk, and boy are they angry. Nice to know so many gun advocates are hair trigger-tempered, blog-browsing and mean. Makes me feel safe.
Funny, but I read more into this cartoon than "make guns illegal." Seemed to me like more of a commentary on a combination of many factors that are making this country feel more like a battle zone than a safe zone.
I'd suggest the proliferation of angry, narrow-minded, venom-filled citizens is a primary cause.
Your "cartoon", having only two characters representing "gun culture" implies that it is overwhelmingly outnumbered by victims of gun violence. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding, and mentally stable. I am not trying to minimize the tragedy that periodically befalls our society with regard to these kinds of incidents, however, to make it appear that gun owners are fewer in number than the victims of gun violence is sensationalism and exploitive. The guns are not to blame. Responsible owners are not to blame. Try putting blame where it belongs.
If other students were permitted to carry concealed weapons, this might not have happened. If the doctors weren't trying to get kick backs from drug companies, they might not have perscribed this guy so many diff. drugs which is probably the root cause of him going off the deep end. If the media whores didn't prey for this type of situation, it might not have happened. If guns were outlawed, this would probably would have still happened.
Tha t-shirt in your cartoon should read "Anti-Gun Culture".
Matt,
You need to look at some of the figures from the British Home Office. Since Great Britain outlawed handguns, the rate of handgun crime has just about doubled. How can this be? I thought that outlawing guns makes crime go away.
The fact is that no advocate of any gun law has yet given any reason why a gun law would work any better than our so-called "War on Drugs" has worked. About half of the murders in the US occur in population groups that are heavily involved in the illegal distribution and sale of drugs like crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine, heroin, etc. Why would a gun law work when drug laws haven't?
From one gun nut to the rest of you- Matt's cartoons get an average of 5-6 coments on his blog per toon. Try and resond to some other ones so you don't make us seem like we only want to talk about our beloved arms. Guns don't kill people, ignorance does!
Why don't you publish Mohammed cartoons in so called free speech country?
"Guns kill people, just like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell Fat." Ban all spoons and deaths from hear attacks will decrease. Does this make sense to you Matt? Educate yourself. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Sir:
Feel free to move back to the UK, where I'm sure you'll feel safe, no guns there anymore,and especially since they are now trying to ban knives and other sharp instruments. Yet the crime rate in the UK is going right through the roof. I wonder why? Could it be that only the bad guys there have the guns and knives?? I will gladly pay your one way airfare to either Heathrow or Gatwick (your choice), Now you'll have to excuse me, I've got guns to clean, and trips to the range to plan.
You see, the anti-gun crowd can only offer emotional knee jerk responses and skewed data to make their case for gun control.
MYTH: "The police can protect you."
Police write great reports, but an officer can only protect you if he/she happens to be there when the crime starts.
Are you a baby-boomer? When you are 70 years old, will you be able to fight off a mugger with your fists? What if it isn't just your money he wants? If you do not stop the anti-gun trend, guns will be registered, then confiscated, by the time you and your generation need them the most. The only gun-owners will be people who disobey the law.
MYTH: "A handgun in a home is 43 times more likely to kill one of the residents than a criminal."
This is a bogus statistic from an MD named Arthur Kellerman. If you remove the suicides from his sampling, his statistic is now "6 times more likely". Most of his remaining "victims" were multiple criminals living together, where one shot the other in a fight. He lets you assume they were families just like yours, by counting gun-death statistics for criminal households together with those of traditional families. (Polsby and Brennen, "Taking Aim At Gun Control" 1995). He has repeatedly refused the opportunity to debate speakers on the other side of the issue.
MYTH: "More children die of gunfire in America that the next 25 industrial nations combined"
Former President Clinton made those claims because he knew the press wouldn't investigate them. He counted Hong Kong and China separately, although they had been together for years. He counted Kuwait as a top industrial nation, but left Russia and Brazil off the list. Russia and Brazil banned guns long ago, but have murder rates four times higher than what we have in the US. If you look at murders involving juveniles they're off the scales. Both of those countries have significantly smaller populations than the U. S., yet either one of them by itself has a juvenile death total much higher than ours. (Prof J. Lott, Nat. Review.)
MYTH: "Countries with strict gun laws have less crime"
Russia, Mexico, South Africa and Brazil have very strict gun laws and much higher crime than we do. Switzerland has almost 100% handgun ownership. They even have shooting competitions for teenagers. Their murder rate is lower than England, where handgun ownership is banned. Violent crime in England has risen since the ban. If guns caused crime, Switzerland would be the most dangerous nation on earth, rather than one of the safest. Finland has higher per-capita gun ownership than America, and they also have lower crime rates. Israel has 40% higher gun ownership, and near zero murder, except for terrorists. New York, California, Chicago, and Washington DC have the strictest gun laws in America, and the highest crime rates. Virginia borders Washington DC, yet it has few gun laws and far fewer violent crimes. Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in America, and their gun crime rate is 48th out of 50 states. Every state that started allowing average citizens to carry concealed weapons saw a decrease in violent crime over the ensuing years. Gun laws have been proven to make things worse, not better. (Prof. J. Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, 1998)
Think about it – if you were going to go on a shooting rampage or robbery spree, would you do it where the people are armed, or where the laws forbid your intended victims from having guns? If you doubt this, you can do your own experiment: Post a sign in front of your residence:
THIS HOME IS PROUD TO BE GUN FREE
Let me know how it went for you.
MYTH: "Incidents like Columbine demand gun control"
Deaths from incidents like Columbine are extremely rare, even now. For the first 190 years of American history, guns could be bought by mail, or in any gun store with no questions asked. No school shootings. The perversity that brought Columbine and similar incidents has nothing to do with gun laws, and will not change because of them. In two of those incidents, the shooting stopped when armed civilians intervened with their own guns, but those people weren't invited to the White House for photo-ops, so you didn't hear about them. (More on this below)
MYTH: "Guns should be registered like cars"
Compliance only comes from law-abiding citizens. Confiscation then becomes easy, and the "logical next step" after the next gun crime is in the news. The most recent examples of this are Australia and Britain. All it took was one person in each place to do something stupid, and the both countries paid with their rights to own firearms. Politicians made themselves look tough on crime, by punishing the gun owners who obeyed the law and registered. The law-abiding gun owners lost their ability to defend themselves against violence. But did confiscation improve things? British gun crimes rose 40% since their 1996 handgun ban. Australian armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. The only people who lost their weapons were those who registered them. The criminals and the IRA still have theirs. In Germany, registration preceded confiscation of weapons from Jews, homosexuals, opponents of Hitler, and any other "undesirables". Once disarmed, they were easy prey. The same happened in Rwanda, Uganda, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Turkey, and the Soviet Union.
It is too easy a step from registration to confiscation. Since criminals won't register their guns, they won't be turning them in if the government decides to ban them. The Supreme Court (Haynes v. US, 390 US 85, 1968) has ruled that criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register guns (self incrimination). So gun registration will affect you, but not them.
MYTH: "Thirteen children a day die of gun violence."
You really have to work the numbers around to get to this. The Clinton administration announced this using a backdrop of elementary school children. They didn't say that 84% of the "13 children" are gangsters between the ages of 15 and 20, killing each other over drugs and turf (Prof. J. Lott, LA Times article). Clinton promised that this would be fixed by his 1994 gun laws, remember? Of the remaining 16% of non-adult gunshot victims, there are accidents, suicides, murders, and justifiable self-defense. Only 2.9% of all deaths under the age of 14 are from accidental shootings, an all time low (Johns Hopkins University). More children are killed by each of poisoning, drowning, fires, and bicycles.
MYTH: "More gun control will help stop hate crimes"
How will disarming likely victims protect them? People who are willing to violate murder laws are willing to violate gun laws, but they are not willing to risk being killed if their victim is armed. If 50% of all gay men in an area were known to carry handguns, people who now assault them would look elsewhere for entertainment.
MYTH: "What if only one life is saved by more gun laws, isn't is worth it?"
How many lives will be lost because of gun laws? 2.5 Million crimes per year are stopped by armed citizens. What are their lives worth? (G. Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America). In the case of the school shooting in Mississippi, the vice-principal (who stopped the shooter) had to run 1000 feet each way to get his gun from his car, because it was illegal for him to have it any closer to the school. How many children were shot during those minutes? What if it had been legal for New Yorkers to carry guns when Colin Ferguson shot up the subway car? Did strict New York gun laws stop his racist rampage? No, but they did guarantee him unarmed victims. What about the hundreds of women who had to wait the Brady period when they took notice of a stalker and were subsequently raped or worse before they could pick up their weapon. Don't these people count for anything?
MYTH: "The Second Amendment was written when muskets were the primary military arms. The Founding Fathers never would have considered allowing citizens to own assault rifles."
The First Amendment was written when the hand-operated printing press was the primary publishing tool. Shall we also ban free speech on television, radio, and the Internet because they weren't invented in 1791? Technology may have changed, but human nature has not. Honest people still need means of defense against dishonest ones.
Is the Second Amendment a Personal or Group Right?
MYTH: "The Second Amendment was about state militias like the National Guard"
If that were true, we would see it in the writings of the Founding Fathers. Instead, we see dozens of statements that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and none that say otherwise. I have attached a few for your reference.
Words of the framers of the Constitution, expressing their views on gun rights:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764, pp 87-88.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny, Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution of most of our states, and the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves: that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." Samuel Adams
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Every man who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, During Virginia's ratification convention, 1788
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist No. 46
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison, I Annuals of Congress
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, June 4, 1788 (From J. Elliott, Debates in the General State
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them." ...Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775
"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790
"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington
Change the shirt to "gun control" and it will be accurate.
What is you were attacked and you had no way to defend yourself?
there is a town in alabama were it its law to own a gun and crime is 0 because the criminals know if they break into someones else house or attack someone they know whats coming
i dont know how long it will take you to see the light but i hope you will.
PS if you were attaked an a comcealed and carried permit holder saved you how would you feel. if you have a problem with the US gun laws go back to Britian so you deffenseless citizen can be prayed upon because they know you cant defend yourself
Matt,
The reaction to this cartoon just goes to show how "hot-button" this issue is. You provoked responses by the dozen, & I congratulate you for it.
This cartoon is proof that we still cherish our first ammendment rights.
Now, if advocates of the second ammendment would just remember that some of us disagree & disagree respectfully w/your opinion. How about we consider this side of the issue:
– How many of those deaths in "gun-free zones" involved illegal guns? I live in an area where homicide rates were at all-time lows till gun-wiedlers got illegal guns by crossing the border into a state w/less stringent gun-control laws. As a result, should every person in my state buy a gun – just in case?
– When you commenters above cite homicides in those gun-free zones & various countries, are you certain you're counting deaths using only guns? Murderers make use of knives, machetes, blunt objects, poison,etc.
– When you cite deaths from legal prescriptions, maybe those MD's who write the scripts should be prosecuted for their negligence.
– When some monster decides to kill his/her spouse & kids, how do we control that situation? If the parent is murdered first,can an armed 5-year-old kid can take out his/her homicidal maniac parent?
– If I were attacked, would I be certain I'd be the one standing at the end? I'm not so sure I could use my gun better than the louse attacking me.
So, I respect your point of view, but mine differs from yours, & other people like me have a right to disagree w/you, like Matt.
Keep up the good work, Matt.
DebS,
In response to all of your points.
– How many of those deaths in "gun-free zones" involved illegal guns? I live in an area where homicide rates were at all-time lows till gun-wiedlers got illegal guns by crossing the border into a state w/less stringent gun-control laws. As a result, should every person in my state buy a gun – just in case?
I don't know what state you're in so I can't comment on what laws you're talking about. But I'd like to ask you this: The state you mention with the less stringent gun-control laws. When did it's laws become less stringent? If the answer is that their laws have always been as such, then how can you put the blame on them? What was it that compelled the criminals to go get their guns from that state? Was gun control increased in your state just before the rise in crime? So many unanswered questions, but I really don't see how you could blame another state for your states increase in crime if that state hasn't made any changes in it's laws.
– When you commenters above cite homicides in those gun-free zones & various countries, are you certain you're counting deaths using only guns? Murderers make use of knives, machetes, blunt objects, poison,etc.
Is being murdered by a gun worse than being murdered in some other way? The point is that homicides are more easily committed when criminals don't have to worry about their victim having a gun to defend themselves. It would only make sense that crime of all types would increase when there is no longer a threat to a criminal's life during the commission of those crimes. Home burgluries become so much easier if the home has no guns. The criminal wouldn't even need a gun. If the home owner offered any resistance with a knife or bat or whatever, the criminal could easily get away and try the next house on the list or kill the home owner if the criminal has more physical strength, bigger bat or whatever would give the criminal an advantage. No threat to life means little deterrant.
– When you cite deaths from legal prescriptions, maybe those MD's who write the scripts should be prosecuted for their negligence.
Maybe they should be, but this discussion is about guns and gun control, so I see little relevance.
– When some monster decides to kill his/her spouse & kids, how do we control that situation? If the parent is murdered first,can an armed 5-year-old kid can take out his/her homicidal maniac parent?
What's this have to do with guns aside from the question about the armed(assuming you mean armed with a gun) 5-year-old? I'd say a 5 year old with a gun has a much better chance of taking out a murderous parent than a 5 year old armed with anything else. Unless you were assuming the only way one parent can kill another is with a gun, then this point may be more relevant to guns, but couldn't one parent just as easily slit the other's throat with a knife when they aren't expecting it or beat them to death with a baseball bat?
– If I were attacked, would I be certain I'd be the one standing at the end? I'm not so sure I could use my gun better than the louse attacking me.
The same could be said about any other defensive tool. What's to say you could use a knife, fists, a stick, a brick or anything else better? If you are completely unarmed you'll be at a disadvantage no matter what your attacker uses. I'd rather have a gun if I was attacked, no matter what I was attacked with. I sure have a better chance of coming out alive in the end if I have a gun and my attacker has only a knife, brick or whatever. Even if my attacker does have a gun, I'd rather have a gun too, regardless of whether or not I was as skilled in it's use.
This is the cartoon that brought me to this blog.
It speaks volumes … especially to the sister of one of those victims and the niece of another. Thank you for speaking out.
2 years ago there was a terrible schooting incident in Belgium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Van_Themsche
Since that moment the law regarding gun control were sharpend in Belgium and that's a good thing.
Mayby you americans should that it is possible to have an almoust gun free society…
Thank you everyone for the (mostly) reasoned debate. While a cartoon (like a gun) can tend to divide an issue into black and white, I am actually inclined to see the gun issue more in grays. I am not reflexively "anti-gun." When I talk about a gun culture, I am also referring to what we live and breathe in Hollywood, TV, books, video games & news media. We are fascinated by people who "solve their problems" with guns. Most of the gun owners I know recognize this and even agree with it. One of the most important things to remember (in this and all other of the hot button issues) is that there are human beings on both sides of the debate – And none of us wants to get shot at. How one chooses to achieve that noble goal should be respected, so long as one persons solution doesn't compromise another's. (which is, unfortunately, where the fight starts…)
I tend to think of the violence portrayed in Kollywood, TV, books, etc as a violence culture. More than just guns are used, be it with a knife, bat or fists. The gun culture is that of respect and responsibility. On my trips to the shooting range, I don't see people acting all big and bad because they have a gun in hand. I see people teaching each other proper safety and use. I myself recently took some people to the range who had little experience with firearms and taught them how to load a handgun, aim and fire, all while reinforcing safety habits.
The real problem that kills people is the gangs, uncaring attitude and general lack of responsibility in the world and that will be there whether or not guns exist. While this culture of violence exists, I'm going to have a means of defending myself. Yes I have other options than just a gun available, but if a situation arises where none of these other options will work, the gun is there as a last resort.
My point is, I think attributing the whole spectrum of violence to just guns is unfair and causes people to just focus on that one item with the belief that it's erradication will solve all our problems. That can be very dangerous. If feel good laws are passed prohibiting ownership of firearms, only the people who are not inclined to commit violent acts will relinquish them and therefore be at a huge disadvantage to the criminal element who happened to keep theirs.
Obviously a very uneducated person drew this cartoon. They can't even figure out that the more you disarm honest citizens the more violent crime there is. Pathetic