From Salon we have this edition of This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow (click to enlarge):
He could have used lawn furniture or something
January 10, 2011 • 2:00 pm
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
All-weather wicker patio chairs would hurt!
Are you sure they’re comfy enough to do real damage?
b&
Depends on whether they have extended cushions…
Wicker is plenty evil.
That…is an excellent summary. So good, I don’t think I need to continue contributing to this or the other thread.
Cheers,
b&
Yep
The comic is pro-gun control. I’m confused as to why you like it, given that you’re not.
I was encouraged to see that today’s edition of The Dallas Morning News carried an editorial entitled “Extreme Madness. Shottings a wakeup call to tone down rhetoric”; but half-way through the editorial they wrote “Both sides have failed to rein in their extremists, who are pushing harder to portray moderation as a vice, not a virtue. From the left, we saw full-page ads with screaming headlines like “General betray Us” as the nation is engaged in very serious wars abroad.” They attempt to balance that statement by noting that the right “encouraged…activists to openly carry firearrms at political rallies” and by noting that “Giffords’ November opponent held a campaign event at a gun range and invited supporters to shoot an M-15 assault rifle”, and by noting that Sarah Palin “identified vulnerable Democratic-held congressional districts, including Giffords’, with a map depicting them in a rifle’s crosshairs”.
I don’t see any balance here at all. Their lame attempt to achieve balance detracted from their purpose as stated in the headline. Violence and the threat of violence characterize one set of statements (and so many more examples of that sort could have been given), while there is no hint of violence in the other statement–extreme rhetoric though it may be.
I don’t see any balance here at all. Their lame attempt to achieve balance detracted from their purpose as stated in the headline.
couldn’t agree more.
the media have pushed a common American accepted fallacy for YEARS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
false equivalency, masquerading as “fair and balanced”
fucking insane.
If you think the media is anything but a propaganda mouthpiece for the corporate giants that own them, you’re sadly deluded.
Yes, even public broadcasting. Look up the cozy relationship between PBS and ADM, and what that bought them.
The Pacifica network is generally not-insane, but they’re quite depressing. With good cause, mind you, but still depressing.
Cheers,
b&
Excellent. The second panel is gold.
My husband asks me (whenever there’s a shooting) why Americans have guns, and why guns are still legal after shootings like this one…I always have to tell him that I don’t understand it either (after futile attempts to explain the second amendment–“but you don’t need that anymore!”…”I know honey, I’m on your side!”). I wonder if he’ll understand this strip.
The reason we still have guns is social momentum. Unless you have a massive societal impact (World War II) with massive destruction, massive civilian killing, guns are still fun, admirable, collectible. You have to have a stunned society, willing to abandon a previous philosophy. It was even typical in post-Civil War America to go hunting with a prospective son-in-law to measure his firearms proficiency. It was typical in farmer-dominated America of yore to take the whole male section of the household out on Christmas Day, and shoot every winged creature sighted, all day long, to dent their effects on future spring plantings.
That legacy lives on, in my opinion.
Tom Tomorrow is right on the money. Beautiful piece.
I always challenge gun advocates to give me a day-by-day account of ANY scenario where they could EVER lose a single bullet, a single weapon to confiscation. In the final act, when the government came knocking at your door, the answer would always, always be:
(1) someone already came and got them. Check your records.
(2) I sold them. The buyer’s name is blah blah blah and he lives at NRA headquarters, Gary Indiana.
(3) I never owned a gun.
How would anyone with an IQ over 55 ever lose one single weapon, unless it was voluntary (which it would not be..)????
I’m still trying to figure out why the shooting was tied to the right in the first place. You know, even before the assailant was known? Within hours of the shooting?
I’m also wondering if eight years of KILL BUSH and KILL CHENEY and whatnot constitutes incendiary hate speech?Probably not. That’s just patriotism. It’s been a hard lesson, but I’ve finally got it- when criticism is warranted, and not.
Republican Regime: Criticism of the administration is not only patriotic, but healthy! Here, let me draw a Hitler mustache on your Bush poster for you.
Democratic Regime: Why are you spreading all this hate? Why do you want to cultivate an atmosphere of violence and hatred? It’s cause he’s black, isn’t?
Oo! Ooo! I’ll play!
A1: Because the victim had already been the subject of gun related threats gussied up as political rhetoric. Once the victim has a target painted on them, it’s easy to assume the attacker agrees with the target painter.
A2: None of those people were courted by the Democratic party in order to help them win an election. None of that philosophy made it into office either. It was treated as the fringe view it was and not seen as a viable social movement as the Tea Party have been.
ie; The left doesn’t see it’s radical fringe as the center and tend to treat them as embarrassing relatives.
A3: The conservative movement discovered that hate and fear are a great way to motivate their base and have been using it for a couple of decades now to get elected. Starting with the religious fundamentalists and recently with old white bigots. The last “liberal” (And I use that because he’s a centrist by every measure) that got elected president was elected on a campaign based on positivity and change for the better.
Sorry, political conservatives win the hate-spreading-for-political-gain race by several laps. To claim otherwise is pure delusion.
I know there is a big debate in the U.S. about gun control and what laws there should be to allow people to own them etc.
Something has always puzzled me. Those who advocate tighter controls over gun ownership always appear (from what I see anyway) to be trying to bring in new laws to control things, while the opposition always bring up the constitutional right to bear arms.
My question is this, if you want to stop people carry guns but the constitution says that they can, then why is there no campaign to change the constitution? After all, there have been many amendments to it already so it’s not as if it’s something that can’t be done.
I’m probably barking up the wrong tree here as I admit to not knowing a great deal about U.S. politics but it’s not something that I’ve ever heard of a campaign about.
“then why is there no campaign to change the constitution?”
It’s politically uncool, and Democrats, just like Republicans, are more worried about getting re-elected than anything else. This may come to a shock to some people. Plus, it’s a tool for both parties come election time.
Because a change to the Constitution would be no more enforceable than the Amendment to ban alcoholic beverages. Your imagination would get little exercise creating ways to avoid confiscation of weapons and ammo.
How would a Constitutional act be more effective than local law??
Ironically, government-sponsored guns clubs would probably be the best solution to the problem of mentally-ill people using firearms. All your weapons at the club, and plenty of free shooting, competitions, and training. But no weapons or ammo leave the premises.
I think this is a brilliant idea.
Sadly the paranoids will see this as as another step on the way to the fascist nation that only they and their group of plucky rebels will be able to defeat.
I’m glad to live in a country where a deluded young man would find it difficult to get hold of a firearm, and where eight year old boys don’t get the chance to kill themselves when practicing with automatic weapons.
We have had three mass shooting events in the UK that I can recall, and in all three of them the killer had legal access to guns – and two led to changes in the law to restrict ownership. We have had two recent attacks on politicians, both with bladed weapons, so the idea that would-be killers will use any weapon to hand may be true to some extent – but the attacks resulted in one death and two people injured.
So what do we say about the other side of the equation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
I am especially curious about what anyone has to say about the review by the National Academy of Sciences that indicated that not a single gun law can be traced to a reduction in crime.