A commentary of utter perfection. It's not funny but I don't think he really wanted to make us laugh :(
Thanks for posting it though.

(Reply) (Thread)

Stepping aside from gun control, there are a couple of issues with the argument presented. Granted it is a comic, but since it is advancing a point of view I think that the manner in which such point is made should be examined.

(Please note that the pro-gun character is likewise proposing an position via fallacious means.)

Panel 2: Implicitly assumes as given that a person about to commit a crime would be restricted to legal means only.

Panel 4: Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

---

In the end the shooting in Tucson is a tragedy. One that both sides will attempt to use to their advantage despite how deplorable such an action is. This comic is part of that same malady.

That said, I still have faith in the system's ability to correct itself.

- J

(Reply) (Thread)

(Please note that the pro-gun character is likewise proposing an position via fallacious means.)

Should be:

(Please note that the pro-gun character is likewise proposing a position via fallacious means.)

Things like this annoy me.

Sorry.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Panel 2: Implicitly assumes as given that a person about to commit a crime would be restricted to legal means only.

Comment selection: Implicitly assumes as a given that if we cannot restrict things with 100% perfection, then the attempt to prevent people from getting their hands on dangerous substances is in itself foolish.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Ha, fair enough. Let me tinker with that a bit...

Panel 2: Implicitly assumes as given that a person about to commit a crime would be restricted to legal means only. A fair statement would be to say that the crime would have been statistically less likely to occur.

This stems from the assumption that legal restrictions increase deterrence (from an inability to easily acquire the appropriate materials), increase detection (as the would be murderer has to commit a crime prior to attempting murder), and increase prevention (by giving law enforcement agencies the means by which to proactively limit options via a "War on guns") if, and only if, those bodies so charged are adequately funded, staffed, and trained toward this end.

That said, making it illegal to own a gun (the root of the comic's argument) may prevent violent crime, but I look at similar efforts (the Prohibition and the War on Drugs) and doubt the effectiveness of such a solution.

- J

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, if the USA had better gun control (not necessarily a full ban) it would be harder for mobsters to run guns into Mexico. That would be an improvement.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

I didn't take it as implying anything; we've all heard the pro-gun side use the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I have friends who insist that if someone decides they want to kill, they'll do it whether a gun is available or not, never mind how much more difficult it would be to, say, take out a bunch of people in a crowd with a bowie knife.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

That said, making it illegal to own a gun (the root of the comic's argument)

Quoted statement: Implicitly assumes that the root of the comic's argument is to ban all guns, as opposed to putting more restrictions on the kinds of high-damage guns that can cause massive amounts of injuries.

The core issue as I, a liberal who's not opposed to guns, sees it, is that the NRA is so hair-trigger that you can't even say, "We really need to restrict the sales of automatic weapons to sane people" without a gut reaction of, "YOU'RE TAKIN' ALL OUR GUNS!" And then whoops, it's gone. And then more things like this happen.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Hah. Pretty much.

(Reply) (Thread)

The many, many broken souls and dreams that litter our sidewalks, prisons and mental hospitals are the price we pay for the 1st Amendment's tolerance of religious freedom, too. If we're going to go around regulating tools that can be misused to blow people's brains out, let's start with the Catholics.

I'd even add that being a veteran increases one's odds of ending up homeless considerably -- another of the many bitter prices we pay for our free society.

(Reply) (Thread)

How do you figure that lack of religious freedom would make fewer schizophrenics?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, religion DID fuck with my head.

Anectodes are evidence!

Wait, no.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Today's quote: "The plural of anecdote is not data".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Pretty much, yeah. Oddness.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Just as we're not smart enough to create a litmus test for rational voters, or a value test for organized religion, we're also not smart enough to restrict the freedoms of the crazies until after they do something crazy.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't have much of an opinion on gun control one way or the other, since I don't own a gun (and have no real intention to ever own one) but also know lots of people who own lots of guns who remain law-abiding citizens.

That said, one part of the anti-gun argument that always bothers me is the assumption that, without guns, violent maniacs would be reduced to killing people with knives or (wow, isn't this hilarious) lawn-furniture.

Considering that we live in a world where, assuming internet access, you're generally about fifteen seconds away from a webpage that will give you step-by-step instructions on how to build explosives, somebody who's determined to kill a lot of people all at once won't be lacking in alternate ways to go about it.

(I also like how the hilarious 80's penguin assumes that it's only gun-control advocates who are "paying for it" when a gunman kills a bunch of civilians. Because everyone knows that buying a gun is the same as saying, "I'm okay with murder, just so long as I get to keep playing cowboy.")

(Reply) (Thread)

Isn't it Japan who has a lot of people going on murderous rampages with knives?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Indeed. They didn't do the same amount of damage, though. (And most of the injuries came from people trying to flee the guys, IIGC.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Considering that we live in a world where, assuming internet access, you're generally about fifteen seconds away from a webpage that will give you step-by-step instructions on how to build explosives, somebody who's determined to kill a lot of people all at once won't be lacking in alternate ways to go about it.

The question is hardly ever, "How do you stop the insanely determined?" I mean shit, by that standard, we shouldn't bother to have cameras and height strips and alarm triggers in 7-11s, because if someone is hell-bent on knocking over his local convenience store, he's damn well gonna do it.

So take off the locks on your house! Keep the keys in your car! Because congratulations, your standard has now been reduced!

The question is, "How can we make it difficult so the kind of guy who's mildly determined to kill a bunch of people will find it sufficiently hard to do so that he won't?" And in that case, making it harder for unstable people to get their hands on semi-automatic weapons seems like a fine idea. Just like locks, alarms, and the occasional set of cameras.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

For the most part, I agree with you. My problem isn't with gun-control itself. My problem is, specifically, with the argument used in this comic and elsewhere: that gun control means maniacs are stuck using knives to kill people. This comic, in particular, gets under my skin with its smug dismissal of one entire side of what I consider to be a pretty complex and nuanced issue.

Now personally, I'm undecided on the gun control issue. On the one hand, I certainly don't want people buying grenade launchers from Wal-Mart, and I assume that anyone looking to buy a grenade launcher is going to have to jump through a couple of pretty serious hoops to get one... to the point where he'll probably abandon the search altogether.

But I have a problem with the other side, too; the *vast* majority of gun owners will *never* use them to commit any kind of crime, and yet they're the ones who are far and away the most restricted by gun-laws, *not* the criminals and maniacs who are so often cited to push gun-control legislation through. So the best that gun control laws can really offer is to stop people who are "mildly determined" to kill a bunch of people? Like somebody's out there saying, "Man, I sure would like to shoot-up the courthouse, but I've misplaced my gun"? If you're even *slightly* determined to commit a massacre, you're mentally ill, and an obstacle like "not buying your weapons from a legitimate dealer" is not nearly as insurmountable as this comic (or the argument this comic uses) wants to suggest.

It may be fair to say that increasing the number of hoops a mentally-ill person needs to jump through to carry out their plan makes us safer, but I don't think it's at all fair to say that it reduces the threat so much that we can just dismiss the argument altogether with ideas like "lawn furniture massacres".

(I also take issue with this comic's insinuation that "if only you had listened to us, things like this would never happen", as well as it's temper-tantrum suggestion that since the pro-gun side has "won", we all simply *must* accept tragedies like this as a consequence of gun ownership. I think that's like telling MADD that the fact that they have driver's licenses means they forfeit their right to be outraged that people drive drunk.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I think its actually more about creating a paper trail and slowing down the process enough that they might be caught before they are able to carry out their plan.

If I (in this scenario, I am hell-bent on shooting people) know that no matter what, I can't get a gun legally, I will stop trying legal means and start being a DIY internet type.

If I know I can get one legally, and at a reasonable price, but it will be less effective and I'll have to wait a month, I can work with that. During that month a more complete background check could be done or (if I get the gun) at least it won't be as effective for shooting people, and maybe one of the heroic people at the scene will have an easier time stopping me sooner.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

For once Tom manages a comic that isn't hysterical bleating. Hooray.

(Reply) (Thread)

I know. Usually he's a little too strident and smug for me. But this one got it for me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You delicate flower, you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The relevance of the Tucson Shooting to gun control largely depends IMO on what type of gun was used and how it was acquired by the shooter.

Example: the Virgina Tech shooter a few years ago bought a gun when he should not have been able to due to databases not being linked up.

(Reply) (Thread)