Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for January 28, 2011

This storyline is really getting silly. Wonder where GT is getting his ideas?

Maybe, but look at it this way: if everybody is packing, it will be a shootout, and the odds are that in the ensuing massacre SOMEBODY will shoot the guy who started it all!

Good joke, Surfer. Representative Don Young of Alaska said what Roland quotes in the first panel.

Young, like most handgun-lovers, deludes himself that carrying a concealed weapon will protect him from getting shot.

BrianCrook said:”Young, like most handgun-lovers, deludes himself that carrying a concealed weapon will protect him from getting shot.”

And you delude yourself into thinking NOT carrying one will do the same thing…

Unless you have your weapon in your hand and are aggressively seeking an attacker, said attacker will shoot you first. Even given that you have your weapon in your hand, the likelihood that you will be able to stop an attack is almost nil. The attacker has all the advantages, they know what they are about, you can only react. If a person so desired, they could walk into a room full of open/concealed carry enthusiasts and rack up an impressive body count before anyone returns fire, if anyone could return fire.

I agree with wndrwrthg, the only person with a chance in this situation is the person carrying out the mission. That’s why so many patrols in Vietnam were cut down, the element of surprise is on the oppositions side.

Great series, Gary.

As for those who are discussing it “seriously,”:

Should this come to pass I hope there will be one big winner – Darwin.

BILL TILDER Jr You read Brian Crook?

BillTidler, that also assumes you are constantly worried about being shot.

I’ve had a gun pointed at me by a nut and have walked away from it by not escalating. It’s not the surprise attack that gets most people killed - I’ll warrant it’s the escalation of arguments while armed that get more people killed.

Of course, I grew up in a (Republican) family that taught never to meet violence with violence, threat with threat or insult with insult.

cdward - that is the point I think. “Nuts” who carry guns. Instead of folks argueing the 1st & 2nd amendments, perhaps they should be looking at better record keeping on gun purchases, stiffen penalties for not reporting stolen guns or the penalties for having an unregistered gun. I believe in both vehemently, though hair pulling extremes occur on both sides.

If some public official shows up with a vest with e-sapi plates and a para-military merc bodyguard whom is toting an assault rifle, will the national discourse change?

Bill T, you need to take a class in basic logic. Your conclusion from the initial premise is an incredible logical fallacy. As others pointed out, having gun does you no good if someone has the drop on you. And not having a gun does not change that one way or the other. But not having a gun means not being able to shoot an innocent bystander by accident while defending myself or someone else.

It seems you are all giving way too much credit to the “attacker” as being really expert with their weapon and having the advantage; and then way too little credit to the individual who carries a gun for simple protection.

No, you can never protect yourself or anyone else from random acts of violence, whether from a gun, car, knife, baseball bat, etc.

But to assume that the “nut” is so much better handling a firearm in stressful circumstances, and everyone else isn’t is not logical.

Take it to this extreme. The 9/11 Hijackers were able to gain control of the airplanes with simple box cutters only because everyone on the airplane had been conditioned to “submit” and let events take their course. On the 4th plane, where the passengers fought back, at least they saved other lives, if not their own.

Bottom line, bad people, criminals and nuts are not typically superior at handling guns and shooting. That’s a myth.

Clark Kent, better yet, hold a lighter just under the funnel and you’ve got an instant medium-range flamethrower that’ll toast everyone in the room!

The premise of the argument against legally carrying guns because the bad guy will get the drop on you first is true, but off target re: the argument, as it were, because people don’t legally carry guns as a defense against hidden ambushes, shoe bombs, or cans of hornet spray. While Brian proports to speak for most “handgun lovers”, I don’t know of any who think that having a gun will prevent them from being shot… for myself, I believe that it even increase the odds if I ever need to pull it to help someone else.

However, if legally carrying guns is a waste of time, then why do police bother to do so? Suggest to the NYPD that they should go a week without sidearms because criminals will get the drop on them no matter what they do and see what kind of response they give you.

Except for John Lennon, and no Yoko jokes, I can’t think of one nut job who took out his target without hitting someone else also. If you are giving a speech, stand next to a very fat person. At least if the first round doesn’t get you, you have some place to hide.

With hand grenades you don’t have to be as good a shot. You’re sure to wound the perp anyway. Of course in the three seconds it takes the grenade to arm he can fire off his 30 round clip.

“Nothing will protect you”? A Kevlar vest worn under your suit would protect you. Or would that be even more cowardly than carrying a gun would be?

Violence begets violence. I’m amazed at the number of “adults” who haven’t figured that out yet. More people carrying guns to make the world safer is like the old adage of f*ing for chastity.

No one here has said that criminals are better marksmen than law enforcement. We simply have stated that the best marksman in the world hasn’t a chance against an surprise ambush. And that you can be a fantastic marksman but not any good at all in a firefight. So the advantage, particularly in a civilian envrionment, like a Safeway parking lot, where no one is expecting such a thing, is entirely with the attacker. It is far more likely that an armed citizen who pulled his/her gun in that situation would have injured or killed innocent bystanders than to get the bad guy.

The nut cases that are now carrying weapons as a result of this incident are merely reacting to their fear, without thinking. Those who can see past their immediate gut reaction understand that more guns everywhere only exacerbate an already intolerable situation. Outside of war zones, we have the most violent society on earth. Isn’t it time we seriously looked at the root causes of this problem, and put down our petty pre-conceived ideas about our “right” to carry a gun, so we can move past this particular brand of insanity?

@ Larry, I think that while nut jobs may have priorities, they usually target everyone.

Also, I’d not suggest hiding behind a fat guy. Bullets go right through fat, so hide behind a guy who looks to be in really good shape.

salgud, I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that there’s nothing anyone can do to prevent the Ambush in the Safeway Parking Lot. But while the short-term advantage is always with the attacker, no responsible gun owner would get into a firefight with other people around, as no good policeman would either.

Even though there were many people carrying during the Arizona shooting, there were no civilian firefights, and there almost never are. Lets put fearful imaginations aside and look at reality. While it’s a possibility, can you cite one real example where innocents got hurt because a legally permitted gun owner shot them by accident in a firefight? They may exist, but I can’t think of any. Are there examples where a life was saved by someone carrying a legally permitted gun?

Congressman Young is wrong, btw, and he’s somewhat of an idiot to announce that he carries. Nuts don’t care if you fire back and may even look forward to it. Criminals and thugs, however, are usually sissies and will often run away if they know that someone will shoot back at them, or even up in the air. The outcome of the “Safeway Shootout Scenario” depends on just who started the shooting, and why, irrespective of others’ imaginations about the sudden appearance of a Civillian Dirty Harry.

As to the root cause of the problem in the US, puddleglum gave an excellent summary 2 days ago that crystalized it.

Everything would be better if we handled hand guns the San Francisco mime way, of course the nuts would probably shoot the mime.

Nemesys if you’re so worried about personal security there are alternatives to your Sig.

Thanks for the suggestion, Lou. I suggested martial arts for those folks in states that don’t grant permits. I learned the “gentle way” in middle school, but it’s been too long and I’m too old now to think I could defend myself competently with it now.

salgud, what if the guy just wants to rob me? What if there is no intent to murder? A firearm would do alot of good at that point.

In all these panels quoting Roland’s paranoid interviewees, Mike ignores the television screen. Trudeau is mocking not only the violent fantasies of his pro-gun readers but also, in the placidly reasonable figure of Mike Doonesbury, the lack of imagination displayed by schoolmarmish readers like BrianCrook.

mroberts, if the guy wants to rob you, he’s still going to have the gun pointed at you before you know it. And if he wants to rob you AND thinks you might try to draw on him, he’ll shoot first, and take your wallet later.

I’d imagine your average armed robber would rather NOT face an attempted homicide charge, but you’re a fool if you think he’s less willing to shoot you than you are to shoot him.

palin drome, I’d say that Mike’s expression is more bemused than anything else. He’s not taking what he’s hearing very seriously, and as such typifies most Fox viewers when it comes to sorting out the facts from the drama - not like all Doonesbury readers.

However, methinks I’d feel better about you applying “schoolmarmish” tags were it not you who was first out of the gate to congratulate Garry Trudeau for accurately predicting that Sarah Palin was plotting to kill a little girl, and had now succeded in Arizona.

Is it time yet to take that back?

I’m gonna vote again: Good series, Gary! If the NRA types don’t like it, they can read Alley Oop for a few days.

fritz, what if he didn’t have a gun. What, he’s using a knife?

Ensoh, I agree that it’s an amusing, thought-provoking series, so I suggest that you not prejudge what us NRA types think about it. The “covering fire” comment made me laugh out loud.

The only other strip I read in the comics section is Red Meat, but it’s only updated once a week.

mroberts, what if he comes at you armed with a loaded raspberry?

Yeah, the bad guys are armed, but if they have the drop on you (and they will, because as it’s been pointed out THEY know it’s a robbery before YOU do), they can still knife you before you can draw your gun. And if, as some people here are suggesting, EVERYONE should be considered packing until proven otherwise, do you think THEY’LL still be carrying KNIVES?

fritz, I used a scenario based in reality. A friend of mine died by a knife. If its me, and I’m going to murder someone, I’m not going to use a gun, unless its a shot gun. Too much evidence.

I never said the criminal in question was smart.

“What if the guy just wants to rob me? What if there is no intent to murder? A firearm would do alot of good at that point.”

“If its me, and I’m going to murder someone, I’m not going to use a gun, unless its a shot gun.”

Either way. Whether the guy wants to rob you or wants to kill you, he’ll know it before you do. And if he DOES assume that you’re packing iron, he’s going to make sure you can’t draw it.

@Nemesys

Since you seem to have misread my comment on GT’s fantasy of the Palin golem, I’ll repeat it instead of apologizing for it.

“That arc by GT may have been a caricature of ‘conscience dreaming’ [Loughner’s specialty]—a corruption of the Tea Partiers’ Constitution dreaming?”

In other words, GT anticipated the homicidal fantasies of a crazy, something Sarah Palin, in common with BrianCrook, lacks the imagination to do.

Maybe it’s unfair to schoolmarms—and to Mike Doonesbury—to include them in the same blinkered world of BC and SP.

mrroberts: Loved you in 12 Angry Men. ;-)

Yeah, knives kill. Up close, personal, usually even more of a surprise than a gun.

Guns kill from farther away, less risk to the attacker.

Knives are cheaper, more available, yet kill less people than guns every year, though treating the wound is a good deal trickier (usually a slice instead of a puncture) . Usually knife deaths come from infections and infections are much likelier with that weapon than the gun since you have an unclean surface as opposed to a surface used only once. It takes a good deal more skill to kill cleanly with a knife and you also leave gashes on your hands to indicate you’ve been in a fight unless you are properly trained and gloved.

And knife slashes can be matched to the type of weapon though not as precisely as ballistics. (Just scratch up the barrel of the gun and ruin the lands and grooves and your good to go.)

And please forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of your comparison since it sounds so much like the NRA classic argument: people will get killed anyway. My response is: so what? We’re saving gun death lives which is the object of such a law and the knife argument is a strawman. We can argue knife laws if you like. but they have nothing in reality to do with gun deaths.

palin drome, as you know, I refer to:

“Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war”—in Tucson. Looks like the Sarah Palin doll managed to off Sam after all, just as she and the other dolls schemed to do half a year ago. ”

I don’t think that I misread it.

While it’s true that I noted it and put it aside, I never asked for an apology, as this has much more to do with you than it does with me. My inquiry was for a one-word answer, and even though you used 91, I think I found it in there.

Sez the Congressman: “I want a chance at returning anything that happens to me.” He could start by returning his paycheck to the taxpayers, who obviously aren’t getting their money’s worth.

free, taking guns away really wouldnt do anything to lessen violent crime. Yes, gun crime would be reduced, but other crime would increase. Honestly, I would rather be shot than be stabbed. Although they don’t have anything to do with gun deaths, they are an alternative. I’m not familiar with knife laws, so I wouldnt really do so well in that argument.

I’ve honestly never seen 12 Angry Men.

I did, honestly, have a friend who was brutally murdered with a knife.

Fritz, I would imagine that he does. There are situations in which you don’t have to walk around thinking that everyone is armed.

mroberts, I don’t think anybody’s doubting your claim about your friend. But what difference does it make? If your friend had been carrying a gun, or if the attacker had THOUGHT he might be carrying a gun, would it have made a difference?

You hear reports all the time about policemen who shoot unarmed people because they thought the suspect was reaching for or brandishing a gun. I tend to believe that the cops’ stories are true; they really DO think they’re being drawn on, with reason. This is what happens when you DO assume that the guy you’re arguing with might be packing heat.

What happens when two guys who are in all other respects law-abiding citizens get into a traffic accident, and both of them (a) are carrying handguns, (b) believe that the accident was entirely the other’s fault, and (c) assume that the other guy is both armed and possibly unstable?

Fritz, in your situation, if its me, I’m not pulling my weapon out until a., my life is in immediate danger, b., something inside my vehicle is under threat of being stolen. I wouldn’t let the other party know until the police arrived, and even then, they have no legal right to know. Actually, both situations are non-shoot.

In other words, that is a non-shoot situation.

As for my friend, sadly, not a bit of difference, as it was one of his friends that he sold pot to. Allegedly.

^This raises the question of what’s wrong with Americans that our violent crime in general is so much higher than anywhere else.

Fairport, but the stats in the U.S. are different. In states with lenient gun laws, violent crime is lower.

cdward, maybe its in the violent media. It might have something to do with parents sitting their kids in front of a tv, and letting them watch who knows what.

What’s being overlooked by both sides is that, in Europe, they have more (and stricter) gun laws, but they also simply have FEWER GUNS. Judging from many of the foreign films I’ve seen (fiction, I know, but it shows the attitude), simply getting ACCESS to a gun is a big deal; you can’t misuse it if you can’t even lay one to hand. In American movies, the question “Where’d you GET that?” is never even asked, unless you’re talking combat weaponry.

Here, no matter how strict the local laws are, someone who wants a gun isn’t going to have much trouble finding one, whether legally or extra-legally. OK, that genie’s out of the bottle here, so I don’t know what the answer is. I’m just sayin’. In a country where everybody’s carrying barber’s scissors, you’re gonna end up with a certain number of unwanted haircuts.

Mike looks like he has heartburn.

Palin, Nemesys has never apologized for saying; ”… and I hope California falls into the ocean.” Bin Laden in all his vilest terrorist wet dreams, has never communicated such a viseral over blown reaction as that, and he’s one of those open carry types.

Now I know how Denmark feels.

Anything but the wrong message!!!

wndrwrthg Thank you – and they did just that at the Detroit Police station last Sunday. The fact that the guy is dead does not change the fact that he seriously wounded multiple cops before one of them had the wherewithall to nail him – and they are all well trained with firearms. Joe cowboy would never have done as well.