What's Mallard raving about today?
Guns, Violent Criminals, Unions.
You can always tell when Mallard has actually run out of steam on a rant (as opposed to when he realizes he's run out of steam)...he spends 2 panels to re-set and re-tell the same joke then randomly tosses in a complaint against one of his standard set of bête noire (today, it's Unions).
Tomorrow: Violent criminals complain about a lack of Political Correctness.
7 comments:
Pretty sure the mugger would just shoot the person regardless.
Ah, this is Tinsley's attempt to explain why I might feel better about having no restrictions on guns even though I'm not inclined to carry a gun.
Criminals don't ask for unions. They just shoot when they have a gun in hand and get stressed.
Regarding yesterdays:
Can't help anyone here, can't google that one as it leads to opinion articles, where statistics are pulled to fit the conclusion.
I did find this:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
Pull what you wish from that. I like the 80% got a gun from a friend, relative, or illegaly. Completely unhelpful.
1976? - 2007 or so gun ban in DC.
Statistics:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
1989 give or take 5 years is your crack epidemic (Drugs cause violent crimes. Drugs + guns cause deadly crimes!).
But from 1995 - 2005 you see a decrease in everything but vehicle theft. Throw that out since your car cannot fire a gun to protect itself (I recommend a trunk-monkey).
From 1996 to 2006, murder rates in DC dropped from 397 to 169. That's a 57% decrease.
Same time, same crime, Ohio (rifles, handguns, the lot is legal currently). Rose from 538 to 539. That's a 0.18% increase.
My twisted statistics.
Here's your problem, Tin-Tin: the bad guy isn't the only one who has to live in fear because he doesn't know who's packing.
You're obsessing about DC--but if I thought you had any guts at all, I'd invite you to visit Oakland and investigate how widespread gun ownership has worked wonders for the crime rate there.
I'm fairly confident you'd disagree, but there are more important things than your stupid little cowboy fantasies.
Tinsley's theory is that people with concealed weapons have them in their hands all the time, but concealed in a pocket, so that when a mugger came up to them they can blaze away like Rick at the end of Casablanca.
Cuz otherwise, y'know, the bad guy got the drop on ya.
But now Tinsley is theorizing that all you have to do is pretend you've got a gun in your hand, hidden in your pocket. The bad guys won't draw on you.
Genius!
I must be a criminal, then.
What the FUCK is that at the bottom of the second panel?
Triangles, I got that.
But what are they for?
Kaitlyn: I think they're the corners of the papers that Brown-Bagged Violent Criminal is using for his speech. Regardless, they're just another testament to Tinny's sloppy-assed hackwork.
Meanwhile, Second Amendment Misinterpretation pays off again.
Post a Comment