Project Wonderful Banner

Monday, March 17, 2008

Those damned muggers

What's Mallard raving about today?

The Supreme Court, Gun Laws, Muggers.

By Mallard's admission, if the Supreme Court Justices make it to the court house without being mugged, the Gun-Ban is working. Interesting litmus test, but I'm willing to stipulate to it.

16 comments:

BillyWitchDoctor said...

On the other hand, if a Supreme Court Justice is forced by gunpoint into gay marriage, then by Tinny's "logic"*...um...wait, lemme get back to you on this.

*Please forgive me, English language; I had no choice.

exanonymous said...

Okay, this ranks as one of the funniest Mallard Fillmore's I have come across in a long time.

But explain this one: suppose said justice was mugged and both were carrying guns. What would be the result?

Oh, right, GETTING SHOT IN THE FACE WHEN YOU REACH FOR YOUR WEAPON. Remember Tinsley, a mugger can pick his victims but victims cannot pick their mugger.

confused said...

Thanks Ex, that's along the lines of what I was thinking when I read this. Muggings don't happen over a long period of time, they are rapid events. Even if you're armed, the chances of you stopping it are practically nil. Maybe you can shoot him in the back as he runs away?

As an observer to the crime, you do have a better chance -- but even then you run the higher risk of having someone blown away (and probably not the criminal).

I suppose Tinny might subscribe to the logic that randomly armed civilians will discourage muggers. Anyone who lived in New York in the '70s will know how well that logic works.

NLC said...

The real point here (that is always obscured by the free-gun advocates in these debates --purely coincidence, I'm sure), is that the primary danger that the justices --and their families-- face with respect to handguns is from each other.

If Tinsley had any interest in accurately depicting the statistics of handgun killings, the Justice would not be facing the mugger. Instead, standing before him would be his grandniece returning from the funeral of her mother, whom she had seen shot by her drunken boyfriend; or the ghost of his nephew who found his parents' revolver "hidden" in their bedside drawer.

The plague of random (stranger-on-stranger) violence in this country is, of course, a disaster. But it is not the source of the majority of gun-killings[*] in this country however much Tinsley and his ilk like to pretend otherwise.

[* And the phrase "gun-killings" is used intentionally. Since half of all gun deaths in the US are suicides, we will play by NRA rules and assume that they don't count.]

Kaitlyn said...

Okay, you all have good points about guns and all that, but you're forgetting something the Tinz forgot - the Justices take the metro or park blocks away like everybody else?

Don't they have limos? Bodyguards? *some* form of security?

People with *guns* guarding them?

Don't they? Shouldn't they? The muggers want their money or their life or their vote!!!

Kaitlyn said...

Now to Tinz's real "argument" - if we arm everyone (in DC), muggings will go down!

You can't choose not to carry a gun, because if you do, you will be mugged.

And carrying one will protect you against every crime known to man.


Back in reality, what does the gun ban do? No just ban guns, there's always more to it.

rewinn said...

The real problem in DC is that people can't carry AK-47s.

Look at Baghdad: ANYONE can carry automatic rifles, and it's the safest city in the world!

Dave Robidenza said...

I suppose I can see the "guns prevent crime" argument in an idealized, criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot way.

But: 1) Having a gun provides no protection from the bullets from someone else's gun, 2) Having a gun might keep someone from shooting you _if_ you can draw a bead on them in time and _if_ they aren't going to take the risk of shooting at you anyway and _if_ your aim is much better than theirs, 3) Maybe - just maybe - criminals might start shooting first if they think their potential victims are armed.

And of course there's the chance that your gun will more likely be used to shoot your kid sneaking into the house at night or some random schmo in the wrong place at the right time.

But a Supreme Court Justice being mugged and threatened into changing his legal opinion? That's funny!

Gold-Digging Nanny State said...

I don't know why no one else has addressed the most disturbing element of this cartoon: the mugger's ginormous, yet weirdly angular, ass.

Kaitlyn said...

Wouldn't people be safer from guns if they had, I don't know, bullet proof vests?

Make everybody wear them except the muggers.

Problem solved.

Mallard's a dunce today, more than usual. There is no easy solution to this problem, but hey, the idea of a Supreme Court Justice being threatened is *funny*.

Kaitlyn said...

Gold Digging Nanny State - I looked again, just for you, and good god, the man can't draw or think!

dlauthor said...

Gold-Digging:

No one mentioned it because we've all long since become use to Mallard prominently featuring a ginormous ass. It's just usually it has a beak.

Could this strip be interpreted as veiled incitement to violence against the SJC? Because if so, the NSA should be made aware.

Erich said...

Living in a community that's recently been hit by the tragic murders of two college students (Eve Carson and Lauren Burk), I've heard my share of *both* sides of the argument ("the victims would've been safe if they'd been armed" and "no handguns, period"). When arguments and cartoons like this reduce complex situations to slogans and punchlines without any thought to the real people who have suffered, it just rubs salt in the wounds.

Matt Ramone said...

As someone who lives in DC, I have to say I rather like the idea of no one having handguns and severely punishing the ones that do.

Which scenario is more realistic? No one shoots anyone because everyone is armed - OR - no one shoots anyone because no one has a gun, and many that might have one are discouraged from doing so by the possibility of stiff criminal penalties? Both hypotheticals are flawed, of course, but it seems harder to shoot someone IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DAMNED GUN.

Besides, this isn't the movies. A stickup man who would otherwise rob you and then leave you would put one between your eyes if you tried to draw on him.

I wrote the NSA and the FBI letters asking them to look into Tinsley's incitement to violence (hee hee), and encourage you to all do the same.

BillyWitchDoctor said...

it just rubs salt in the wounds

Not unlike the NRA holding a rally the same day as funerals for victims of the Columbine shootings, so Chucky Heston could snarl and fart some more about his cold dead hands.

I support gun rights--but also reasonable gun control. That last bit makes me Satan in the NRA's Church Of The All-Knowing All-Killing Gun, which opposes any gun regulation (and quickly stomps down any voices of reason that may speak up from time to time within its own ranks).

Meanwhile, a ten-year-old in Oakland will be paralyzed for life after a bullet from a gas station robbery passed through a house wall and then through him while he was practicing piano lessons. (Eddie Eagle sez: "Too bad he wasn't packing heat, he could've defended himself...uh, somehow. Oh, wait, I'm supposed to tell kids to stay away from guns. ...Erm.")

The important thing, I guess, is that the gun market flourishes, relatively unhindered.

The punchline: when Mallard first arrived in Washington DC, he was fleeing from a constant hail of gunfire. Naturally, crime was rampant because there weren't enough armed citizens. Nevertheless, I have yet to see Mallard carry a piece himself.

And we all know why Tinny should never be armed.

Michael said...

Jesus. When I first saw the cartoon, I thought it was sexual assault with a deadly weapon.