@dawimp523: No, boondocks got a 2nd season.

h0mi

I'm pretty sure cars are responsible for more deaths than guns every year. I'm also pretty sure that there are far more cars around than guns. Moreover, driving is considered a privilege, not a right (in the US), so perhaps this thread is focusing on regulating the wrong thing here.

pieps

@ThatGuyOverThere: WORD! PREACH MOTHA FUCKA, PREACH!

RememberThe.357

@teeps1981: When "The Lords" ran Britain it was a World Power...now that "The Commons" run it even the Argentinians thought they could (and nearly did) take you. As far as firearms go, before 1920 there were hardly any laws restricting possession of firearms in Britian yet you had a statistically insignificant level of gun crime....your government introduced gun control in the wake of WW1 because they were afraid of you, it had nothing at all to do with crime. Now, eighty odd years later, you cannot have even a fake handgun...your Olympic pistol team has to train on the continent..yet the Yardies are shooting it out on your streets with automatic weapons and not even the rich are safe in thier own homes. This country has it's faults but at least our government is accountable to us, unlike yours who are even now preparing to sign away your sovereignity to Brussells while freely signalling thier contempt for what the British public thinks about it.

Tibeerius

What we have is a lot of disconnect. We are gamers and understand a lot of the media hype on videogames is silly. But there are a lot of people that only "know" guns through television, videogames(!) and action movies. Don't you think your impression that "guns kill" may be well...manufactured? If you've never driven or even seen a real life car before, but have watched Death Race 2000 on an endless loop, don't you think your opinion on the legality of cars would be different as well?

Maybe your cries for taking away guns from law abiding citizens because the media tells you "guns kill" is on the same level as the nongamer's cries for the same on games? The same way it is insane to deride Mass Effect for the "graphic sex scene" it allows "young impressionable kids" to see despite the fact you've never played the game... There's a lot of silly speak above about automatic weapons and grenades, etc, above, that's on the same level as Doom giving you homicidal thoughts, or Mass Effect turning kids into sex fiends. If you don't know what you're talking about, to be frank, maybe you ought to STFU.

Gun related homicides is much higher in the US than other western states. But don't forget homicides OUTSIDE of gun-related ones are similarly higher (i.e. we have more scorned soccermoms killing wayward husbands with SUVs, more stranglings, more per capita killing in general. Yes, we Americans just kill each other more...thats a sociolgical issue well beyond the act of gun ownership.

All I'm saying is this: we can agree it's wrong for pundits to point fingers at videogames they don't play--but it's also wrong to point fingers at guns that you don't own, as well. Counterstrike can't tell you everything about guns.

spaceCADETzoom

@Lackshmana: I respect your right to not want to protect yourself, but I get tired of people want to control other people as well. If you want to give up your right to protect yourself and want someone else to do it, fine. But speak for yourself and only yourself.

Most gun-owners are law abiding citizens who actually prevent crimes (by not becoming victims and deterring would-be assailants), and most murders aren't even from firearms. If you check your history, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China and Stalin's Russia did away with civilians owning guns. They sure did treat their citizens well, didn't they? Ask the millions they murdered how glad they were when the government said they couldn't protect themselves.

peacefuloutrage

@teeps1981: What?

NPlace

@Cheebahawk: So, because he enjoys safe recreational shooting, he's a "conservative gun-wielding maniac"? That doesn't seem entirely right.

NPlace

@ThatGuyOverThere: I didn't realise crazy conservative gun-wielding maniacs, AKA the American stereotype, played video games. How come you read Kotaku?

Cheebahawk

@dawimp523:FYI, the new season of Boondocks is currently airing on Adult Swim, it just took a long time to come out ;)

Thank You For Not Snitching in particular is an amazing episode, so fiercely pointed that it almost overshadows the humor at the end. That and if you love Basketball the episode "Ballin" is supposed to be rerun again next monday at 11:30pm, according to Adult Swim's site.

DaiMacculate

The pictures in the link wouldn't work at all for me. I miss the Boondocks! The strip got taken off our local newspaper several years ago, and the TV show on Adult Swim only lasted one season! Back to the strip, that was probably my favorite Boondocks strip. A guy w/ guns is more intimidating than a guy w/ video games that he made!

dawimp523

Blaming a gun manufacturer over the criminal use of it's product is the equivalent of suing Ford when someone drives their Expedition drunk through a stop sign into a minivan full of children.

Najaf

Just wanted to say great comic strip, great TV show. Educated writing for the win.

el_rezzo

The reason, though the thought behind it is somewhat faulty, that parents and activists go after the video game industry and not the firearm industry is because they want to get rid of the root of the problem, not because they're afraid of men with guns.

Even if the comic is funny.

Certainly, it would be a much better thing to have kids that wanted nothing to do with mangling each other all together, than to have kids that wanted to do violence but couldn't.

Now, if you accept that video games are the thing that makes children want to hurt each other, than getting rid of the video games would be better than getting rid of the guns.

Of course, it doesn't really make sense to blame the video games, but then the parents and activists would have to look for a more complex, more personally responsible solution. And who wants to spend the time to do that?

ArticulacyFTW

wish i could read that comic strip

Cell9song

I think Family Guy had it right on the money.

"How can the right to 'bear arms' be misconstrued? It gives everyone the right to mount a pair of bear arms on their wall!"

I think with the advent of tasers the need for guns is diminishing. Need to protect yourself? Knock the guy out with a tazer. Multiple people is still a problem I suppose, but there's always pepper spray...

Making bullets expensive doesn't work either. If you make the guns or the bullets too expensive, people just import them illegally, much like what happens already.

I'm not really sure what the solution is to the problem of homicide through gun use, but culture that promotes gun use / killing people with guns certainly doesn't help. Whether or not that includes video games (I'd guess it doesn't, but I don't exactly have a science lab backing me on this one) has yet to be seen.

Saxboy

If we didn't have guns, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving people around.

Would you guys want that?

Huh?

Do ya?

Japanese_Monk

@mcmurder: "Yeah, let's just outlaw all guns and see what happens. Open a history book."

Um, what happens? You make it sound like it is impossible to live in a country without guns. Your outlawing something will be bad statement makes me think of the 18th Amendment (prohibition.) Outlawing alcohol was a stupid move since it only resulted in organized crime prospering. So are you saying that banning guns will allow illegal arms dealers to flourish more than they already have?

If you want a gun, you can get a gun, regardless of what the law says. And I agree with this strip; who are you going to go after, the scapegoat that is videogames, or the powerful people who support gun rights (not to say that guns are the root of the problem, but they cannot possibly be helping.)

PurpleMonkey

Reading the comments above I'm beginning to see the reason behind the ban videogame violence argument. Yeah, 'it's not guns that kill people, it's other people' (very original) and 'they would do that with melee weapons if fire weapons were banned' (absolutely. We've all seen this happen innumerable times in American schools and colleges). Someone I think went as far as saying that guns actually stop people from being violent or something along these lines.
Common sense's just got pwned by a bunch of 13 year old gamers/gun collectors.

a_lega

@Nex Antonius: Excellent, I hope we have a Family Guy/[Name Other Property You Hate]/etc post soon so that you can share your scintillating observations on that as well.

Also, The Boondocks doesn't like you much either ;)

DaiMacculate

Loved that comic and it certainly wasn't trying to push some agenda on us....

here in Ireland guns are highly restricted and limited to shotguns and hunting rifles and there not available in commercial shops, in my town theres only one place you can buy guns at and its some small sports shop the licensincing and what not, means its very hard to purchase them...I think its because guns are veiwed diffrently in america to other places in the world, here guns are for hunting use and that is IT

kids don't see them physically for the most part (only in movies and such and to a lesser extent videogames but they shouldn't be playing or watching them anyway)

theres no 'fear' or need to protect our families with guns because people breaking in is not as massive a problem as it appears to be in the US, actually now that I think of it break ins ARE a big problem here but I first thought isn't to shoot the people breaking in, its to make sure were safe and to call the police even though there useless here

excel_excel

Nothing should be banned, and laws shouldn't be enforced only in that responsibility should be enforced.

If everyone had guns, who are you going to rob? Who will you harass? Who will be stupid enough to run to a school and start blasting other people when you full well know that everyone else you see will be able to take your dumb butt down? Thinking that everyone that is armed will rob you is just as stupid as thinking that everyone that has condoms will have sex. But having both condoms and guns serve the same purpose: not that you WILL use it, but you will be prepared just in case you MIGHT. And enforcing responsibility for both ought to be the rule... just like some guy blasting some other guy because he took a parking space ought to do some time, a person putting a condom to work on your dog ought to do some time as well.

Just like drugs: make them all of the safe ones legal, but enforce the rule of personal responsibility. What? What about people who will take drugs at the expense of their family, friends, or take their own lives or innocent bystanders? Well, people do that now with Alcohol, and that's legal. What do people die from more, violent acts and alcohol, or from "safe" things like eating T.V. dinners and fast food, and like heart and cancer related diseases. I know of a few people who have been shot and stabbed, but I know of a hell of a lot more people that has/had diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, or cancer.

when people allow corporations and to tell them what's good or bad and how to live their lives people are often lead straight to their graves. The there was

Jails, hospitals, and plates should be empty; garages, pockets, and stomachs should be full.

Manufacturers ought to also make the product safe or safer. There should be knock-out gas, rubber bullets, mace, and other safe alternative weapons available for everyone to have, all drugs should have minimal side effects, and all condoms should be ribbed for everyone's pleasure. :D

redfoxx

@brent_w: What on earth makes you think that making bullets $5000 for the legal market will make it the same for the black market? You do know criminals usually do not buy anything gun related legally, as it can all be traced if you do.

I_Hate_This_Place

@Sabre_Justice: Okay, no more long name.: STFU or provide some actual evidence that we "hand out lethal weapons on the street". Or are you just another ignorant foreigner trying to dictate policy of which you know nothing about. And before anyone gets their panties in wad, remember, "ignorant" is not an insult, just a lack of knowledge.

I_Hate_This_Place

@GUNDAM-RX-78-2: Haha, yeah that was a good one.

And hes right too.

If bullets cost $5000 you ain't killing anybody without a DAMN good reason.

brent_w

And where are people getting hand grenades? I would love to be able to buy some hand grenades! They make for easy fishing.

toob_ninja

The only way gun control would work is if you got rid of every gun, every where. And always. No guns in existence. Does that sound very probable? Would I like to live in a world where I don't feel like I need a gun to protect my family? Yes! That would be the Bee's Knees. It will never happen. I live in th Meth capitol of my state. Just down the road a gas station worker was stabbed by a drug addict. Thankfully he survived and the perp was caught, but when was the last time the Police showed up before a violent crime? Call the police and they'll get there, but they will only be able to take a picture of your dead body. Take away my right to legally carry a handgun and you take away my right to protect my family. I hope I never have to fire a shot in anger, but I would like to have the option to stop someone who intends to do harm.

People need to see that not all gun owners are nuts just waiting to shoot someone. Check the stats; most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. So how does banning them help me? Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them.

toob_ninja

I hate The Boondocks. So, so much.

Nex Antonius

F-ing brilliant.

NPC

Gun control ALWAYS FAILS unless there are almost no guns to start with. And then people kill each other with whatever else they have.

End of discussion. Of course I'm sure it won't be, but a quick look at cities like Chicago and D.C. prove me right.

Also, what kind of moron thinks you can buy grenades over the counter here in the U.S.? What idiocy do they put on TV in other countries to make people believe that?

JimK

@ThatGuyOverThere:

"So, only newspapers have the right to free speech? And who is protected against self-incrimination? And the government isn't allowed to use cruel and unusual punishment on the population as a whole, but on individual people it's okay, right?"

Well, instead of touching this massive non-sequitur, I'll just acknowledge it, and ignore it as the typical forced rant bred of your frustration. Impressive how that was done without impeding on your right to free speech, ne? But for my own humor, I think I'll indulge you...

"So who gets to pick when "the people" refers to the individuals and when it refers to the entire population? Because if "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" only refers to the military, then "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." also only applies to establishments."

You do understand the reason and rationale behind the right to bear arms in a militia, right? It so the people are capable of defending themselves against an oppressive government or other oppressive forces, if the people deem it themselves necessary. An example of such is the notorious Crips and Bloods gangs that were originally created as a force of good; protection of their neighborhoods. Unfortunately, due to self serving individuals, it got out of hand. Sincerely, I don't even think you *know* what a militia is. Look it up, get educated.

Our constitution and government were based off of the Roman government; a government designed to which the people work together in tandem with the government to keep their nation safe, secure, and whole. Whenever and individual puts him or herself above the people, the system begins to become compromised. Your argument over 'the people' and the individual deciding who has the right is made with the notion that the individual is above all others; a selfish argument.

Now, such an argument as I said is applied to whatever convenient reasons an individual may have... from owning military surplus armaments to the extent of something falling under libel or slander. We have three branches of government; the Legislative which creates law, the judicial which interprets law, and the Executive which enforces law. Each branch checks each other, and does the will of the people. Now it isn't a perfect system, but so far it's proving the greatest with many other nations adapting the template even over their own prior heiriarchy, dictatorship, or Marxist regimen. When the people aren't able to have their demands met through the government, when the voice of the people is no longer heard, then it is up to the people to take their arms and fight for their rights, not the individual.

Lest it is not to say that the individual does not have a right to protect hims or herself, but understand that the consequences will be met and found in a court of law to all parties concerned. As meandering and incoherent as your argument is, I decided this is the point that is best made to you. You try to encompass several points, with none of them made, and finally, it seems as if you do not understand your rights as you loudly insist you do. What makes this nation, as well as the Roman nation before the triumvirate great, is that the people serve the nation, and the government serves the people. It isn't what you should be allowed to do, but what you can do to keep this nation safe, secure, and whole.

WFROSE_Ex_Alpha

Nevermind.. just found out you can remove the "-thumnail" from kotaku's image.. Thanks. But still I think Kotaku killed the bandwidth on that site.

xpnet

@_Ted_: Eh, the stuff you said about sweden is not accurate at all. first of all its not neccesary to join the army at 18 any more, it's pretty easy to get out of. I did my 10 months though, which mostly tought me that carrying around an AK5 (not m16) sucks. it's heavy and boring to clean. And we don't get to keep it afterwards, that would be silly, and expensive(i didn't even get to keep my boots). Your probably thinking of "hemvärnet" which is like a militia(?) that helps out when theres floods or people missing or something similar and then you get an ak4, but not everyone can join. To conclude every house here does not have a assault rifle... many people own rifles though, since moose hunting is a big thing here, at least in the northern parts, but you need a license for that. And i seriously doubt the argument that guns prevent violence, as someone said if a person really want to kill someone, he or she will, but do we really need to make it so easy for them?

And here is some quotes that come to mind:

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people. But the guns help!" - Eddi Izzard

"Guns dont kill people, people do, and monkeys (if they got a gun)" -also Eddi Izzard

"People in america get all surprised when there is a shooting, but you DO all have guns, and they DO have a LIMITED range of household application" - Dylan Moran

Yes i like british standup.

Tajfoon

!! Damnet !! Does anyone have another link for this?

Service Temporarily Unavailable (Image Link)

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later

xpnet

@ThatGuyOverThere: I understand what you're saying about a felony and up to 5 years for lying. The problem is when the person buying the gun doesn't plan on living for more than a week anyway because they are going to kill themselves after shooting up a school that 5 years isn't much of a deterent. It's as useless as the death penalty.

AkumaX

@Lackshmana: If the government is allowed to haev guns I think that is just more of a reason to have guns available to the people. A nation where the government has guns and the people don't is called a dictatorship.

Sap_My_Sentry

@comedy: You fail to take into account that America is also one of the most diverse nations in the world. We have a ton of people from different backgrounds, race, culture, and they are all ust tossed together to play nice. It doesn't work that way in reality, hence the crime.

You blaming guns for anything is as stupid as people blaming video games, you don't see it because you are ignorant and close minded. If guns are made illegal you don't care, because it doesn't effect you, but don't touch your video games right?

Xer0Ph0kus

Two week old Digg.com reposts FTL.

argh

@ThatGuyOverThere: you got it all right man. Plus the people that kill others with gun's get these gun's off the black market. So outlawing gun's won't do anything other then piss people off. I got a 22rifle when I was 13 years old I take it to go hunting and for sport. I have never thought of using it against another person. Most of the people that want to out law gun's no nothing about them other then "they can people therefor gun's are bad." If gun's get outlawed people will still be killing one another just by other means. Plus look at Sweden every one over there MUST join the army and once their time is done they can keep their M16 and Sweden has some of the lowst murder rates in the world. Why because EVERY house has a M16 in it and EVERY adult knows how to use it.

_Ted_

@jerrt: Except that it isn't all that funny and misses the point... There will always be tools to harm other human beings. If we teach that harming other people is not usually wrong, the use of a specific tool is irrelevant when innocent people are harmed.

ElReyMysterioso-PBUH

I support rights for all people who are able to handle them in a safe and sane manner. Unfortunately my exhaustive studies determined that I am the only person so capable. Therefore I nominate, and expect your support for my nomination, as World President For Life.

Boondocks is so full of Deep Thoughts, it makes me all warm and fuzzy whenever I happen to see it. Like Garfield.

ElReyMysterioso-PBUH

i thought the point they were making was funny and on point.

jerrt

@kcorbo: "Either way, I don't agree on banning guns, but I do agree on more restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands."

Couldn't agree more. Just so long as those restrictions don't interfere with MY abilities... I grew up learning gun safety without even having any guns - just a daisy pellet rifle. Even at 28 years old, my father will still try to trick me in to breaking a rule so that he can freak out at me if i start to do something stupid.

He'll also say "try shooting left handed" and launch a clay before I can get a proper stance just so he can laugh at the bruise on my shoulder. Still shot the clay down though...

ThatGuyOverThere

@ThatGuyOverThere:

I wouldn't even spend my time trying to educate people. It's much more fun for them to complain and generalize. By educating them you are taking their sport away.

From teeps1981's statements it is pretty obvious he has no idea what he is talking about. I always love when foreigners act like they understand the United States government. Maybe some do, but most end up looking as ignorant as teep.

LORDofDANCE

@teeps1981: Ack, I forgot to mention.... guns haven't always been illegal in england. That's a pretty recent thing.
Not too long ago shooting was a gentleman's sport over on your side of the water. Kind of like how it still is here, except we don't have your manners.

ThatGuyOverThere

"You Americans..." "You conservatives..." "You liberals.."

Stop acting high and mighty and see how we as a community can deal with this situation!

TheDollHouse

@teeps1981: To say that the USA's government is among the most corrupt in the world is a grossly misleading statement, and I think you know that. It's not without corruption, but the members still do have to answer to their constituents. Time and again representatives have been caught in wrongdoing and been either forced out by their peers (who answer to their own constituents) or have simply not been re-elected.

Yes, there are problems, but representatives DO listen to the people. In many cases it only takes a few people to contact the reps about a particular topic, and the rep will look in to it because they know that for every one person that contacts them, there are others who feel the same way. And the more they can respond to the people's requests, the better their chances of being reelected.

You mentioned the president's ability to veto bills pushed by the congress. The pres can't really overturn laws, but he can stop bills from becoming laws. This is a good thing. It's another balance. We elect the president to be the ONE person who decides which bills become law and which don't. Personally, I'm pretty glad about this because there have been a LOT of stupid bills make it up to the president, which were promptly shot down. But maybe you are unaware of the other balance inherent to the system. If the president vetoes a bill that the congress really wants passed, they can still pass it without his approval as long as they can gain a 2/3 majority among themselves. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Now I understand that the government's moves often do not work out well for the little guy, but nowhere in the constitution are you guaranteed happiness and contentment. You are guaranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness, but for the government to serve everybody's every desire would never work. There are a variety of social programs and ways to get assistance from the government if you need them, and while they probably won't make you get fat and happy, they can help keep you afloat.

For a good example of how this system tries to work, look at our healthcare. Recently the cost of private care has been skyrocketing. People can't afford it themselves and employers are contributing less and less to assist their workers. People started complaining and now it's one of the two main themes of the current campaign debates (the war being the other.) Whoever wins the election, government funded health care will be expanded to cover more people. Even if you ignore the current campaigns, congresspeople have been trying hard to expand it just from talking to their constituents for the last few years.

ThatGuyOverThere

+ Watch video

TheDollHouse

@teeps1981: Please inform me of one country's political system that does not have corruption. After having just lived in Japan for half a year, I don't feel so bad about the corruption in the States. Also, I would love to know where you found these magical graphs that ranks the US top on the list. It's only normal for the most powerful nation to be slandered, but at least be able to slander your own/other countr(y/ies) as well.

kcorbo

Oh great, gun debate.

Still, you Americans are fucking crazy and there's no wonder every crazy teenager decides to out with a bang when you hand lethal weapons out on the streets.

Sabre_Justice: Okay, no more long name.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. To be honest if someone really wanted to kill another person they'll find a way how. People have been harming others before we stood upright.

Let's imagine that guns were never invented shall we. We would be having arguments on how swords should be banned. The instrument itself has no power unless it's in human hands.

The underlying thing is we need to teach people how to deal with their aggression in a more positive way. Have any of you heard of the Bobo Doll Experiment?

TheDollHouse

@ThatGuyOverThere: Amen. Rejecting the rights that have protected us for so long is just, well, yeah....

I've traveled around the world a good bit, and it definitely makes me appreciate all of the freedoms we have here. There are a few guns in my house currently, locked up in a trunk. Do I carry them around to shoot people with? No. Would I ever use them in a dispute? No. They're meant for taking to the range, as sport.

Blanketed statements such as "All guns should be banned" are just silly to me. Now if you were to lobby for higher restrictions on ownership and possession of firearms, I would completely agree with you. There should be more restrictions on a lot of things. One of the things I see most important is to make it harder to obtain a drivers license. All I had to do to get mine is stay awake in a high school class, make a few turns out on the road, and pay $50. Everyone concentrates on firearms, but look at how many deaths are caused by motor vehicles every year.

Either way, I don't agree on banning guns, but I do agree on more restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands. There are definitely changes that should be made in our society, but fighting from the two polar opposite soap boxes won't help anything. There needs to be some agreement in the middle.

kcorbo

@DaiMacculate: Not just a typo...but a deep and meaningful typo at that!

teeps1981

Hmmm.. Liked the comic. First time reading it. But from the perspective it goes make's sense.

--Core--

@teeps1981: Britain has remained one of the most powerful cuntries for centuries

Despite the fact that I've lost my voice today and that this was obviously just a typo, I laughed for about 30 seconds solid after I read that ;)

DaiMacculate

@Cogito: Yeah see I just thought the comic was talking about the Jack Thompson's and Leland Yi's of the world, I didn't see where and how rednecks/gun owners even go in the discussion (that's not just @you but this whole thread), in fact the comic doesn't even strike me as pro or anti-Gun, its more about why people attack the groups they attack instead of those who might be more appropriate targets, whether you agree with JT or Mr Yi is immaterial, you have to agree with the point that if they wanted to stop violence, attacking the methods of actual violence rather than simulations thereof would seem more productive. Doesn't mean the comic is supporting their point, or saying that it advocates they attack gun companies.

I do agree with the negative media portrayal of Gun Owners, its often not accurate, I would extend that to the stereotypes that surround the southern U.S. in general. I love Garth Ennis, but more than once in reading Preacher and now Punisher I've been slightly disgusted at some of the ignorant portrayals of areas of the U.S. he is obviously not very familiar with. I'm sure that were I to write a comic or something about Northern Ireland it would be similarly misinformed, so its not that its so hard to understand or anything, but yeah it can be annoying.

DaiMacculate

And result in the USA's underlying aim of world domination...hooray

teeps1981

@ThatGuyOverThere: Problem is though that THAT contarct has done exactly the opposite. It ALLOWS a few people to run around making money at the expense of the majority. The US has possibly one of the most politically corrupt systems in the entire world. The President, if he/she (or the people who give him/her money) doesn't agree with a current law that the people want he can reject it. Just like that. If he wants to push a particular agenda that does lots for a minority but little for the masses he can...and often will..do that.

The British legal and political syatem, although not perfect, has changed and developed throughout its entire history and thatsbecause the people have qustioned the relevance of certain aspects over the years. Once upon a time it was the House of Lords who had all the power and the House of Commons just acted as the voice of the people. This has gradually changed now and the Commons have all the say and make all the rules. And do a much better job than the lords ever did. Andwe do this without having to reference back to a small room full of blokes back in the 18th century.

The fact that Britain has remained one of the most powerful cuntries for centuries despite having a vastly smaller land mass and population to the majority of countries suggests that it must be doing something right. And all this despite guns being illegal for anyone other than farmers and the army?

teeps1981

@Vecha: @thejakeman: probably disagrees with you: Apologies, gentlemen; I wasn't aware my use of "agenda" was inflammatory. "Agenda" in my context was really meant only to describe, as thejakeman put it, a viewpoint. You can't disagree, though, that this cartoonist ISN'T trying to push propaganda of some sort, be it his own or that of a political viewpoint. (certainly, that's his right, I just don't happen to agree with it).

@DaiMacculate: Again, apologies. This was a case of hyperbole gone wrong. As much as it might be hard to believe, I do keep up on current trends. :)

Let me reiterate my salient point with a bit less flourish: All too often people who are pro-gun...even Americans in general...are viewed and/or portrayed as insane rednecks who like nothing better than running around shooting one another. I take offense to those points of view, and I get angry when people show thier ignorance by believing them to be factual. Cartoons like this, IMO, do just as little justice to those pro-gun people because they paint them in much the same light, even if that light is tempered by humor.

Thank you to everyone who responded to me to point out the hypocritical parts of my statements; I certainly can't profess to learn more if I don't take criticism to heart. Also, I'll shut up now. :)

Cogito

Haha, Aaron McGruder is hilarious. Love the show and his comics are great as well.

Athest

@WFROSE_Ex_Alpha: "Unfortunately, due to self-serving and liberal interpretations of said amendment, it is now meant as 'the Right to bear arms to whatever convenient rationale you may consider; from hunting with assault rifles to pre-emptive self defense through murder."

So, only newspapers have the right to free speech? And who is protected against self-incrimination? And the government isn't allowed to use cruel and unusual punishment on the population as a whole, but on individual people it's okay, right?

So who gets to pick when "the people" refers to the individuals and when it refers to the entire population? Because if "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" only refers to the military, then "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." also only applies to establishments.

Also "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" should probably mean that as long as the government isn't raiding their own military complexes, it's okay.

And don't forget that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof..." means that your vote is worthless, because only "the people" get to vote; not us.

ThatGuyOverThere

@Lackshmana: Also, the idea that there is a historical argument against the prohibition of guns seems to really require a lot of stretching and distortion of facts.

Well, in the sense that many past civilizations restricted the production and usage of advanced weaponry to the "elite" in wealth and standing, the argument isn't completely flawed. It makes perfect sense why we have the second amendment based on that argument, rather than a provision that allows only "military" ownership of guns. What doesn't make sense is that the guns of modern times are orders of magnitude more powerful than the greatest weapons on earth 200 years ago, yet we have to struggle and fight everytime somebody even whispers the notion that the law might be modified to reflect this changing reality. Both the Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun organizations in the U.S. are guilty of misinformation, distortion, etc.

Were it up to me, I'd create a Gun Subsidy for domestically produced firearms, cutting their price drastically without hurting anybody but foreign companies, in return for concessions in creating a more streamlined and powerful DMV-esque system of gun ownership. I'd eliminate most of the Brady restrictions including the waiting period, but you would be required to hold a current license from this proposed organization that would include gun safety training and such before buying (much of what the NRA does now when its not busy lobbying Washington).

Not only would this make gun ownership easier and safer, it would run the Russians, Israelis, etc out of business, and then we can buy their factories/designs/etc, suddenly if you want guns you have to come to us...might make fighting international terrorism a bit easier as well?

Just a thought.

DaiMacculate

@ThatGuyOverThere: Well said. Well, not so much the insults, but I'll take the very good with the little bad.

I_Hate_This_Place

@Cheebahawk: "I've never understood why on earth anyone would collect guns, they should be illegal in the US like in sane countries."

This is a BIG misconception.

Guns are NOT illegal in a lot of the big developed nations like Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany, Mexico...

People have this idea that only Americans have guns, and that just isn't true.

Lackshmana

@Vecha: Both, I collect guns yes, I enjoy working on them as well as taking them to the range and hunting, and I also have certain firearms (the only ones with any ammunition in my home) for protection. So yes, you can have a whole lot of fun with something that you can also use to protect yourself and your family with. Your also taking my comment a bit out of context, I don't own an M4 but I have fired them on several occasions.

tas783

@Cheebahawk: HOw about instead of reading how bad guns are, you look up the statistics on how guns have prevented rape,murder,robbery,etc. Most crimes are committed with illegal guns, not with guns carried by licensed gun owners. And the saying "someone is more likely to accidentally shoot someone than protect themselves" is false. When someone says that, they only provide one sided data. There are plenty of studies where it shows that when a state or county in the US that has strict gun-laws(or outright bans) the crime escalated immensely. As soon as a county in Florida allowed gun ownership again, crime dropped immensely. But you're right, we're insane because from your view and what our media portrays to your country, anyone with a gun has no sense and is an insane individual who would rather shoot you than talk to you. Have you ever lived in America? Do you know what type of training you need to get a concealed firearm permit? If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Tell me, what's switzerlands crime rate like, you know with their law that requires you to own a gun and ammunition at all times. Boy they must be some crazy rat-bastards over there! I love how the University of Arizona is in the process of allowing students to wear firearms on campus. If that happens, lets see how many idiots try and shoot the place up. Even the mention that it might happen will deter anyone who is afraid of getting shot to commit a crime, which is just about everyone.

I_Hate_This_Place

I swear to god comic strip makers follow templates.

[Person 1 states thesis]

[Person 2 questions]

[Person 1 points out the obvious]

[Person 2 makes lackluster rebuttal]

[Person 1 replies with more of the obvious]

[Person 2 deals witty comment to Person 1's rant]

Tomahawk214

@Casemarqui: I could not disagree with you more. I find it as meaningful and relevant as Family Circus.

seafisch

@teeps1981: "How can a country still revolve around a piece of paper written up by a few nutters back in 1776?"

I need my guns to put holes in pieces of paper at the far end of a shooting lane. I need my guns to protect myself and my family from the fighting dogs the neighbors let run loose.

And how can we still rant about a scrap of paper? Because that piece of paper is a social contract. It was written to ensure that the government remains under the control of the people. For the government to get out of control, all 3 branches of the government would have to work together, because any one of them could stop the other two. It is the single reason why the United States went from a nation of rebels to the world's only remaining superpower in just over 300 years.

I sincerely hope you do NOT live in my country, because if you do and yet you think it would be okay for this scrap of paper to be rejected, then there's really no place for you here. Normally I would NOT say "if you don't like it, get out" because that scrap of paper says that if you don't like it, you have methods of changing things... but since you clearly don't like these rights that the government is obligated to honor, I'll honor your request. Shut up and get out.

If you happen to live in another country, feel free to stay there. We don't like your kind and we don't need you. We already have more immigrants than we can handle risking their lives to get here and have a chance at the protections provided by that silly little piece of paper. We value our rights and we will protect them. When we can't do it ourselves, we get our lawyers and representatives to do it for us.

"It may sound suprising, but according to a 2007 report by Harry Snook, a barrister for the Centre for Policy Studies, there are 266 powers allowing officials to enter [a British citizen's] home, and not all require a warrant."

Off the top of my head, the only reason I can think of that the USA gov't can break in to your house is under exigent circumstances, and they have to be able to PROVE the circumstances afterwards. Life was in danger, evidence was in the process of being destroyed. Why is this the case? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -4th Amendment

So yeah, as long as the gov't keeps its end of the deal, we keep ours and everybody is happy. And yes, if the gov't gets pushy, you very well may be allowed to shoot back and get off without getting in to trouble. Not like some countries where if somebody is trying to kill you, you only have a right to ring up the bobbies and lay down and wait to see if they show up while some chav goes about making you die.

pip pip cheerio! Now bugger off, poofter.

ThatGuyOverThere

I always think its funny when people give guns a mind of there own, kinda like those driverless SUVs that kill people all the time "a SUV killed a child today"...damn those SUVs.

I would like to know how people arrive at the conclusion that guns kill people tho?...as last time I checked nowhere in the history of firearms has a gun come to life and harmed anyone...thats reserved for the SUVs I guess.

You put a gun on a table and it just sits there doing nothing...hardly the great mastermind of so many murders...but perhaps... thats what it wants us all to think...and then... wen we least expect it...IT STRIKES VICIOUSLY AND WITHOUT PITY OR REMORSE!!!

Borathian

boondocks is amazing

Casemarqui

@Mr.DuckSauce: I don't believe you got what I was saying.

A gun has never been charged with murder to the best of my knowledge.

I don't understand what is so hard to get about that
statement. I wasn't saying or even remotely implying that guns aren't USED to kill people. In fact, I specifically pointed out that they are.

Also, the idea that there is a historical argument against the prohibition of guns seems to really require a lot of stretching and distortion of facts.

-People are responsible for violence, not the tools that they use, or the companies who make them.

-Guns are designed to kill people (an animals for hunting weapons, but I am referring more specifically to hand guns, assault rifles, etc...

-The peacemaker theory behind guns only applies if everyone has an equally strong desire to survive. Given the high rate of murder suicide in violent crimes, it doesn't really mean a lot. People who don't care about dying aren't very well accounted for in the peacemaker theory.

This doesn't need to be a flaming topic, even if it is a controversial one.

Lackshmana

@Cogito:
If the cartoonist wanted to make a statement that wasn't two paragraphs in length, devoid of sources and examples, and inflammatory to more than the two dozen people who actually read it, he would have chosen a better forum.

You mean like the TV show he now does on Adult Swim? Or Perhaps his other fictional works?

I'd also wager more than 24 people "actually read" the Boondocks, seeing as I could name 10 I know personally who keep the comic's RSS feed handy.

You're assuming a level of marginalization of his ideas and views that has no basis in reality, I guess is my point. See the excellent sales of Boondocks Season1 on DVD for more evidence...;)

DaiMacculate

Wow. That was brilliant.

bangbangblah

@Cheebahawk:

Well, it's actually 'The Right to bear arms in a militia'. Unfortunately, due to self-serving and liberal interpretations of said amendment, it is now meant as 'the Right to bear arms to whatever convenient rationale you may consider; from hunting with assault rifles to pre-emptive self defense through murder.

"You know what I love about this country? Here, a poor man can become rich, and a pussy, can look like a tough guy with a gun in his hand. Tell me, are you a pussy with a gun in your hand?"

Why am I still in this tread?

WFROSE_Ex_Alpha

Link doesn't work.

xpnet

@Dauragon C. Mikado: That's true. Unless guns start shooting themselves.

As for the gun issue, people need guns. The primary thing would be to protect themsdelves or others. Guns along many other things, have the potential for(sorry to use this cliche, but it fits)good or evil. Personally, if smeone barged into my house I'd rather have a gun to protect myself, even though I can fight well with my bare hands, rather than taking them on without a weapon. Especially with the possiblity of the robber carrying a gun. Especially here in Jacksonville, which has the highest murder rate in Florida.

KM91

@tas783:

"it is a collectors piece, not to mention the fact that M4s are a whole lot of fun at the range."

So...you collect guns not to protect yourself but to, "have a whole lot of fun?"

hahaha

Vecha

@Cogito:

What?

The comic has an AGENDA to push left wing beliefs?

wow...just wow.

Vecha

Damn, Drew, you're here less than 5 days and already have posted a BoonDocks strip? You might be challenging your Bro already as my favorite Kotaku writer!

DC Believe the HYPE!

DaiMacculate

@teeps1981: @Huxleyhobbes: Its not your right to tell someone what they do and do not need. You are right guns are used to shoot things. Be it people or animals. I think i have every right to defend myself in my own home. Yes guns are used for things outside of protection, but so are many other things. People use computers on a daily basis to commit crimes. I could stab someone to death with a kitchen knife if i wanted to. The problem is that guns arent regulated the way they should be. Its far to easy for joe thug down the street to pick up a gun. That for me is my only problem with guns. They are far to easy to get a hold of illegally.

Detre

@ArmyofJuan JuanSebastiann (XBL) ArmyofJuann (PSN): Yes, because we hear about those crazy people attacking school campuses with their M4's with optional M203 attachments. First off to have access to that kind of hardware (if it was working, which I doubt, most likely it was a replica attachment or paint marker system) you would have to be current or ex-military, or have the appropriate Federal Firearms License (which let me assure you is not easy to get). Little Timmy with a grudge is not going to be able to walk into your local gun shop and pick up a working grenade launcher. Second point, if said weapon was working you asked why someone would want one, well simply put, it is a collectors piece, not to mention the fact that M4s are a whole lot of fun at the range. Going back to my former statement what could you possibly see as B.S. was it the personal responsibility part? Seeing as you really didn't offer any kind of counterpoint to my post.

tas783

@Huxleyhobbes:

You didn't really answer the question.

Guns do not equal plumbing or computers.

Vecha

@teeps1981: Needs? Why do you NEED a computer? Why do you NEED plumbing? Isn't the well good enough? Why do you NEED more than one outfit? Exactly one person knows what I need, and that person is me. Everyone else has an opinion, and they're welcome to it. And when they come to arrest me for that opinion, well... There's nothing much I can do because I'm legally prevented from owning effective means of self-defense in this country! Huzzah!

Can't wait to move to the US.

Huxleyhobbes

I've never understood why on earth anyone would collect guns, they should be illegal in the US like in sane countries.

Loads of countries have silly outdated laws and such, but the "right to bear arms" has to be the worst. It was written in a time when there was a need for it, but it has no need in modern day society.
Guns only have one purpose, to shoot people.
I expect half of you crazy gun-lovers would stockpile Heroin and teddybears if it was in your constitution rights, just because you can.

[en.wikipedia.org] Is an interesting read though, explains how the "right to bear arms" probably means the right for a nation to have an army and not individuals to own weapons.

Cheebahawk

I personally would like to know the reason anyone NEEDS to own a gun unles they are a farmer protecting their livestock from predetors.

The fact is.. there is NO good reason to own a gun and regardless of the fact that there are some regulations on Gun Control the fact that anyone cn still get hold of one providing there is no evidence of crimial activity of mental instability is a BAD thing.

The only reason i ever receive is that "its our god given right".... wtf? Dont remember that being in the commandments. How can a country still revolve around a piece of paper written up by a few nutters back in 1776? Im half inclined to say that its the US Constitution that kills people.

teeps1981

@Cogito: dude, it's not an agenda. it's a viewpoint. saying agenda makes it sound like He's subersively trying to trick you, purporting to be non-partisan, but secret advocating another. semantics, man. semantics. or, i dislike your perjorative use of the word, it belies your neocon agenda.

thejakeman: probably disagrees with you

fuck it, you can try to slide blame to parents, video games, gun retailers... hell you can even say it was apart of some divine plan, but what good does it do? you know what each and every one of these shootings had in common? someone made a bad/stupid choice, and THEY are the ONLY ones to blame. Valve didn't pull the trigger, the local "Guns R Us" store didn't pull the trigger, and their god didn't pull the damn trigger. so stop trying to blame everybody else for an individual's mistakes and force them to own up to it.

HawaiianActor

Since this has deteriorated in to a gun thread, is anybody else planning to stockpile like crazy if the supreme court decides in the heller case that 2nd amendment is a collective right rather than an individual one?

If they do, I'm totally taking a couple days off work and driving gunshop to gunshop and clearing out my wishlist.

ThatGuyOverThere

@AkumaX: "Both people bought their guns legally and both were mentally unstable."

Depending on what Zakky Venom meant to say, he may have slightly misinterpreted the law. I think the form to buy from a federally licensed dealer asks a question if you have ever been judged to be mentally unstable or incompetent, or something like that. If you lie on the form, it's a pretty big felony. However, they can't really stop a "sane" person from exercising their rights.

The real problem is when crazy people buy from regular joes. There are a lot fewer restrictions on that type of purchase... however, somebody has to buy from a licensed dealer, and answer the question about if they are really the intended owner of the gun. Again, a lie is a 5-year felony.

ThatGuyOverThere

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

Cheebahawk

@ErskinPig: Can you please be more specific than "it fails"?

Doomstalk

@Amnesiac85: lol at "fist fight spree." I see your point, but all too often we don't hear about those "other" crimes because they aren't as sensationalized as gun crime. For example:
[www.metnews.com]

Keep in mind this incident occured only a few weeks after the Columbine tragedy. I'm sure I could find myriad more if I spent a few minutes with Google, but you get the point.

Cogito

Three words: Sad but true

nmlss

Well...the kid has a point! But its just a point!

Voyevoda

@GUNDAM-RX-78-2: Haha I remember that...so true also.

Skitzoap

@zakky venom: You don't have to be mentally stable to buy a firearm. If the recent University of Illinois and Virginia Tech shooting taught us anything it is that. Both people bought their guns legally and both were mentally unstable.

AkumaX

you can't hug your kids with nuclear arms...

a magic pony

Guns kill people. How many times do you hear about that "mass fist fight spree"? Or that "mass knifing spree?" Taking guns out of society won't change people's pent up rage, no, but it will save countless lives. Chances are, if someone went insane and decided he/she wanted to kill a lot of people, and reached for their trusty brass knuckles..well..he/she may hurt a few people, but I guarantee you they'll be subdued pretty easily.

Guns are too much power for most people to handle.

Amnesiac85

@comedy: "why is it that in your country, where guns are legal, a lot more people die per thousand, from violent crime than in those countries where guns are not legal? would you say it's because american people are more homicidal? maybe they die easier? "

There are other countries where people have a lot of guns, and our murder rates are higher than theirs too. what's your point?

And yes, we have a messed up society where both our media and our government try to scare the crap out of us at every opportunity to further their own selfish agendas. For some reason, we live in a society that glamorizes violence, thug living, murder, etc.

ThatGuyOverThere

American citizens have the right to bear arms for protection. Protection from others and more importantly, protection against their own government.

Those who trade their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

kuzuboshii

@ThatGuyOverThere:
This is pretty interesting. It's nice to see someone post something other than the same two or three platitudes.

I find it hard to understand how "Guns don't kill people". I would suppose that shooting someone in head would end their life faster than hacking them to death with a butter knife. The danger of firearms is that they require much less training to become effectively deadly. That coupled with the relative ease of purchase is what makes guns more dangerous than other weapons.

I think I'll choose to interpret this comic less literally. Indeed, I'd say that it raises the valid point that guns have much more popular/political support (just look at the Constitution for a trivial example of this) than video games do. It's easier to place the blame on games, since there is little that gamers or game manufacturers will do to retaliate (angry emails or posts on internet forums don't count). If gamers don't wish to remain as the scapegoats for various violent crimes, they should probably make themselves a less appealing target.

schizosid

@comedy:

Yeah, the problem is most us Americans have gotten too fat and lazy to wanna throw down to solve our problems :p

Seriously, most of this country's afraid of an ass-kicking. Whatever happened to the good ol' days where you got proven a man worth standing with when you hammered some fool into the ground with your bare fists. Nowadays people need a crutch, a handicap to deal their business because they're too busy with their four hours of TV a day to actually prepare themselves. Hell, majority of the people in the US that own a gun don't even know how to care for or even properly use one; those are the ones most dangerous to society in general.

I'm in this quaint lil' gun-nut state known as Oklahoma, with a good portion of my friends owning conceal and carry licenses (just about all of them own a gun. The thing is, standing with all of them they'll easily acknowledge I'm the most dangerous one among them even without a gun. As the argument "I don't need to know martial arts when I have a gun," pops up, I just ask them if they'll be able to get that gun out in time when I'm standing next to them, ready to pop their kidney or spleen, break a floating rib, slice a femoral artery or jugular, stab them in the taint, break their neck, or shatter their temple... since I'll be standing next to them.

I know full well how to use a gun, but I'd rather throw-down, buy the loser/victor a beer, and have a good laugh about it all when I just got me a new ally.

WFROSE_Ex_Alpha

@comedy: And you fail. [www.nationmaster.com]

Get some facts, first. Keep in mind these stats are from 1995-2000...a period in which the US had less restrictive gun control laws than it does now (post Clinton-administration).

Cogito

@Lackshmana: guns kill people, you ever heard a game kill someone violently?

Mr.DuckSauce

@heretrix: "...if you shut down the gun manufacturers, There won't be any guns for the bad guys to get."

You are mistaken. Guns will always be wherever there is a demand for them. They DO catch illegal shipments of arms being imported from time to time. Ban them all you want, but whenever somebody is willing to pay enough, there will ALWAYS be somebody willing to provide.

There is another point you are missing. Guns were originally hand-made items. They are beautifully simple and can often be made from scrap metal. To be sure, they won't be as accurate or powerful as precisely machined weapons, but they will still work. Many people do still make their own guns, and some of them are incredibly easy. For instance, the reciever of an AK47 can be made from a sheet of steel and a drill press. All the inner workings can be made with a little bit of machining equipment that can be bought for about the same price as one or two good rifles.

"where there's a will, there's a way"
"necessity is the mother of invention"

ThatGuyOverThere

"I am so sick of people attacking our first amendment rights! Can't they attack our second amendment rights instead?"

Can't they just leave both alone? ffs...

MechaTama31

@ArmyofJuan JuanSebastiann (XBL) ArmyofJuann (PSN): I really wasn't comparing alcohol to firearms...just the result an absolute banning might have. Sorry for the confusion!

@Rince_Art: There already are numerous restrictions on gun purchases, and I do agree...no one should ever have call to purchase a fully-automatic whatever; there's no need for it. But when you start treading that line, all too often people begin to tread further one way or the other. Balance is required here; a light touch to know what is correct and what is not. A black and white law, while easier to understand, would not be such a good idea. The US Constitution case-in-point.

Cogito

It's always made me wonder why people seem to think that new gun control laws will curb gun violence. What they fail to realize is that the people committing these crimes with guns are just that; criminals. Do you honestly believe that someone stupid enough to take another person's life is going to care about the means? Or if those means happen to be illegal?

If someone wants to commit a crime, and is intelligent in the doing, then it is very, very hard to stop them, no matter the laws on the books. The best ways available are education and deterrance. Harsh penalties make for a large deterrant...even those who commit crimes seldom want to be caught, even the total psychos...and education's value cannot be overstated. Intelligent people generally don't go out and murder someone just for the fuck of it. Heat of the moment perhaps? That's why (in my state, at least) there's a three-day waiting period after a gun purchase.

I hate to be so vociferous on this topic, and I apologize to those tired of rants, but this is the sort of thing that really irks me; people who have no inkling about history or how the human psyche works toss out a bunch of flamebait to further thier own career (referring to the cartoonist here). The fact that many (not all) of the comments on this page believe that the cartoonist is right just shows that his method works. Propaganda, apparently, FTW.

Next time, people, please check sources and come to your own conclusions. The last thing the world needs is more idiots.

Cogito

this is a very contentious issue, let me ask the american pro-gun types here a question:

why is it that in your country, where guns are legal, a lot more people die per thousand, from violent crime than in those countries where guns are not legal?

would you say it's because american people are more homicidal? maybe they die easier?

comedy

@Cogito: i don't think comparing gun bans to prohibition in the 20's is a fair comparison. People have been drinking alcohol for thousands of years for various reasons, be it religious, cultural or just to unwind and relax. Guns on the other hand, have NOT been around for thousands of years and are in no way tied to anything cultural, religious or a way to "relax".

And you could say that alcohol causes deaths as well, which is true, but in no way does that compare to the amount of gun deaths or even a reason to HAVE gun related deaths that dont come from military or police activity.

ArmyofJuan JuanSebastiann (XBL) ArmyofJuann (PSN)

We could all hurt each other with tasers!

Bzzzzzzt! :]

Old-school Sonic fanboy

@VakeroRokero: I am a good British pacifist here, and yes I'm against gun legalization, but you people here who are suggesting that these problems are caused ONLY by that are sadly mistaken. Society, other influences, parents, friends, perhaps videogames who knows, for now I don't think so but I'm not an expert. And most of us here are exactly, right?

I'm not America's number one fan, of course the name suggests it, but believe me I am not openly racist and wish to blame everything upon them.

Just ya know, you need to calm down, this is but a Kotaku post, but just think before you speak eh? Its an easy mistake.

Communist_Gamer

@comedy: You know, people kill each other without weapons pretty often too. Even in just retarded little fistfights, the temple is a weak thing.

onidavin

@tas783: i find that to be total bullshit. If no one had guns, then everyone would have to stop being a pussy and actually start using their fists. Either that or use a melee weapon. And if it comes to THAT, then they were dead set on fucking some shit up in the first place. But it's easier to dodge someone swinging a hammer than it is to dodge a bullet.

But regardless, i'v been into a gun shop around the corner from my house where they sell military issue assault rifles with the grenade launcher attachment. What the HELL would anyone need that for? Sure hell not for hunting deer im sure of that much. If anyone wants to own a gun so bad they should just join the police/military.

ArmyofJuan JuanSebastiann (XBL) ArmyofJuann (PSN)

@heretrix: i thought about that for a bit, but the ones that are already floating around illegally are too big a problem to overlook.

zakky venom

@Cogito: I don't think that any sane people would want guns to be banned entirely. As you said it doesn't make any sense and would be impossible anyway. However, making restrictions on who could buy a gun would be something to think about. I mean the guy who did the Virginia Tech massacre was under psychiatric treatment, yet he was able to purchase guns legally. Now, tell me that this system is not messed up!

Rince_Art

@VakeroRokero:
Wow. It is obvious that you know nothing about BATFE regulations concerning firearms, explosives, or anything else.

I would LOVE to buy grenades, especially over the counter, but that isn't really possible. They would remain locked up until I was ready to use them, just like my (and most other gun owners') guns do.

I agree that there should be very harsh penalties for crimes involving firearms, as do most people. Sadly, there are already THOUSANDS of laws on the books that are ineffective and usually go unenforced. All these laws do is restrict responsible people from obtaining and using their guns. For instance, in my state it is technically legal for an average person to walk down the street with a pistol strapped to his hip in plain view. However, if your hand brushes against it, you can be arrested for illegally brandishing a firearm. Also, before you can get in a car, you have to remove it, unload it, lock it up, and store it in the trunk. But as soon as you get out of the car you can put it back on your hip. Also, if you have a jacket that even partially conceals the pistol (and you haven't gone through all the necessary procedures to have a license to carry a concealed pistol) you'll be charged with illegally carrying a concealed pistol.

Gun laws are already overwhelming and extensive, and they do absolutely nothing to stop real crime. Remember, criminals don't give a damn what laws are on the books... that's why they're criminals.

Also, you made a point about kids using uzis to shoot up schools and everybody having automatic firearms, but this couldn't be further from the truth. An actual uzi, or any actually automatic firearm is a highly restricted and terribly expensive collector's piece. Since 1984 there have been no NEW auto weapons imported or manufacured in the united states for civilian use. Ones from before 1984 are all that are left, and you need to have a lot of federal clearance, background checks, permission from your local police force, live in a state that allows it (not all do), and you have to be willing to drop a few thousand dollars at least in order to get one. These are NOT the guns that are being used in crimes. These are being locked up in vaults and treasured as pieces of history. In fact, since the automatic weapons regulations went in to place in 1934, there has been only ONE crime committed with a LEGALLY owned automatic weapon, and that was perpetrated by a police officer.

Gun debates are often emotionally charged and full of misinformation. People argue about rumors, anecdotes, and things that are patently untrue. Sadly, even politicians draft laws based on the same faulty information, but if you educate yourself on the matter more you'll start to see things in a different light.

ThatGuyOverThere

that classic argument of 'guns don't kill people, people do' is rather stupid. if i was to give everybody in the world a can of nerve gas would it not be MY fault if a lot of people died?
guns DO kill people. if i point my finger at someone and go 'pow' they don't die. if i point a gun at someone and pull the trigger they will die (i'm a good shot).

american society is insane to think that having deadly weapons in your house, in your handbag or in your car does not increase the amount of danger people are in.

while 'amusing' this comic strip is inaccurate, as we all know that the gun companies don't settle their differences by shooting people. so 'going after' the guys who sell guns is just the same as 'going after' the games companies or whoever.

look if you really want to hurt someone, through anger or fear or whatever, analyse what happens in the two situations:
a) neither of you have a gun, so you fight and end up bruised and sod off home to feel bad.
b) both of you have guns, so one of you dies and the other either goes to jail or is killed too.

i'd go for a).

comedy

@incredibilistic:

Hear hear to that. And once bullets become high dollar, idiots start making their own bullets... and we just let Darwinism take its course.

The comic is right in a roundabout way; those with the warehouses of AK-47s are also the ones with the richest lobbyists and fat cats in DC. The VG industry has a good deal of them there, too, but how do they compete with one of the two oldest and largest American business institutions (the other being tobbacco)? Outlawing guns obviously isn't going to happen (and at this point, won't help), but making it damn hard to deal with ammo would. Unfortunately, there is no fool proof way of doing that.

@mcmurder:

There are several nations in the world that would find your argument flawed...

WFROSE_Ex_Alpha

@zakky venom:
"if you shut down gun manufacturers, youre just taking guns away from people who dont use them for evil. bad guys will just find another way to get them."

Not that I'm on either side here (I'm a big fan of personal responsiblity) but if you shut down the gun manufacturers, There won't be any guns for the bad guys to get. Except for the millions that are out there already, but that's beside the point.

heretrix

Also,

the Video Game Industry does not spend dollar millions, lobbying in Washington like the NRA and all those pro-gun groups do... :P

Rince_Art

Do I win for reading that whole comic on Kotaku and not going to the larger link? :D

20/20 :)

Paustinj

@VakeroRokero: Good God you deserve to be banned. I can't tell if the majority of that statement stems from a hatred of the US or from simple ignorance, but either way I don't appreciate the falsity or the soap box mentality. Double-check your facts...actually, make sure you have facts at all, before you go shooting off at the mouth.

@Lackshmana: The best history reference concerning guns, IMHO, stems from prohibition in the US in the early twentieth century. A common phrase among pro-gun advocates is "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," a sentiment generally laughed at by far left-wingers. The funny thing is if you replace "guns" with "alcohol" then you get a situation eerily similar to the "roaring 20's" in the US.

On-topic, this comic fails. Boondocks has always been about pushing a liberal agenda (and no, I'm not trying to bring politics into this discussion, I'm just stating fact). In this instance, we see two agendas: Anti-censorship (video games) and pro-gun control. The cartoonist doesn't really believe strongly one way or the other concerning violence in video games, which is why we see no real examples. He's just shifting the blame to something that aligns with his political view. (again, I'm not saying either political view is wrong, just giving observation. Sorry, but disclaimers are often necessary around politics lest I unwittingly begin a flame war).

Personally I find the comic funny, just not the agendas it pushes...like someone said above me; it's a comic. If the cartoonist wanted to make a statement that wasn't two paragraphs in length, devoid of sources and examples, and inflammatory to more than the two dozen people who actually read it, he would have chosen a better forum.

And yes, I realize the irony that I'm posting that thought on the Intertubes.

/rant

Cogito

You also never see people against wearing animal skins throwing red paint on bikers clad from head to toe in black leather. It's always old rich women in fur coats.

Gouki4u

@Allen750: i said 'legally' lol

zakky venom

@Communist_Gamer: ITS OVA NINE-THOUSANNND!!

zakky venom

"I'm guessing if you had a monocle it would always be handy."

WHAT DO THE SCOUTS SAY ABOUT ITS POWER LEVELS?

Communist_Gamer

@zakky venom: Black market. This is America.

Allen750

@GUNDAM-RX-78-2:
You're on the right track. Not word for word but he basically said don't need gun control, we need bullet control.

"All bullets should cost $5,000. I'd shoot you're motherf***ing head off if I could afford it. I'ma put me some bullets on layaway, get me a second job and you a dead man"

Something like that. But he's absolutely right. If you really want to make guns harder to come by or you want some sort of control you make it harder for people to have access to bullets. The fact is you only need one gun, which aren't that expens