All across the USA right now, more and more places are trying to push the concept of Gun-Free Zones.
I’ve always thought this idea was, to put it simply, fucking stupid. Wow. Gun-Free Zones. And you’ll enforce this… how? Oh, police presence, well then! Considering that gun crimes are committed by, definitely, criminals, well. I’m sure they’ll follow your silly little signs to the T.
Other cartoonists have already pointed out the absurdity, but I decided to take it to a level most people can relate to. We live in a country where, if you drive the speed limit on the highway, 4 out of 5 fellow drivers think you’re an asshole and should die. Speed limit? Fuck that, it’s a speed suggestion. Yeah, it’s the law, sure, whatever, everyone goes 10-15 over. Pfft.
Oh, but gun control laws that regulate where I can carry a gun? YEAH, CRIMINALS WILL TOTALLY OBEY THOSE LAWS.
The cognitive dissonance is appalling.
In other news, I want to slap the teeth out of this kid.
Alright, this is going to unpopular, but IN PRINCIPLE I like the idea behind gun-free zones. The original intent was to weed out wannabe-gangstas from public schools by being able to throw more mandatory minimums against them.
What they really need is a gun-free zone minus-legal CHP holders.
You are still operating under the assumption that the “wannabe-gangstas” actually know about, or care about, the mandatory minimums when they choose to bring their Jennings to school in their backpack. It seems to me that, with the overcrowding in US prisons, that mandatory minimums and such don’t really act as much of a deterrent to the majority of criminals out there.
Didn’t say it was a deterrent, said the intent was to get them out of public schools. Minimize disruption to the school.
Ah, I misunderstood. Many laws have been passed with good intentions. Unfortunately I think a majority never actually achieve the intended results and often have unintended consequences.
“if you drive the speed limit on the highway, 4 out of 5 fellow drivers think you’re an asshole and should die.”
That fifth driver who doesn’t think you’re an asshole who needs to die is you.
I figured the fifth person was too busy with their phone and didn’t notice how fast you were going. Or even notice that you were there at all.
The speed-limit comparison is a great one, though. There are plenty of laws that people break on a regular basis, but not one that has signs posted all over. I wish I’d thought of it before.
So….why do you want to slap the teeth out of the kid?
Because he actually aimed down the sites while holding the gun sideways and proving that you can actually hit things like that?
He’s wearing shooting glasses and hearing protection, so it doesn’t seem to be about legitimate safety complaints…
Looked though a few other videos of his, and saw nothing spectacular, or horrible…So, am I missing something?
Goldmarble… “Ghetto Homeboy Style”. White-bread there has never driven THOUGH a ghetto. And the last thing we need is more crap on the public mind making gun-owners look like irresponsible assholes.
Someone point out the irresponsibility for me? Safety glasses, hearing protection, on a range….He is just shooting with a stupid, and unconventional stance. Yes, he looks like a tool. No, his other videos are not inspired, informative, or very intelligent. But from what I saw of his channel, I can’t see anything exactly “irresponsible.” He is no Coloin Noir, Sturgewhere (MAC), ForgottonFirearms, or even Nutnfancy, but he isn’t a blight that needs the shit kicked out of him either, like anyone who posts videos of handing .500 S&W revolvers to 110 lb, female, first time shooters.
He did that style of shooting once, from what I saw, and even has it titled as a “challenge”. Personally, I think this is a bit much of an over-reaction that isn’t warranted.
Bad trigger discipline, horrible stance, trigger flinch, and the fact that he considered this a “challenge” instead of “wasting ammo in a dangerous manner.”
Instead of just “slap(ping) the teeth out of this kid,” can I bring my knobkerrie to knock his teeth out of his fool head? I’m surprised he didn’t use this as an opportunity to promote the “gangsta sights” mounted on the side! And WTH?!? He’s not waving around a Glock? How else is he supposed to compose a rap about it later, with the standard 5th-grade-education rhyming scheme?
Okay, it looked like he may have hand his finger inside the guard before the muzzle was clear of his own body.
Horrible stance? I can’t see how that is irresponsible. Trigger flinch? Something he should work on, but not irresponsible. “Wasting ammo in a dangerous manner”? Call me crazy? I didn’t see him shooting at the sky, I didn’t see, nor hear anyone else on the range. The only thing I saw him possibly endanger, were his toes when he swung the pistol to the targets.
Shooting a gun sideways isn’t dangerous. Inaccurate? Yeah. Stupid? Yeah. But it is his gun, his ammunition, his choice to use it how he wishes, so long as he is doing it legally, and not endangering anyone else by his actions. If those requirements are met? I give no fucks. Hurts himself? I give no fucks. Hurts someone else? Fucks are given in spades.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with what he is doing. I don’t like it, and I wouldn’t do it either. But none of that, in my opinion, justifies anger, or even thoughts of punishment. Only reaction I have is….stop watching.
In the vid: Why does the first shot of series of shots sound louder than the other ones?
Yeah, I was wondering about that myself, or if it was just me….
Mic adjusting to ambient noise levels?
Regarding the video; Kid, do you think 9mm grows on goddamn trees? As for the comic; I never thought of it like that. I knew no one gsave a damn about ‘Gun Free Zones’ but I never thought to compare it to speeding. Which everyone freaking does.
I went to Boulder Colorado twice this summer. Nobody speeds there. It was pretty weird.
That’s because there are no actual highways within Boulder. Get out on 119 toward Longmont and see how many people ride your ass no matter how fast you’re going.
I follow all speed limits. 😛
Seriously. There is nowhere I need to get to 45 seconds sooner that I am willing to pay $50 or $200 for the privilege.
I’m worse… I go 5 under on the highway – gas mileage…
I’m curious about both of these.
William, do you really only drive less than 10 miles at a time? That’s what your 45 seconds implies (assuming 55 vs 60mph). What would be a worthwhile time savings to take the risk? Also, am I mistaken, or are you assuming a 100% chance of getting pulled over for it (based on your dollar amounts)? Let’s assume you take a 300-mile trip through Ohio (which I do a few times a year, and used to do a few times a month). At 70mph instead of the posted 65mph, that leaves you still below the speed of most of the cars on the road and takes 20 minutes off the trip; a significant time savings, and a very low risk of a ticket. That would seem to invalidate both your points, and make following the speed limit actually an unwise decision.
Becky, I’m curious to know what sort of testing you have done. Do you go 5 under because you’ve actually run a number of tests with your car at various speeds and found that to be the best, or based on the assumption that slower equals more fuel-efficient? Cars do have a “sweet spot” that varies from car to car, but cars since 2008 (when the EPA rating system changed) tend to have a higher sweet spot than older cars did; it’s entirely probable that in a recent car your mileage would be worse at 60mph than at 65mph. (Of course, this also depends on where you live; “5 under” could plausibly be anywhere from 50 to 75 on Interstates I’m aware of, and I suspect any car would see a measurable improvement in fuel economy at 75mph vs 80 mph.)
The ’45 seconds’ was just to illustrate a point: that it is seldom if ever necessary or cost-effective to speed. People speed because they think they are above the law, or because they think speed limits are somehow too low or unjust, or because they are distracted, or because everyone else does it, or because it’s their Gawd given right as Amercans to do as they please—or because they THINK it’s going to save them a lot of time. It doesn’t, even on long trips.
I routinely drive from Phoenix to LA or San Diego or Las Vegas, all about 300-mile one-way drives…and I do the speed limit.
Think of your wage rate as the proxy for what you are saving, eg what your time is worth. For me that’s about $21 -$22 an hour, excluding the value of non-cash benefits. Saving an hour nets me a whole $20. Hurrah? And I probably lose that much in additional gas used, since modern cars are most efficient on average at about 55mph.
That’s best case. Worst case? You get pulled over and ticketed. So then you’ve got the actual fine, which can run above $300 if it’s for 15mph above the posted limit, plus the insurance-rate increase which will result from the points on your license, or the cost in time wasted going to driving school to evade the points.
Just doesn’t seem worth it to me, on a risk-reward basis.
People speed because limits usually ARE too law. Most people drive what they are comfortable, and studies have borne that out.
Speeding does save time- I drive to Charlotte (500 mile trip) and when I do 75-80, I can arrive an hour sooner. That’s huge. I speed ALL THE TIME. The only time I’ve ever gotten tickets is when I was not paying attention to where cops sit, or when I was confused about the speed limit.
Speed limits are not about safety, they are about money and power. Again, most speed limits are set 10-15 MPH too slow for 80% of the traffic. Speed limits are political decisions, not engineering ones.
Then there is the fact that you going slower slows everybody else up, causing backups and traffic accidents. Our traffic laws are not about ensuring a free flow of traffic, but placating people like you who don’t understand traffic issues.
Forgot to pop back here. My car has one of those mpg things on the overhead. So, my own observations. Also, i get less frustrated when driving just under, people pass me, I don’t feel the need to keep up with the pack… I enjoy the drive more. I guess it’s a personal thing.
On one hand, I’m not sure which is more disturbing–that he thought “ghetto homeboy style” is anything but crap culturally, that he thought it was anything but crap for accuracy, or that he actually put himself on Youtube.
On the other hand, the Heritage is a pretty fun little pistol.
If t’s already illegal to have a firearm, and then it’s ok with a CCW, then it is already that type of zone. The “Gun Free Zones” keep CCW holders and everyone else from having a gun, as long as they are willing to obey the law.
But if someone is already illegal just walking down the sidewalk… then a separate zone isn’t changing anything… Maybe adding trespassing or a fine on top of a felony?
People speed. The fine is nothing compared to littering. $1000 fine for littering. Change the fine for speeding to match the fine for littering, and there would be less speeding. I bet there would be places to have a governor installed in your car.
and… I’m not an organic chemist or anything… But I’m pretty sure gold plated cocaine would be totally useless… just like the little “No Guns” signs…
Pfft. Whatever. You just haven’t experienced the joy of driving a Cadillac made of gold-plated cocaine.
Convertible, or coupe
Coupe. Ragtops are so 1990s. Pssh.
So … what, then? Get rid of speed limits, because people who were gonna go fast are gonna go fast anyway?
People weigh actions with consequences. People are significantly less likely to bring guns into designated, enforced gun-free zones. This simplistic division of the world into normal people, who respect laws, and “criminals”, who ignore all laws on principle, is childlike.
So you drive the speed limit everywhere, yes?
ADD: Simplistic? Who’s being simplistic? Most criminals don’t “ignore all laws.” They ignore one or two. Contrary to popular belief, most felons in prison are not Tarantino-style thugs who run around shooting, raping, murdering, etc. They’re people who broke a couple laws. Does that make them any less of a criminal?
Newtown, Conn and Decatur, Ga have Gun Free Zones for their schools. That is how well those laws worked.
Hunter S. Thompson and William S. Burroughs (and let’s not forget Burroughs shot his wife in the head and got away with it) have been the biggest examples that gun laws don’t work. I used to live in a “Gun Free Zone” across from a high school. Yet my 12 gauge sat by my bed everyday.
And one of the biggest problems I’d say about gun laws is many people don’t know what they are, and many don’t care! I’ve even forgotten what’s current. At least a speed limit sign is posted. Most people don’t know it’s illegal to own a handgun in New York City or Washington D.C.
“Current” also tends to change with what block you are on, who’s doing the measuring, and so on, even in a city that ISN’T someplace totalitarian like Chicago, DC, or NYC. It can abruptly change week by week if you’re not careful. That is one of the big reasons I haven’t applied for a CCW; there’s entirely too much “gotcha” legalism involved. “Gun free school zones” actually extend close to a quarter mile from the school, perhaps farther, depending on the property line. Often the signs for other “gun free zones” are rather unobtrusive, and if you unwittingly violate ANY of them, your sorry ass gets fed into the criminal justice system while your other end gets fed into a media smear campaign in the court of public opinion. In the state of Ohio, your CCW gets cross-referenced with your driver’s license, and the cops can just pull that up when they run your license and tags. You are required by law to follow a very specific script of actions or you are in violation of the law. If your gun manages to print and someone sees it, you’re in violation of the law. if your shirt comes untucked and someone sees your firearm, you’re in violation of the law. And after the recent joy that the government put George Zimmerman through, it’s evident that if you ever DO clear gunleather, you will be adjudicated under the premise of guilty until proven innocent.
To be scrupulously fair, these laws normally contain an exemption for those who actually LIVE in such an area, like near a school.
This does not mean that I think the laws are good or productive. Just that clearly sticky questions like this one are usually addressed in the statute.
If the gun free zone was a state or two it might make it so that fewer guns where in circulation.
Does it work with Mexico?
When you present this argument, an obnoxious grin comes over a gungrabber’s face and they say “WELL WHY HAVE ANY LAWS AT ALL!?”
As you can see, this is a really stupid argument. It’s more like an excuse.
Seriously? Get rid of all laws? That’s superbly asinine. Again, it’s an excuse.
Laws are in place to provide an outline for what we consider evil or bad behavior, and to provide appropriate punishment for such. The reason I wouldn’t go more than 5mph over the speed limit is because If there’s a cop, he/she will pull me over and I’ll get a speeding ticket. Laws are in place to attempt to make things more orderly, and to make things safer. It’s the punishment and retribution that makes criminals think twice. If that punishment is anecdotal and light, then what’s the point of fearing punishment? And what if it’s a heavy punishment for a victimless crime?
But guess what? Some laws are just redundant, silly and DON’T DO ANYTHING.
The appropriate rejoinder is to educate them about “malum in se” laws like murder NOT being the same as “malum prohibitum” laws like speeding, gun-free zones, or, say, prohibition.
Think of it in terms of victimhood. You can sue if someone was murdered, and you were affected, like a spouse. You can sue if swindled, or threatened with violence…
You cannot sue because someone sped, owned a gun around you, or drank a bottle of whiskey. You are not a victim. If NOBODY is a victim, there is no true crime being committed, merely a manufactured one.
Who is the little tentacled dood supposed to be? Chris Christie maybe? I really like your depiction of Diane Fienstein bye the way
Half my firearms aren’t even legal to posses in some states (Commiefornia), let alone carry.
My response matches Mick’s.
I think the idea of a Gun Free Zone needs work. I can see that hearts were in the right place, but not a lot of common sense.
As for speeding, if I or anyone else on the road is driving at the posted limit, then anyone going faster is free to pass and not complain. However, if you are doing under the limit (like say 85 in a 100 zone) then you need to burst into flame as everyone else passes you, like some special effect from a Ghost Rider movie. Unless you have your hazards on because there is something wrong, even then you need to get as far over as is safe to let regular traffic pass you.
I love the comic, and recommend it whenever the chance arises. I may not agree with everything you have to say, but you say it intelligently and with humour, I respect the Hell out of that.