Skip to main content

View Diary: Cartoon: The gun (302 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Worst Tom Tomorrow cartoon I've ever seen. (7+ / 0-)

    I repeatedly share TT cartoon's on my Facebook page, because they're so often slyly on the mark. But this cartoon is just as offensively ham-handed as the lame-ass cartoons that right-wingers throw at us lefties, and for the same reason: It presumes to know how the opposition thinks, more than they know themselves.

    I'm very aware of the magnetic attraction that guns have for the opposition, and in fact I regard it as sort of a fetish. But it's a lot more complicated than the simple-minded hypnosis suggested by these cartoons. I call out conservatives in debate whenever they presume to know why I believe what I believe--i.e. Noah Chomsky, white guilt, Communist sympathies, etc. And will not endorse the same kind of dismissal of others' cognitive processes, however wrong-headed they seem to us.

    This patronizing cartoon cheapens the ongoing political dialogue in the same manner that the word "libtard" does. It's beneath the standard set by Tom Tomorrow, because it doesn't provoke thought, but instead dismisses it.

    Battling psychiatric myths with sensible skepticism at

    by candid psychiatrist on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:38:54 AM PST

    •  Only "the opposition" is vulnerable (8+ / 0-)

      to manipulation.

      Definitely a psychiatrist...

    •  It is not is best (11+ / 0-)

      because it is too literal and blunt for skilled political satire.

      But, the artistic value can be separated from the message which is spot on.

      There is a major research literature in the science and technology studies which shows that tools use us as much as we use them. We conform to technological constraints and their imperatives for usage.

      Someone who has a gun is just more likely to be aggressive than if they did not have that technological artifact.

      I can guarantee that an unarmed Michael Dunn does not kill a kid driving away in his car and that he does not even escalate the confrontation. Kills embolden and embolden actors are more likely to take aggressive action.

      •  I understand exactly what you're saying. (4+ / 0-)

        But I don't think the cartoon conveys that. TT used numerous frames to say the same thing over and over in a way that calls gun-owners hypnotized idiots. RWers similarly say we're "hypnotized" by Obama. Both messages are similarly condescending, and dismissive of each others' points of view.

        I love to challenge conservatives on their opinions. But I no longer enjoy insulting them for their opinions. It's IMO unconstructive.

        Battling psychiatric myths with sensible skepticism at

        by candid psychiatrist on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:55:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Simplistic misrepresentation (20+ / 0-)

          The cartoon uses multiple panels, as all my cartoons do, to make the point that -- as someone else said in this thread -- the availability of a tool affects the decisions its owner makes.  That seems to strike a nerve with you, but honestly, I've been far more condescending and dismissive of conservative thought than I am in this cartoon.  This is really just about my anger and outrage at a specific tragedy.

          •  Sort of agreement (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tominator, FrankRose

            There is an old saying of "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and clearly there are people who apply this to firearms. Add in a dollop of racism, anger and economic insecurity and add a dash of genuine Beck™ brand conservative agitprop and you've got all the seasoning you need for a half-baked tragedy.

            But I have to agree with candid psychiatrist that your "hammer" in this case swung a little wide and hard. Something like 30% of all gun owners are Democrats, which is probably a much, much bigger percentage than are pro-choice, anti-same sex marriage, anti-immigration or other things we consider "conservative litmus tests".

            So your dismissiveness is not simply against "conservative thought", but as you may have seen from the minority viewpoint, insulting to a good chunk of the liberal side as well. But if it is really just venting and it helps you, then artist's prerogative and all that...

              •  well I think (5+ / 0-)

                it is a great cartoon both funny and serious at the same time.

                It tackles a serious subject, making a valid suggestion.

                The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                by GideonAB on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 12:34:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I appreciate your cartoon (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber, atana, nota bene, Smoh

                The fact that it seems to have struck a nerve with the gun nuts tells me it is very effective. Sometimes the truth hurts.

                +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

                by cybersaur on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 01:07:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Which in the case of Florida (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slatsg, FrankRose

                included every Democrat in the Florida Senate (39 out of 40 anyway, I think 1 was out of town). Not that I expect that to change your opinion in the slightest.

                But let me ask you this. Rhode Island, an undeniably blue state, is just down the road from Newtown. Rhode Island also has a "Stand your ground" law, one that predates the ALEC-written Florida one by a few decades but nonetheless has the "presumption of self-defense" and "no duty to retreat" language (and as best I can tell, no movement to repeal it and no Kossacks bitching about how it is implemented). Do you think that if a white guy emptied a pistol into a car full of black youths, that a Rhode Island jury would buy the excuse that he felt his very life was threatened by the loud music and had no choice but to open fire?

                If you think that a jury in a dark blue northeast state might have seen things a little differently than the Florida one did, then you're admitting that it isn't entirely about the law, since the same sort of law would have generated a verdict you agree with, when applied by and interpreted by a set of people you probably identify more closely with. It is more than the letter of the law, it is also the culture that is arresting, trying and judging with that law.

                I think TMW history adequately demonstrates that any legal excuse can be used for bad ends by bad people if the overall system supports their actions. Or so I am led to believe by my good friend Droney, for whom I have the utmost respect and nothing to hide from (of course).

                To each their own. Be seeing you next week...

            •  satire (7+ / 0-)

              is often wide.

              I do not see anything wrong with that.

              The target here is not people but the seductive nature of guns.

              The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

              by GideonAB on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 12:17:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And the seductinve nature of violent (6+ / 0-)

                revenge fantasies.

                Mr. Dunn was arrested because he was so secure in his bigotry and self-hypnosis, that he waived his miranda rights, waived his right have an attorney present, and one of the first thing he told the police, "They didn't listen to me. What was I supposed to do?"

                If he wasn't so arrogant and deluded he would have kept his mouth shut until he had an attorney present. His attorney would have never let him make that admission, and he very well may have been acquitted.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 01:51:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Well, why should we not provoke Democrats, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nota bene, Smoh, enufenuf

              too? Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean that they need to be treated with kid gloves.

              In any case, I think it is fair to say that the adamant defense of guns absolutely is an instance of conservative thought. It is a case of the successful inculcation of conservative values in otherwise liberal voters.

              Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

              by Dale on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 01:46:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You better learn what 'liberal gun policy' means. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Quick hint: It means the same as 'liberal drug policy', 'liberal abortion policy' or 'liberal [any word] policy'.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 06:55:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Meaning what, exactly? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I'm not sure I follow you.

                  Liberal [anything] policy is the stance that liberals take on a position. Liberal abortion policy is pretty clearly in favor of women's reproductive rights. Liberal drug policy (though not always Democratic drug policy) is, as I see it, a socially libertarian view on drugs.

                  And liberal gun policy is polarized in precisely this same way. Liberal-progressives in large part -- I think I can state this without fear of error -- lean towards gun control and regulation.

                  Liberals prefer regulation in a whole lot of cases. We call for regulation of the financial sector, so as to not permit a Wild West environment on Wall Street. We regulate industrial output, so as to protect the environment. We regulate safety standards, so as to ensure that workers can thrive in a safe and clean environment.

                  "Liberal" in the classic 19th century version of the word may have meant libertarian, but I don't think it has for some time. "Liberal" doesn't just mean "anything goes." Liberals, like conservatives, are in favor of regulating some things, and deregulating others: conservatives prefer to deregulate business, but they insist on regulating our naughty bits. Liberals hold the opposite view. The idea that "liberal" means a down-the-line libertarian deregulation of all things doesn't hold water.

                  Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

                  by Dale on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:05:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is also a synonym (0+ / 0-)

                    As in (per the interwebs), a liberal serving of potatoes; a liberal translation; a liberal coat of paint; etc. etc.

                    In these cases, it translates to "generous", "bountiful" or "munificent". It's not all about liberal politics.

          •  Another good point (4+ / 0-)

            First off, let me have my fan boy moment. I have taken great inspiration, solace, and some angst inducing realization from your graphic commentaries.

            I think the other important motif in this cartoon is the NRA spreading the "culture of fear" along with its myth that everyone can be just like Bruce Willis and other movie heroes and stop the bad guys in their tracks.

        •  I am a gun owner, and I know a lot of ... (11+ / 0-)

          idiots that have no business owning a firearm. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
          Safety is the paramount concern when being around firearms, and it is often the most neglected. A false sense of power and invincibility takes over the sensibilities of some gun owners. Someone will pay the price for that stupidity.

          If life weren't so damn hard, we’d have no need for fabric softeners.

          by glb3 on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:43:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Some of them are (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          atana, WakeUpNeo, Smoh

          hypnotized idiots, with bizarre delusions rationalizing their demands that everyone respect their right to be idiots.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 01:46:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is mostly centrists who are (0+ / 0-)

          "hypnotized by Obama".  True progressives recognize Obama's policies as generally right of center, and where civil liberties are concerned, far right.  Environmentalists hear him talking a good game and doing huge damage when he thinks no one is paying attention.

          That's his role in the good cop/bad cop game that Washington DC has been playing for at least 20 years now.  While we all watched in horror as Ken Starr dug into Bill Clinton's dirty laundry (well, okay, Monica's) at public expense and worked to get him impeached, and while we cheered him on in his struggle with "bad cop" Gingrich, he was busy selling us out with NAFTA and repealing Glass-Steagall.

          I refuse to be hypnotized by either Obama or Faux News.  I look at fracking the same way the CEO of Exxon-Mobil does: NIMBY!  Only my back yard is the entire country, starting with California.  We don't have enough water here even for the agriculture that's in place, and we sure don't have enough for fracking, but try telling that to "good cop" Jerry Brown.  

          Poor Jerry no longer has a foil to help him sell his snake oil the way Barack does, since California has marginalized state Republicans.  Oh well, we still have Darryl Issa to kick around!

      •  typo apologies (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry other than the caption which should not his best. i meant to write guns embolden and emboldened actors... in the last sentence

    •  Good points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I chuckled at the cartoon, but you're right, it oversimplifies and misses the mark.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:44:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The cartoon reflects the thinking of some... (9+ / 0-)

      not how all gun owners think.

      You can't deny that gun manufacturers and their lobby, the NRA, have fomented exactly the kind of mindset depicted in the cartoon. For years they have run a propaganda campaign aimed mainly at white men that is designed to encourage gun purchases to protect oneself from minorities and to ensure that one's manhood is also secure. All under the rubric of defending the constitution. It is a campaign worthy of Don Draper.

      But we would be wrong to assume that all gun owners have fallen under its spell. People own guns for a lot of reasons and it's rational to support a broad understanding of the second amendment for reasons other than this kind of race-baiting. Tom Tomorrow is right, however, to point out that this is going on and I think he nails the phenomenon. Carrying a firearm changes how people approach the world around them, especially if they've had it drummed into their heads that it gives them the power to be some kind of hero.

      There's a difference between a responsible gun owner and one that's been lucky so far.

      by BeerNotWar on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:44:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The humor is exaggeration for a specific point. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThatSinger, Smoh

      Obviously guns don't have wills of their own and hypnotize people.

      But the problem, as you yourself point out, is the "magnetic attraction that guns have". The problem is the toxic mix of safety and brittle ego that many people with guns get, who then have to respond to perceived threats to their ego with violence in a public place. And are way too often seeking out situations to prove their manhood, that otherwise wouldn't exist - exactly as if they are hypnotized. Because they're not acting like supposedly rational human beings.

      This cartoon is pointing at that real problem. This doesn't fit some model of "balance", because the other side won't even admit this is a problem.

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton |

      by jbeach on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:37:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It seems clear to me that these expressed moments (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      of anger, are happening for people (mostly men) who don't know their own limits of rage.

      Their lack of self awareness is part of the problem and this diary nails that aspect in a way that makes some people uncomfortable. If it gets under their skin, it might cause some to complain about it, to people who know them, and who might help them think a little harder about what they tell themselves about why they carry.

      Disclaimer: I'm a strong pro-RKBA advocate consistent with  the individual rights theory in the Heller/McDonald framework.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 01:40:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  re: Presuming to know what they think? (4+ / 0-)

      Many people on this site have a fairly good idea of what the various crowds on the right think.  We have Thanksgiving, Christmas, and extended families to thank for that.  Sometimes it's just Easter and two parents, or a weekend visit from a sister with her husband.  Or nothing more than lunch with a niece or nephew.  Sometimes it doesn't even require family.  Try standing near the proverbial water cooler at work.  But it's an earful -- more than enough to fully appreciate the racism, violence, and outright ignorance that permeates their cognitive beings.  

      And the situation, I hasten to add, is rarely symmetrical.  Very few people on the right have even the foggiest idea what Chomsky says, because no one on the big television tubes will dare talk to him.  But everybody left, right and center knows exactly what Michele Bachmann has to say about a dozen or more topics, and likewise for Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and a score of other right-wing scum-brains.  

      So, sorry, but if you find today's cartoon offensive, maybe you should candidly look inside yourself, psychiatrist.  

      •  I don't find it personally offensive. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eikyu Saha, Smoh

        I know what you're talking about, and I know what they think. I'm now in Maine, but lived in Texas for most of my life. I'm doing battle, one mind at a time, with some friends on Facebook. And at LEAST I've gotten them to acknowledge that I'm well-meaning, and not an idiot. (That's a start, don't you know.)

        But I'm not going to hate them. I'm going to try to understand them (as much as I can stand to), at times ridicule them (using their own words--like telling them that RWers are the only people I know that ever allude to Chomsky!), and definitely confront them with the fact that they are increasingly a minority. But if they insult me, I will call them out on the insult, and refuse to respond in kind. I will call for civil discourse. And if they're utterly impossible, I give up.

        I overreacted to the cartoon. But I still think it's not his best work.

        Battling psychiatric myths with sensible skepticism at

        by candid psychiatrist on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 03:04:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site