Skip to main content

click to enlarge

Follow @MattBors and @DailyKosComics on Twitter.

Originally posted to Comics on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:50 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If every teacher had a nuke (24+ / 0-)

    Just remember: if every teacher had a nuclear weapon, a nice big one, nobody would know what happened, and therefore there would be no fame in carrying out a shooting.  MAD: the perfect solution!

  •  Who's In? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, stevej, irate

    Taking bets, who's in, that the boehner and henchmen take the so called 'fiscal cliff bill' off the floor when they, again, realize they don't have the votes, DeJa-Vu all over again!!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:02:42 AM PST

    •  I think they take it off the floor when they (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jimstaro, mapamp, historys mysteries

      realize that it does have the votes - OMG we're giving a victory to a Kenyan, communist, socialist, blah,blah, blah!

      In any case, this is off topic to the subject on the cartoon.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:09:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  11th hour deal (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      historys mysteries, quill, zinger99

      All sides declare victory
      20 Dkos diaries from the Obamacrush crowd telling the world how their hero saved the day and how clueless the rest of us are.

      Today was always the real deadline and anyone that thinks that there was no head counting of the House GOP yesterday is probably wrong.

    •  This will pass, (0+ / 0-)

      enough lame duck republicans and  a few reasonably sane republicans will combine centrist Democrats to push it through. All it really accomplishes is put off the eventual day of reckoning until the next hostage taking display when the debt limit is reached again this spring.

      "Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down." Bill Clinton

      by irate on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:35:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't Geitner say we've reached the debt limit? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        like two days ago?  

        What does this mean, we're gonna have the debt limit fight on Thursday?

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:54:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They can delay a few months, (0+ / 0-)

          with accounting gimmicks, so I've heard.

          "Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down." Bill Clinton

          by irate on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:41:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. (5+ / 0-)

    And here I was beginning to think Daily Beast columnists were all intelligent.

    "A good president does what's possible and a great president changes what's possible." --sterno

    by sk4p on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:05:04 AM PST

  •  oh my (6+ / 0-)

    what a cartoon.. got to satire and hit the accelerator.

    i think we underestimate the use of surveillance drones with hellfire circling our schools. let the football coaches handle the controls-
    and flamethrowers to the school janitors.

    then guns would be out of the picture- a knock against the nra

  •  Rushing an assault weapon (10+ / 0-)

    is like a fly charging a swatter.

    If Megan McArdle  ever found herself in the situation where she was about to follow her own advice, I suspect she would be having second thoughts about gun control.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:09:30 AM PST

    •  "rather than follow their instincts to hide..." (5+ / 0-)

      Yeah, Megan, 'cause it works so well to ignore our evolutionary survival instincts.

      Suppose we only halved the death rates, both homicide and suicide, from guns? That's 15,000 lives / year we would save. ~teacherken

      by GreenMtnState on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:16:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I gotta laugh when I hear conservatives talk about (6+ / 0-)

        "evolutionary survival instincts".....while reeking of global warming denial  and charlatan science.
        Getting survival tips from those with a huge blind spot that is destroying our planet... is ironic.

        If cats could blog, they wouldn't

        by crystal eyes on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:31:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Boy, were those guys stupid (0+ / 0-)

        on Flight 93 on 9/11. WTF did they think they were doing, rushing the terrorists? They should have hidden!

        •  they had guns..?? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:


          We are not broke, we are being robbed.

          by Glen The Plumber on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:36:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope, knives (0+ / 0-)

            So, we teach the kids to charge guys with knives, not guys with guns. With the guns, you hide because it's not like bullets can penetrate walls or desks. And after all, the police will be there in 15 minutes or so.

            •  these are 6 year olds.... (6+ / 0-)

              and kindergarteners.  5 year olds.  Even if they all charged him, what in the world could they do?  Maybe the shooter will slip in their blood and get a concussion?  There is nothing these teachers and little children could have done better when faced with a heavily armed adult man with essentially a machine gun.  At some point the shooter decided to stop shooting and take his own life- if he had kept it up, more would have died, including the police if he decided to have a standoff.  He wiped out every child he saw in two classrooms.  Charging him would have done nothing.  Even the NRA hasn't suggested charging the shooter.  That advice is meant for the police, based on the response after Columbine.  The police who are wearing body armour and helmets like military under fire.  Because they are facing military grade weapons.  The innocent always going to be at a disadvantage because they can't lead their lives looking for a heavily armed gunman in every bush.  So the gunman will always have an advantage unless facing folks like the secret service or military personell facing an ambush.  You may think most people can live like this, but they can't.  We need to talk about how horrible this event was and how helpless we are to do anything about it in a heavily armed society.

              You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

              by murrayewv on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:09:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Alternative scenario (0+ / 0-)

                Some teachers or administrative personnel might have an interest in training to use both weapons and other strategies to deal with such life-and-death situations. Possibly they could usefully be offered such training. Or, we could stand around and jeer at the thought—always helpful.

                As for Ms. McArdle, she wrote a long essay setting out her reasons for thinking that there are not many practicable solutions. In the end, lacking any good alternatives, she made the bare suggestion that any sort of resistance in a desperate situation might be better than nothing. It's that which the cartoonist latches on here as if it were her desirable, comprehensive, meets-all-problems sort of proposal. Ha. And ha.
                Oddly enough, she did not propose a kindergarten SWAT team. But maybe you'd be better off actually reading the article:

                And here's the immediately relevant bit in context:

                "My guess is that we're going to get a law anyway, and my hope is that it will consist of small measures that might have some tiny actual effect, like restrictions on magazine capacity.  I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.  Would it work?  Would people do it?  I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips."
                •  See, here's the thing never taken into account by (3+ / 0-)

                  people like you and she, we know how many massacres current laws did not prevent, but you have no idea how many were prevented. Until you can prove that there are none that ended up not even being attempted because the putative perpretrator did not find means to do the desired killing when and as fantasized about, it is simply fallacious to posit that "more laws are not an answer". Because more laws may very well be an answer (or even any part of one) there is simply no reason not to build a wall of laws as high and as broad as humanly possible.

                  Only a complete idiot would dare to speculate on the potential lack of efficacy of banning rifles with pistol grips, and the sheer numbers of folks who fit that category certainly does nothing to obviate the point.

                  There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 11:27:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I am a teacher.... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zinger99, koosah, Glen The Plumber

                  and I will quit if I have to work in an environment where my colleagues are carrying weapons. And let me tell you, the average kindergarten teacher isn't looking for that job either.  

                  I am sure some folks will volunteer to arm up to protect folks from what is essentially a very unlikely scenario.  I am fairly certain the sorts of people who volunteer for this duty are not the sorts of people I want to take on the job.

                  I have no interst in giving this asshat woman the clicks to become a controversy.  Anybody who works with 5 year olds or becomes a parent of a 5 year old would know that this suggestion is stupidvis a vis Sandy Hook.  The American Academy of Pediatrics advises not to have firearms in houses with children.  Can you seriously believe they would recommend arming the teachers?

                  If the state or school district want to hire armed police, fine.  Hire a professional.  Pay the taxpayer money for armed guards for the kids and lay off the teachers, or skip textbooks.  Let the kids in the poor districts be slaughtered or rely on  

                  You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                  by murrayewv on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:53:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Boy, are you stupid (12+ / 0-)

          The passengers on that flight knew they were dying no matter what, as they were on a hijacked plane that would crash, and took action to prevent other people from dying. People running from a gunman in an open area still have a chance to save themselves.

        •  Uh, the terrorists were armed with box cutters. (9+ / 0-)

          Maybe I haven't been keeping up with modern technology, but box cutters don't have semi-automatic fire last time I checked.

          Those passengers didn't have a choice. They knew they were going to die and they had no place to retreat to.

          Plus, their best case scenario was dying without any additional casualties on the ground. In other words, the perps had already succeeded in creating mass casualties. What these people had to do was die an hour before they were going to in order to save other lives. Most people in shootings aren't facing the certainty of death.

          Moreover, the terrorists happened to draw the worst plane of passengers to hijack. There were a lot of very athletic and combat trained people on that plane.

          A hostage situation where people waiting and can consider their options has little in common with a shooting where the perp is creating the highest body-count he can as fast as he can.

          Last, does your statement even convince you? That is such a clueless, idiotic  assertion. Do you really think you're going to win the debate back by saying stupid things like that?  

          •  Winning debates (0+ / 0-)

            Did you imagine that you were debating, or even discussing, as opposed to simply disparaging and rejecting out-of-hand? Do you win many arguments by just shouting "clueless," and "idiotic"?

            I'm happy that you know that most people in shootings would be best off passively hiding—me, I'm not so convinced that there might not be better active strategies. Did you think that better hiding would have helped the kids and teachers in CT?

            You claim that the Flight. 93 terrorist were essentially unlucky, in that some on the plane were athletic and had had combat training. That would seem to argue for at least some kind of rational consideration of whether having training and trained people around in other sorts of murderous situations might not be a worthy idea.

            •  n/t. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib

              We are not broke, we are being robbed.

              by Glen The Plumber on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:30:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I notice which points you didn't dispute. (5+ / 0-)

              Do you disagree that the terrorists were armed with box cutters rather than semi-automatic weapons? Do you dispute that the people on the plane found out they were going to die anyway? Do you think it's doubtful that the passengers had time to consider and plan?

              Now, which of those also apply to a mass shooting?

              Moreover, ALL of the people on that plane died. This is the equivalent of everyone in the school or shopping mall dying. The body count was higher than any mass shooting. The standards of victory for the passengers on that flight were depressingly low.

              I didn't "just" shout out those terms and declare victory. You weren't dismissed out of hand. I took apart your argument first. I brought up the differences between that plane an a shooting situation to show that one can't be applied to another. The two had a completely different  dynamic, and you haven't rebutted them because you can't.

              The only other point you dispute, was just a tangent. I said the terrorists were a little unlucky. Even if I overstated that,  my argument is already made by the points you didn't answer.

              That Flight can't be compared to a mass shooting. In the 62 spree shootings we've had in the last decade, the few people who have charged the shooters have been killed or critically wounded, and they did not prevent a thing. That's the difference between box-cutters and semi-automatic rifles.

              You don't get any better when you say hiding isn't a better strategy. Hiding DID save lives at Newtown. In combat training, the first thing you learn is hide. Get on the ground, present a smaller target, or better yet, get out of sight until you can effectively return fire. They don't teach you to charge the shooters.

              I'm not arguing against courage, but courage isn't a strategy, which means it's not a winning strategy either. You can't count on it from "green" troops, that is, civilians, who are under fire. The military puts a lot of effort into training troops to fight back under fire, and still they'll freeze at first until they're "battle hardened."  It's a skill. It doesn't just happen. Not only can't you count on it, but it will seldom happen. You appreciate courage more when you see it.

              So you're convinced, despite what I said that there might not be "more active strategies." Tell me, what failures are you willing to see before you consider yourself mistaken? People who tried to charge the shooter at Newtown are dead, and he went on to kill twenty children. How many more failed charges are you willing to see? Ten, twenty in a row? Would you consider one thwarted shooting in twenty fatal charges to prove you right?

              •  Disputed points (0+ / 0-)

                Since I brought up the knives, I guess I didn't dispute that. But maybe that went right by you.

                The only comparison between Flight 93 and Newtown for this discussion is that both were situations in which a counsel of desperation might be to attempt something desperate. How many people or what percentage actually died isn't at issue, unless you can know in advance what these numbers are ('We might as well rush the cabin, since we know that we are all dead anyway'). Someone facing guns at an isolated school might reasonably expect that same dismal conclusion. At any event, in no instance of your spree shootings do I know of any massed effort to rush the shooters. And no one has suggested that a just couple of people ought to attempt this.

                As for active strategies that might fail, I don't see such notable success with current strategy (if that's even the right word). So yeah, it might just be that with training and weapons available, the odds of more surviving just might go up. If this has been tried somewhere already and found wanting, I do wish you would cite these.

                Meantime, McArdle's suggestion is here being pilloried by folks who, so near as I can tell, didn't bother to read the piece. They ought to.

                •  So kindergarteners need to be WWI doughboys (3+ / 0-)

                  trained to charge machine gunfire in wave after wave, in self-sacrifice for the next generation.

                  Only, following your example, while taking their classes on a pressurized passenger jet.


                  Get these m*f*king German pillboxes off this m*f*king plane!

                  Over the top, boys and girls! No child left behind!

                  •  Kindergarten cops (0+ / 0-)

                    Hi, You probably came late to the discussion and couldn't be bothered reading any of it. Had you done so, though, you would have seen that nobody except mordant satirists such as yourself are talking about training kindergartners as shock troops, on or off of airplanes. How terribly confusing this must be for you. My sympathies.

                    •  Dismissing the satire? (0+ / 0-)

                      Or dismissing the fact that mass-charging automatic weapons has been well understood as tragically ignorant madness for nearly a century now?

                      •  Dismissed (0+ / 0-)

                        Sorry—if there was satire, it didn't register. Is this more satire, given that automatic weapons have been illegal for private possession since Al Capone? Not to mention that no such weapons have been used in any of the mass killings I've read about.

                •  You haven't seemed to grasped the point (0+ / 0-)

                  Training people to act under fire is very difficult. It takes a lot. The military puts a lot of resources and time into doing this. Even after training, the "green" troops will freeze for a minute or two when they first encounter fire before that training begins to kick in. The military trains personnel in units for a reason: it requires social and psychological support and discipline to get that training.

                  You are not going to train civilians to do this in a few hours of shooting practice, nor are you going to get them to do it with positive encouragement. The cost of making this into a viable prevention are going to be in the trillions. Therefore, there's no way to just "try" this. If you don't spend that much, it won't work. Without any kind of drills, expecting strangers to organize a charge or ambush is less reliable than a rain dance.  

                  And if you just think people should keep the possibility in mind if they're caught in a shooting. Sure. That's okay, but it's merely motivational. I thought we weren't talking about keeping a positive attitude in a negative circumstance. I thought you were talking about a real policy or strategy. For motivation, it kicks ass. When people are actually under fire though, that shit going out the window 99% of the time. It can work, but don't bet your house on it.  

                  Really, if the military could get people to coordinate a charge under fire simply by telling them it can work, don't you think the army is wasting a lot of time and resources training them?

                  I have a much better idea than yours. Limit access to guns. It seems that the more guns people have available the more this happens, not less. That's a strategy. That's a policy.

                  You want sources about whether this has been tried? Do the principle and school psychologist charging Adam Lanza count as citations? Last I heard, nobody has refuted the account. If not reliable enough, try this source:


                  Go to the sixth paragraph down. Desperate people do try it already and will occasionally try it. I consider it desperate  because it almost never succeeds.

                  I know what you're going to say: a few people shouldn't try this. In a battle situation you have seconds to react. You hope you won't attract the attention of the gunman. How do you coordinate such a charge with a bunch of terrified strangers? There are trust issues. How do you know that they'll charge with you? On Flight 73 they had time and a relatively quiet place to plan. And for the fight or flight response, flight wasn't an option.

                  Your idea is not just bad, it's impossible, at least to plan out. Under fire, who knows? But under fire shit will happen despite anything either of us will say. We should prevent people from being put under fire, because not doing that is the equivalent of doing nothing, despite any positive motivation we prepare them with.

          •  pssst.... (4+ / 0-)

            Did you imagine that you were debating, or even discussing, as opposed to being played by a troll?

            Take a stroll down hmi's historical comments some time, then realize he/she is never worthy of response...

        •  Thanks for the false equivalency... (5+ / 0-)

 comparing mass shootings with Flight 93.

          Completely different circumstances:
          1.  Terrorists were armed with box cutters, not semi-automatic weapons.
          2.  The passengers were on an airplane in mid-flight -- the rational option of fleeing was kind of foreclosed by the little detail of being 20,000 feet up in the air.

          So, really, I don't see much that we can or should apply from Flight 93.  Running at people armed with box cutters when your only alternative is certain death is a lot different from running at someone armed with a semi-automatic rifle when the option of running away might be possible.

          Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

          by TexasTom on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:51:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This should be nominated for STUPIDEST (3+ / 0-)


        •  Hope you didn't hurt yourself.... (2+ / 0-)

          making that leap.

    •  She's probably hoping (2+ / 0-)

      for a nice wall of corpses between her and the shooter.  Acceptable casualties.  Note the phrase "less deadly".  I guess that's supposed to be an acceptable compromise.

    •  I thought it was a cartoon, she's real? (3+ / 0-)

      And I thought it was one of Tom's best, like it could only happen in his comics

      Okay I'll go look her up (no tv)

      human error never fails = : )

      by i saw an old tree today on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:55:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Aren't we in danger of offending the NRA accom- (6+ / 0-)

    plices with this cartoon?  I mean, you are making fun of their sacred 27-word scripture and their sacred idols!

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:10:59 AM PST

  •  McArdle (4+ / 0-)

    The thinking GOPer's Ann Coulter.

  •  yes... soak up the bullets so that survivors (3+ / 0-)

    at worst can jump the the shooter while he is replacing his empty jumbo magazine or even larger capacity drum... or  even better if there are just too many brave people hurling themselves at the shooter some will get there before he has to change the magazine or drum... hooray!  odds are fairly good that he will be unable to stop all of them even with a large capacity drum before it runs out  and he has to take precious seconds to reload... Sure it would take a lot of people sacrificing themselves but probably the people in front will distract the shooter and soak up enough rounds so the brave people behind the first rows of casualties can jump over the bodies through the gun smoke and taking care not to slip on the blood etc... and be the one to take down the bad guy. Mission accomplished. Body count? Coulda been worse... maybe... but think of all the lives saved!!

    Yes the eminently practical Daily Beast columnist certainly has a solution... a terrible solution... maybe one of the worst of the low tech but idiotic variety before going further into bizarro thinking on a larger scale involving something like predator strikes to neutralize the whole building... pity about the collateral damage... but keeping it local and low tech is the conservative way... now if they could only monetize the act of heroic sacrifice with some sort of insurance policy and a lottery payout for the person who takes down the bad guy with or without a gun...

    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

    by IreGyre on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:18:38 AM PST

  •  What I've always liked about the "pro gun" (8+ / 0-)

    movement is the tacit notion that anybody can turn into Charles Bronson when actual danger shows up.  Does the average gun owner (non sportsman, who owns it for "protection") really think that when the rubber hits the road that s/he is gonna be able to execute some sort of barrel roll-pistol John Woo-action hero maneuver.

    •  People imagine they're John McClaine, (5+ / 0-)

      and find out they're Cheddar Bob.

    •  The concealed carry is their super power.... (3+ / 0-)

      in real situations, military or police trained individuals with concealed carry have saved the day in some events and have been killed by the police who thought they were attackers in other situations.  

      As far as I am concerned, they shouldn't carry for my benefit.  They should do it because they think it will save their lives.  And they should face jail time if their weapon is used by their child. Even if the child kills themselves.  

      There are some qualified people, but a million in Florida alone?  I doubt it.

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:17:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  More likely (0+ / 0-)

      they'd soil their undergarments and shoot themselves in the leg trying to draw their weapon, then take out three or four bystanders whilst engaging the threat.  And if two armed Samaritans happened to be in the area and both drew weapons, they'd probably be gunning each other down with no way to tell friend from foe.

      Fear, adrenaline, fog of war, etc.  This shit is complicated even for people who have trained extensively, and even the professionals fuck it up sometimes.  The idea that an untrained civilian is going to be cool and competent in a firefight approaches absurdity.

      And these skills are perishable.  It's been years since I had a military assignment that required me to strap on weapons and armor and present myself to be shot at.  If I tried to do it today without at least a few weeks of refresher training, the result would not be pretty.  I can admit that about myself because I'm realistic about these things, and I've learned humility.  Vigilante fantasists have none of that.  Also, now that I look at it, Vigilante Fantasists would make a great name for a band or writing club.  :-)

      "Forecast for tomorrow? A few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" -Stewie Griffin

      by quillsinister on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:37:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Conservatives are very, very stupid people. (4+ / 0-)

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

    by Troubadour on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:24:28 AM PST

  •  When we stop spending half our budget (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geez53, Laconic Lib, Cartoon Messiah

    on spreading militarism to bully the world .........................

    it might set a better example of exercising brains vs. brawn to resolve frustrations.

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:31:45 AM PST

  •  Wasn't that what they did in WWI? (6+ / 0-)

    Climb up over the trench and charge the mass shooters? I heard it didn't work very well, like it created hills of corpses and wounded twenty feet high.

    Breaking cover and charging a shooter is about the worst tactic you can follow. If you want to make it better, douse yourselves in gasoline and set yourselves on fire before you charge. That'll put the scare into that shooter.

    Don't take my word for this, though. With the aid of a COD mod, you can run a "Shooting Spree" game and see how well the light brigades do against a shooter armed with a semi-automatic rifle and several 30 round clips.

    And that's if you don't have that mortal fear variable working. In real life with "green" civilians and bad communication, it will be almost impossible to coordinate that charge. The few cases where people have tried to blitz the shooter ended badly for the good guys.

    Returning fire or disarming a shooter who has the initiative are skills. The military spends a lot of time and effort training soldiers to do it. And they're dangerous even when professionals perform them.

  •  I don't see this as a useful adaptation (4+ / 0-)

    for the species.

    "I had seen the universe as it begins for all things. It was, in reality, a child's universe, a tiny and laughing universe." Loren Eiseley

    by cadejo4 on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:35:46 AM PST

  •  mcardle's non-solution is the type of answer (4+ / 0-)

    that could be given only by someone who  -- rightfully -- expects she'll never have to face down a shooter. statistically speaking, it's always someone else's problem.

    (and certainly not a gun advocate's problem.)

  •  Ms McArdle needs more time to "flesh out" her (2+ / 0-)

    hypothesis. Maybe she could get a job as Mall Security or volunteer as an unarmed hall monitor at her local elementary school or air marshal on trans Atlantic flights.

    She should practice throwing her laptop ninja-Frisbee style.

  •  I have been sampling "Call of Duty: Black Ops" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Messiah

    (which I suck badly at). What McArdle is proposing is not that far from the scenarios in Call of Duty where the lone gunman is being pursued by unarmed zombies.  We're the zombies. Thank you Ms. McArdle, that's all this world needs.

    God be with you, Occupiers. God IS with you.

    by Hohenzollern on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:00:45 AM PST

  •  I like to refer to Ms. McArdle's idea as.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Messiah, ConfusedSkyes

    Kamikaze Kids, because clearly its a suicide mission.

  •  Yes, the banzai charge (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Messiah

    is the answer.

  •  The Old Testament (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Messiah

    has rather harsh things to say about people who sacrifice their children, if I recall.

    Leviticus 18:21 Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
    I wonder how many fundamentalists are preaching on that text this month?

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:27:32 AM PST

  •  McArdle disproves the entire rational for assault (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib, Cartoon Messiah

    weapons.  I think we can similarly disprove the law of gravity by jumping off tall buildings.
    Could be another case of caffeine induced psychosis!

  •  Seriously? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib, Cartoon Messiah

    How does one get to be so fucking stupid and keep their job?

    Everybody's going serfing, serfing USA

    by Cen Den on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:17:37 AM PST

  •  I Think Emerson Made That Point About Train Robber (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Messiah

    But it would have been a lot more practical to rush a guy who's armed with a black powder revolver.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:13:57 PM PST

  •  If this is a joke... (0+ / 0-)

    Then why are Democrats proposing laws that will leave people no other choice but do exactly that?

    Should I link to the numerous comment replies I've gotten here in just the past few days, where apparently serious progressives are telling me that I shouldn't be allowed the means to defend myself and that if confronted by an attacker I should rush at them like a retard? I mean, I really wish I was taking that out of context, but those are the responses I've gotten.

    Oh, not just that, but in rushing them, I'm also supposed to somehow preserve the life of the guy shooting at me. If in the struggle the gun is turned on him or he falls and splatters his head on a table corner, that would make me a murderer.

  •  I was blown away when I saw this comic in today's (0+ / 0-)

    Sacramento Bee. Do they often print your stuff?

    Henceforth I ask not good fortune. I myself am good fortune. Walt Whitman

    by Sacramento Dem on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:02:58 PM PST

Click here for the mobile view of the site