Those among us that carry guns are,by that very fact, expressing a lack of confidence in our own community.A community that allows guns is less civilized than one that doesn't.There is a reason gun violence in the US is higher than other developed countries,and it's attitudinal.We are a violent society and growing more so.We justify ourselves in a hundred ways,but the simple fact remains:the more guns, the more gun violence.

If you really want to protect your family,pay off your debts,grow as much of your own food as possible,and get as much education as possible.Those are things that will make your family more secure, whereas arming yourself is a feel good solution that only puts you and society more at risk.

I thought I would try this out just to get the discussion started.

Yawwwwwwwn. Old news. And by the way, in order to legally carry a gun...let's say in a State Park or anywhere for that matter...you must have it registered and carry a permit. News flash...significantly more than not, the people that use guns to commit crimes don't have permits. Does that tell you anything? But, the law abiding citizens can't carry them? Mmmkay...

I will say that I don't agree with guns in bars.

[Stop that, najones75. Yawwwwwwn. Those things are contagious.]

This is just another overdone anti-gun 'toon.

There are very darn few "Gun-Free Zone" signs in peoples' yards...haven't seen one in fact. Evidently those hypocrites inside want the bad guys to _think_ they have enough testosterone to defend themselves and family without actually saying so.

Care to support your claim that guns breed violence by citing the independent studies/crime stats showing that, nucanuck? England/Australia stats do not support that claim...much the opposite.

Before guns, we had lots of violence -- the big guys against the little guys. Remember the guys riding around wrapped in tinfoil with long sticks and big swords, Ugg the caveman with his club, etc. Guns merely leveled the playing field, as was said of Col Colt.

Violence has been and will always be with us since Cain.

Seriously? Guns, again?

As always, your artwork is outstanding; however, as mention before...your agenda is getting kinda repetitiously boring....

One thing...the guy with the white flag won't be kicking sand in someone's face any time soon...

Bullies are afraid of those who might fight back regardless of their size/strength/gender...especially gender.

Ladies -- you should feel safer while jogging/hiking knowing there are a few law-abiding carriers out there watching your back [please -- no witticisms...]

nucanuck wrote,
"....the simple fact remains:the more guns, the more gun violence"
Actually it is not that simple. And it is not a fact. From all the research I've done on this subject, I believe the most true statement to be make on the subject would be, "Firearms have little, to no effect on crime rates in either direction." There are too many conflicting studies and statistics to draw any other conclusion.

najones75,
Sorry, no registration required for firearms in the state of Tennessee. I agree with most of the rest of your post.

rolando,
"Gun-Free Zone"="Unarmed-Victim Zone" If I were a loon intent upon racking up a body count, I know where I'd go.(Hint, it wouldn't be a police station, gun store, hunting camp, or gun range.)

As for me, I am glad that our State Legislator's are moving in the direction of increased liberty with these types of bills. Goodness knows we have enough movement in the other direction going on in this country.

Rolando, as I remember the old Charles Atlas ads, the guy who kicked sand in someones face WAS the bully!

You guys can complain about the abundance of gun related cartoons if you like, but complain to the Tennessee Legislature, not Clay. It's the General Assembly that put this issue front and center in a year that our state might be better served if they addressed economic issues.

I, for one, like this cartoon and am very glad to see a Bennett cartoon after two days without one.

I'm sure all the ladies out there are comforted by the thought that a few law-abiding carriers will be out there protecting them, rolando.

But tell me, what makes you think that the ladies aren't carriers? Oh well, I'm sure they're still glad to know that some big strong man will come to their rescue, should they need it.

I, too, was more than ready for a new toon. And, although, this one does smack of 'same song-different day', it does give me the chance to alternately to renew an old argument and scratch my head in wonderment at the audacity of this latest edition of the Tennessee Legislature.
I can understand the 'white flag' hoisted by the would-be camper because, unlike, bar and restaurant owners across our great state, our state parks won't be able to post "No Guns Allowed" signs at their respective entrances.
To clarify, the very legislature who passed these gun acts, so joyously and self-rightously, this session still will not allow those very same weapons in their midst.....
And, as the Pharoes once intoned, "So let it be written, so let it be done."
Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

OllieH and nucanuk, you two said it all so I won't reiterate just for the sake of putting in my two cents.

Thanks again, Clay, for doing what you do.

"To clarify, the very legislature who passed these gun acts, so joyously and self-righteously, this session still will not allow those very same weapons in their midst....."

Does make one wonder doesn't it? Despite that shortcoming, guns are no longer "front and center" legislatively speaking. Since 5/6 there have been 22 cartoons - 5 directly gun related and at least one in which guns became a tangential issue. These cartoons generated 140 comments. I defy someone to come up with a new argument for or against. Guns may be an emotional hot topic but hardly worth this kind of attention. Let's move on to issues that will directly impact the vast majority far more than firearms (despite the constitutional ramifications).

Wow! A deer with only one antler. BAM! BAM!

Rolando

You brought a big laugh at my house this morning.My son-in-law,an Aussie,who lives in our family home,his visiting father,a Brit,and his step mother,a Hong Konger couldn't believe you would even suggest that gun violence in their respective countries was in any way similar to the US.They think it would be an amazing bit of research that supported that claim.

Sailorman states: " Since 5/6 there have been 22 cartoons - 5 directly gun related and at least one in which guns became a tangential issue."

You're right, Sailorman, Clay has drawn on gun laws quite often in the past few months. He obviously has strong views about the responsible regulation of firearms, but I think the recent spate of cartoons on that topic reflects the news more than Bennett's own political predisposition.

Issues seem to come in ebbs and flows. They dominate the news for a few weeks or months, and then you don't hear about them for a while. If you look back further in Clay's cartoon archives, you'll see what I mean. As you noted 5 in the past 22 cartoons have been on gun related issues. In fact, you'll find roughly the same ratio going back further. In the past 53 cartoons, 10 have been on guns (if you include a cartoon on the shooting in Binghamtom, NY).

To find an eleventh cartoon on guns, however, you'll have to go back 225 cartoons. So, as much as you may think Clay's harping on the issue now, he left you guys alone for a good long time.

I had to re-read my comment, nucanuck, to see how you and yours could possibly have come up with that interpretation. Just your way of reading it, I guess.

If memory serves, with very few exceptions it is illegal to own any kind of firearm from short to long in Great Britain and has been for more or less 10 years now. Acts of violence -- including gun violence -- have absolutely soared. They are even approaching OUR level. It is illegal for anyone there to defend themselves or their families in their own home...using any method other than bare hands, never mind what the perps are armed with. They can evidently use anything. That law is enforced.

I also understand that is pretty much what is happening Down Under since they went "gunless" a few years back although my sources are not up to GB's.

Nowhere did I compare levels of violence but simply stated that England/Australia's violent crime increased dramatically after firearms were outlawed, Great Britain's the faster of the two.

Could "your" Aussies cite some cites for my further study? I would be very surprised to see anything legitimate to the contrary...but it won't be a first.

Are they gunowners, BTW?

Nice spin, OllieH.

The hiker IS the bully in my interpretation...he is what happens to bullies when they face active opposition. All of a sudden they become meek, apologetic and self-effacing.

An armed community is a polite and friendly community.

Agreed, toonfan, and oops. My bad. I thought of that just after hitting the <ENTER> key.

My wife carries - .40S&W and is a better shot than I am. I have no excuse for the error.

Valid comment toonfan. Maybe I'm just worn out with it :)

I think the cartoon is great!

I have no original comments on the carrying of guns. There have been a lot of truths posted here, and I must say that the idea of visiting State and National Parks with people carrying guns curtails what little interest I have to visit, now. I used to hike the Appalachian trail alone.

Several rapes and murders have extinguished my desires since then.

Sigh! I remember an interesting personal experience with a bear, though.

Good Lord, Clara! Don't leave us hangin' there! What happened with the bear?

My last comment on guns. This afternoon's shooting in Washington, D.C. which has probably the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. demonstrates that if a person disregards their own personal safety they can shoot almost anyone at anytime, irrespective of laws. I have no answer except that I've never owned a gun so I reduce the chances of shooting myself or someone in my family.

I reached a shelter on the trail, out of sight by several hundred feet of the picnic grounds above. It was about 3pm and I was pretty tired. I spread my sleeping bag on the bunk after doing a few camping chores, and crawled on the bunk for a short nap.

The shelters back then had only 3 sides, but faced away from the picnic grounds.

I noticed that the noise from the picnic grounds had ended and no one was coming down the trail. I guessed that most of them were day picnicers and were heading home. The area was completely deserted, although it wasn't close to dusk.

I fell asleep very quickly, and was awakened by what I thought was my own snoring. It was a huge bear standing next to me.

I sat up quickly and it must have been surprised because it scooted away and was in the woods before I could get my feet on the ground.

I told the park ranger about the incident and he said he knew the bear. He said it weighed about 500 lbs., and they would have to take it to another location if it was getting that close to the public area.

It apparantly appeared after the picnic area was cleared and didn't think anyone was left so it could raid some goodies.

No big deal because the bear was gone before I had a chance to get hysterical. That was 50 or so years ago.

Satisfied, Rolando?

(Our Spokesman-Review ran this cartoon today, so I thought I'd comment on it here.)

There are fundamentally two kinds of people in society: law-abiding; and non-law-abiding.

And there are two subsets of law-abiding people: those who choose to lawfully carry handguns for self-defense against violent criminals; and those who choose not to.

Bennett's cartoon portrays a false "hierarchy of fear" — a misguided/misinformed notion of who has legitimate cause to fear whom.

Both armed and unarmed law-abiders are, more or less, fearful of the threat of criminal violence, and understandably so. It's just that the former has taken reasonable — and lawful — measures to address that threat.

But contrary to this cartoon, unarmed law-abiders have nothing to fear from armed law-abiders, because allowing law-abiding people to carry handguns for self-defense only puts violent criminals — not other law-abiding citizens — at risk.

I think law-abiding people who oppose allowing other law-abiding people carrying handguns for self-defense have one or two issues.

First, they may fear that otherwise law-abiding people will somehow become violent criminals by virtue of the fact that they are now armed. This is a false notion that has a totemic view of handguns themselves inspiring violence in previoulsy non-violent people.

Second, they may be uncomfortable with the fact that, while others have taken reasonable measures against the possibility of encountering criminal violence, they themselves have failed to do so. This is a very real discomfort, I'm sure, but it's no reason for them to force others to go about in the same unprepared condition as they put themselves in.

Someone once said, "There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by looking uncertain and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters usually are) unprepared to deal with the hazards of life."

While you certainly don't have to arm yourself against violent crime, why do you oppose others doing so? And when they (we) do, why are you scared of them (us)?