#770 – Working for a living…
A few people have contacted me via Facebook and told me that they are really enjoying these “character-based” story lines and really like learning more about the backgrounds of Marc and Joey. I hope that goes for everyone else here who hasn’t yet contacted me or left a message in the comments section. I’m enjoying writing and drawing them as well – I just hope it shows.
Okay, now for something a little more serious.
I’ve always tried – for the most part – to steer clear of many controversial subjects in this blog post because I never wanted to offend anyone and, well, given the current atmosphere in today’s society, it seems that these days, if you offend someone or disagree with them, they boycott, protest or try to get others to boycott your product. Quite frankly, I don’t have the number of fans in which I could actually survive even ONE boycott – so I tried to adapt a very similar philosophy like Michael Jordan’s in the sense that he tried to stay away from political issues his whole career because, as he was fond of saying, Democrats and Republicans both wear NIKE’s and both drink Gatorade.
That being said, with the events of last week, it is inevitable that Facebook, Twitter and other social media outlets are erupting in the predictable “gun control” debate. Now, let me be clear from the beginning… I’m not against the NRA or even owning a gun. I’ve shot hunting rifles and pistols before. In fact, when I was in college, my roommate had a Glock .9mm and, on very rare ocassions, we would go to the local shooting range and he’d let me shoot a few rounds with his Glock.
Now, what amazed me the most was how truly seductive the gun felt firing it. Likewise, I was quite taken back and shocked at how accurate I was with something I only shot a few times with absolutely no practice – and almost less training. It was truly a scary experience simply because it made me realize how devastating that weapon could be if my targets were made of flesh instead of paper. It was an experience I never forgot.
But it also made me realize that if more people actually went to a gun range and shot a few weapons, they would quickly learn respect of the weapon and how easy it is to take a life with such a weapon.
So where am I going with all of this? Well, on Facebook, in response to the “we need more gun control”, I’m reading the usual rebuttal of “well, if just one responsible gun owner was packing that night, there would have been less killing”. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but I’m sure you’ve read similar type responses and this is what I am getting at right now.
I apologize in advance to those that think I’m going on an anti-gun rant and are easily offended by what I am about to say but I find that train of thought completely bizarre and I’ll tell you why… the perp who committed this crime was decked out head to toe in essentially bullet proof riot gear. The theater was dark, filled with smoke and a hundred people scrambling and panicking for their lives. To think one person – one trained person – would have the skills, the calmness and the SUPER HUMAN SKILLS to take out the perp in one shot is beyond fantastical. And that’s really the problem I have.
I don’t have a problem with people owning guns. What I have a problem with is people who think they are super human BECAUSE they have a gun. I think this belief that because someone is packing heat that they will somehow one day be a heroic Riggs in Lethal Weapon is beyond comprehension.
There’s a very humorous scene in the original Die Hard when Agents Johnson and Johnson are flying through Los Angeles in a helicopter and talking about how many hostages they expect to be killed and when one Johnson answers “25 -30%, tops”, the other Johnson answers “I can live with that”. It’s humorous because it’s fantasy. It’s escapism. It’s not real.
So when I hear people say someone with the right training and packing heat could have saved everyone in that theater last week without any casualties, I say that’s ALSO fantasy and escapism and anything but real. It’s only my opinion, of course, but had there been anyone else in that theater shooting, only more death and bloodshed would have happened. Maybe the perp would have been killed – eventually – but there also might have been 25-30% more deaths too and no one should be able to live with that. Responsible and trained gun owner or not.
But hey, what do I know? I just draw funny pictures with a pencil.
If I were a proper troll, here’s where I’d say you’re wrong and your mother is a hamster. Too bad for all of us I’m hopelessly rational and boring.
I actually agree with you that even if anyone in that theater had a fire arm, that would not have stopped the Aurora shooter from causing the devastation he did. It was a dark, smoky theater filled with panicked people running frantically and randomly for their lives. The most expert marksman in the world wouldn’t be able to land a shot on a perpetrator in that circumstance without serious risk of injuring or killing one of the patrons himself. That’s just reality.
But you’re right in that it seems like a lot of pro-gun advocates do have this sort of cowboy fantasy of being that one guy who was packing heat to save the day. How often does that actually happen outside of home invasion scenarios? The odds of being in “the right place at the right time” and having their gun on them and being in a position to use it effectively are astronomical. In the real world, when it’s time to pull out one’s weapon to address a situation, the damage is already done by that point.
I too must agree with you. I was in the Navy and served aboard a nuclear submarine. As part of our training in shipboard security the instructors skirted the thin edge of almost beating into us the concept of target identification and collateral damage. The first was to be as close to 100% as possible and the second as close to zero as possible. Plain and simple, if you could not take down the target without causing unacceptable damage, DO NOT TAKE THE SHOT. In the Navy that usually was damage to possibly critical equipment. In the theater it would have been every shadow or shape (including the gunman) because of the confusion and distractions. So yeah, in short, no safe return fire was possible inside the theater.
I’m really enjoying the character-based storylines, in addition to your original gag-based stories. I like the mix. And I find your characters interesting so I want to know about them.
@Jules — I hope you’re not trying to cast aspersions on hamsters. I know many fine, upstanding hamsters.
One more little point against the “hero cowboy” fantasy scenario — it can only possibly work if the responsible gun owner is *not* a victim of the first, unexpected salvo.
I didn’t hear any of the “gun-fight in the dark” bragging. Will this lead to theater marshalls, much as we have air marshalls on planes?
And I love the faucet-fixing euphemism. Keep it up.
I’ve always wondered about that scenario. It works fine if one and only one person in the attacked crowd is armed.
But say Self Defender #1 (SD1) sees the assailant, draws, and returns fire. In the confusion (especially in a dark theater) SD2 sees only SD1, but his line of sight is blocked and he can’t see the assaulter. SD2 thinks SD1 is the assailant, and fires on him. Repeat for SD3, who sees only SD2 and the assailant, and opens on both of them. By now SD1 is receiving fire from two directions (the assailant and SD2), attempts to defend against both, and draws the attention of SD4, who’s already firing on SDs 2 and 3.
The idea that a responsible gun owner with a proper concealed permit would aimlessly fire in a crowded theater without a clear, clean shot is absurd. It isn’t a “cowboy” fantasy. I absolutely DREAD the thought of using a firearm on anyone (crazy or not) as it requires I take someone else’s life. I don’t know anyone of all of my friends who own guns who “wishes he/she was there to take him out” or anything like that. We’re all VERY happy we were no where in sight. In this instance, due to the preparations and environment (dark theater and all) it is very likely that anyone with a firearm wouldn’t have been able to quickly/easily end the situation. I don’t know any responsible publicly known gun owner saying the opposite (I’m certain trolls claim they could have done something, having never pulled a gun with the intent to harm a human – reality is way different than imagination).
What I do know, having said all of that, is that if I were there, I would have greatly preferred to have my firearm with me in case it did come up where I did have a clean clear shot I would have the option to take the shot as opposed to being unarmed and my options limited to hoping he misses me and mine.. The situation of using a gun to end a situation *does* actually happen frequently (websites exist that are devoted to pointing this out from police reports and the back pages of newspapers) both inside the home and outside the home.
Hey Chris,
I think people who are using the shooting for either side are using an example of an extreme situation and as a result makes a poor argument for either side.
It is my opinion that this guy would have found a way to kill people even if his access to guns were limited. Who is to say he would not have built a bomb that would have killed everyone in the theater. If this guy really wanted to kill a bunch of people he would have found a way.
If everyone in that theater had a gun or half a dozen, or just one. Who is to say it would have made it better or worse.
I do not think gun ownership pro or con should be judged by the action of one extreme person.
Brian
None of us were there, so none of us can comment on what would have or would have not worked. I know several of my police and army friends have stated that more than likely an armed civilian would have made the situation worse because of the darkness, smoke and chaos.
We all wish somehow this could have been averted, but face it, it happened and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Do we need armed police in theaters? No. Do we need more citizens packing heat? No. And I’m a former card carrying NRA member who once marched in protest with his rifle to assure gun rights were preserved. But the fact that we can’t even have a conversation about any form of gun control is ridiculous. I have owned many guns in my life (all rifles, no handguns) and get as much thrill as the next guy when I’m hunting or shooting at the target range. But these assualt rifles with 100 round clips are just stupid. Even the ARMY considers 30 rounds enough. Why do civilians need 100?
We need to have a conversation. But it has to be calm, level-headed and logical. Given the current state of American politics… that won’t happen soon.
I despise guns. I’ve had numerous pointed at me, I’ve had some shoved in my face. I have friends and close family members who are gun owners. They are responsible human beings. I have family and friends who are in the armed services, and I have family and friends who are in law enforcement.
I understand the need for a gun for the purposes of hunting. I understand someone who wants a gun for self defense. I understand people who enjoy the sport of shooting (target practice and the like). I don’t understand the need to protect people for owning assault rifles. I don’t understand the need for people to be able to buy extended clips for hand guns that let you shoot 20-30 more bullets. Those aren’t designed for hunting, or protection or even for target shooting. They are designed to kill other people, and a lot of them.
If there is any talk about what should be done about guns, I’d like to see something go towards the types of guns that can be legally obtained in this country. I don’t care if illegal guns are brought into this country, at least we know that they skirted a law and should be doubly punished for it.
I might still be a bit passionate about this because last friday’s incident happened close to the neighborhood I grew up in and I know some people who live in the area, and even one who was in the same cineplex of the shooting.
I’m not against guns
i’m against assault rifles
and killing others
Chris,
I totally agree with you on the whole gun issue (still waffling on the hamster bit though). In terms of Capes-n-Babes, I think that if you ever come upon a storyline that really hits close to home for you, run with it. If you’re honest about the storyline – the fans will appreciate it. They may not agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that your fans (your true fans) are going to stick with you, regardless of what happens. I know I wouldn’t quit reading if you posted something I disagreed with (might call you a hamster derivative, but that would be the worst of it).
Because you said it would happen on FB, I feel obliged.
*ahem* ” You are a socialist, liberal communist because of your blog post today.”
And I don’t think that bullets flying in all directions is a good idea. I’m not for gun control, I’m for moron control.
I agree. I am often called a “smart a**” for some comment I have made. To which I reply “Thank you, I would rather be a smart a** than a dumb s**t. There are too many of one and not enough of the other.”
The comments above are thought provoking. The only gun I’ve fired was a .22 rifle for target shooting. I lived in NYC during the terror of Son of Sam. The 2 girls shot in Queens were less than 1/2 mile from my home. I agree with the “moron control.”
As to the “plumbing” issue, this what happens when people talk at cross purposes. I can’t wait to see what happens to Marc when the penny finally drops!
Chris you totally need to make that bumper sticker. I think you did a great job balancing your thoughts without alienating anyone. Hopefully with my post tomorrow I can do the same.
Just want to point out a responsible gun owner ending a deadly situation – without shooting anyone – http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
I’m a proponent of legal concealed carry, Chris. You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the tactical situation in the Aurora theater. It was no doubt an absolute tactical nightmare, and anyone who might have stopped the shooter would have had to come up behind him, seen him blasting away, and shot him at near point blank range.
I have never seen a discussion of legal concealed carry where I had any doubt that those who do so are cognizant of Col. Cooper’s four rules at all times. As L. Neil Smith said, if you always obey them, you never come to grief.
1. Every gun is always loaded. You NEVER assume otherwise.
2. NEVER allow a gun under your control to point at something you are not willing to see destroyed.
3. NEVER shoot at a target you cannot identify.
4. NEVER shoot when you are unsure of your backstop, where the bullet may go if you miss.
The reason that we CCW propnents often bring up defensive gun use is because it DOES happen, a LOT. Most often, it’s people presenting a handgun when confronted by potential assailants, and watching the perp(s) run off.
As for artillery: It wasn’t rifles or other small arms that the British were marching to confiscate at Lexington. It was artillery pieces. I reckon person responsible enough for a firearm is responsible enough for a mortar, belt-fed .50 cal, or whatever else. As our government has graduated from warrantless wiretapping to execution without trial, I think having the means to fight back against whatever portion of its armed personnel (which includes members of over a dozen departments besides defense — including HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES) are willing to ignore our rights is becoming more important than ever.