Friday Cartoon: Guns, cars and… justice?

I have a lifetime membership in the NRA and I know that guns are more often used to kill yourself, a friend or a family member.

I interpret your comic like this:

Kill a friend or family member, go to jail. Kill someone you don’t know and go free.

I think the difference is that there are cultures within the country where guns are OK and cultures where they are not OK. Because of this non-OK culture, gun deaths are treated as criminal, as opposed to collateral damage. Because cars are OK everywhere, car deaths are viewed as a cost of doing business, and are perfectly acceptable.

People don’t realize that they are exactly the same. Intelligent, responsible use is required for both, and misuse, whether deliberate or unintentional, must have consequences as steep for the user as for the victim.

Some serious truth here. The teenager who killed my friend with his mother’s SUV got a ticket for driving without a license. That kind of carelessness with a gun would (or least should) have resulted in actual punishment, rather than a few bucks paid out (I’m sure) by his parents.

The sad truth of the matter excellently captured.

Should be mailing this to the DA’s…

Best cartoon ever.

If you look at the stats, most automobile deaths are suicide not homicide.

The number of 2007 MVA deaths from the NHTSA

Occupants
Passenger cars 16,520
Light trucks 12,413
Large trucks 802
Buses 37
Other/Unknown 629
—————————–
TOTAL Occupants 30,401

MotorCyclist 5,154

NonMotorist
Pedestrian 4,654
Pedal-Cyclist 698
Other/Unknown 152
———————————-
Total NonMotorist 5,504

Grand Total 41,059

% of MVA deaths that are cyclists 1.69%

That cartoon assumes that people that kill with cars are even charged with anything requiring a court appearance. They never even looked for the guy that tried to kill me with a motor vehicle.

What’s that circle thing in the sky out the right window?

I did not know these things were equivalent. Since when was an auto designed with the sole intent of being a weapon?

As someone who has had a grandfather shot by an armed robber and a brother murdered by a thief who was stealing a garbage can, I really appreciate this cartoon. My brother’s murderer intentionally ran him down with a Dodge van to resist apprehension for stealing a garbage can. The fifty foot long trail of cloth, skin, blood flesh and bone that was ground into the asphalt combined with the unarguable fact that the van started from rest left no doubt that this killing was intentional. Yet the jury refused to convict for intentional murder or even first degree assault. The fact that the killing was committed during the commission of a robbery (and the defense attorney attempted to convince the jury that it wasn’t Robbery 1 because the garbage can wasn’t worth more than $50) was the only factor that earned the perp a conviction for felony murder and thus a significant sentence. The perp actually got 25 to life rather than 13 yes and out in 7 because I took the liberty of pointing out to the judge that the 28 yr old perp’s 16 yr old live in girlfriend was pregnant which is prima facia evidence of statutory rape which allowed the judge to classify him as a sex offender.

I realize that this post seems inconsistent with my comments on the Fornshell/Santos post. It seems that spokers have difficulty understanding that there is a difference between an accident and an intentional assault.