Sneak Preview of the Cover of The Stranger This Week, Created by Dan Savage and Aaron Huffman

Comments

101
The American people demand a framable print of this historic cover. Thank you.
102
'Grats, gang, you made Mother Jones.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/stra…
103
They left out Huey Long: "Huey Pierce Long, Jr. (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935), nicknamed The Kingfish, served as the 40th Governor of Louisiana from 1928–1932 and as a U.S. Senator from 1932 to 1935. A Democrat, he was noted for his radical populist policies. At the height of his popularity, Long was shot by a gunman on September 8, 1935, at the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge. He died two days later at the age of 42. His last words were reportedly, "God, don't let me die, I have so much left to do." - Wikipedia
104
How about Police Officer Tim Brenton, murdered by Chris Montfort, who  was encouraged by Seattle's liberal's anti-police rhetoric and his loony  left UW professors?
105
Complicit - Complaisant - Complacent - close but no cigar. Compliant is the word you want - because death by duel indicates that the victim somehow has complied in his own demise because he agreed to the duel. The other words indicate some sort of meek resignation - like, oh well, go ahead and shoot me - I deserve it.
106
There are surely some that The Stranger missed.

But
A) they want a cover that looks A LOT like Palin's pic that was on her web site, and
B) they want it readable.

So they chose to limit it to 16 bars for each assassination or assassination attempts for that reason.
107
Rhett, I agree complaisant was silly of me, but I don't think your compliant has quite knocked complicit out of the running.

Complicit has the meaning not of resignation, but of responsibility, which I think is closest to Ignatz' meaning when he wondered if death by duel is "a type of assassination in which one is complacent"."

Compliant suggests agreeing to an external proposition, and since in truth Burr and Hamilton refused their friends' efforts to dissuade them, their duel represented the opposite of compliance.
108
@104.... I thought Montfort was white. Right?
109
@108

We all know that it's really NSWL, he probably had his IP address blocked, so cowardly anonymous comments are his only sexual outlet.
110
Half white but like Obama considers himself black. Hence the persecution complex encourage by the stranger and other left Qing anti police publications.
111
'cowardly anonymous comments'

Unlike your comments svensken?

Btw why shouldn't the local cop assassinations by Chris Montfort and Maurice clemmens be included?
112
gus, I think "complicit" refers to the one who kills in the duel, and "complaisant" refers to the one who was shot, who was helpful by being the one who died. Which is what I assumed you meant after I looked up the meaning...."Willing to please others; obliging; agreeable." What could be more willing to please than to allow one's self to be shot first, thereby sparing the other dueler??
113
Great cover ---- finally.......Geez, what took so frigging long to finally come up with a decent cover?

Hey, Dan, did you hear about those Super Heroes in Seattle (Holy Mother of Godzilla, WTF???)?

Perhaps you could put on a costume to make up for that misdirected support you gave to the Bush family and their war in Iraq -- to kill all those Iraqis and such?

Maybe call yourself, Doorlicker Man or something equally inane?

This cover finally makes up for the Stranger rag endorsing all those corrupt douchebags for mayor (Rice, Schell, Nickels).

But not for that lamer, Paul Constant (who hired that guy, BTW????).

Hope you included Giffords' voting record in this Stranger edition?

From her record she evidently supports the right of psychos to buy handguns with super-sized ammo clips --- too frigging bad she actually ran into one (and especially horrible for those poor bystanders -- whom my heart really and genuinely goes out to).

It's unusual that a politician is victimized by their own legislation or voting record, usually its only the rest of us poor saps who suffer.

What's that they say about karma?
114
This list is incredibly arbitrary, how do folks make it or not, why did they include Moscone but not include Huey Long, or include George Tiller but not include John W. Stephens? And of course what about Garfield??? Most glaringly of all, there are no labour leaders like Harry Simms or Sid Hatfield whose assassination led to the uprising of over 10,000 angry West Virginia miners and was only put down by bombs courtesy of the US Air Force, which is of much greater importance than whatever impotent blogging and whining will come from so-called liberals over this matter. Makes me really have no interest in what these folks have to say about political assassination in America if they are too ill-informed or arbitrary to be able to put it in context. But then that's what journalists do nowadays apparently.
115
Fun thing I'm doing now: Searching for "Map symbols," "surveyor," "-Palin," "-2011." Coming up with all sorts of legends and images. Guess what specific design I haven't come across yet.
116
One problem: Wanting to impress Jodi Foster doesn't count as political motive, so Reagan fails to meet the same criteria as the remainder of your set.
117
Canuck, if courtesy someday requires me to decline to shoot back in a duel, may my epitaph read "Complaisant? Perhaps. Non Compos Mentis? Mos Def."
118
@52 and @54: complicit
119
Anton Cermack Chicago.
120
gus, nevah, evah decline to shoot back in a duel. It would make me cry. Buckets.
121
Harvey Milk is one of my heros. Sad to have lost him, but grateful that he could be recognized in this way.
122
I'm SUPER DUPER glad that unregistered comments don't show. :-) Thanks Slog!!
123
Is there a twitter # tag for this?
124
I love it. Shooter who is a leftist/liberal and reads the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf = ITS SARAH PALINS fault. No wonder the right says the left can't think. This cover is devoid of logic and commentary. Wow.
125
All this is doing is adding fuel to the fire. Way to go, guys. I shouldn't have expected anything more from people who want to politicize everything.
126
and larry flynt
127
@124

Your a complete idiot for thinking that either of those books are tied to American politics. The shooters politics are unknown. However the simple fact of the rights rhetoric and whats happening in America is what your pea-brain can't conceive.

Welcome to Slog, you just joined a few minutes ago so I hope your not some rightwing attack dog.
128
#124

Exactly. And say, even if Sarah Palin were to be a Mastermind Devil, encouraging domestic terrorism...

Shouldn't the buck stop at Barack Obama's desk for not using his intelligence gathering to know beforehand that Jared Loughner was a balloon ready to pop!?

Why didn't our much vaulted "domestic spy network" descend of this guy who was broadcasting danger messages like a New Jersey firefly on a humid summer evening?

129
Excellent. Facebooked and blogged.
130
I wonder what Gawker will say.
131
Now do one of all the US citizens murdered by the federal government.

....

You might need more space.
132
Now do one of all the US citizens murdered by the federal government.

....

You might need more space.
133
Wow - all those guys were surveyors? Who knew?
134
For people who talk about the dangers of inflaming the political rhetoric, you really help contribute your fair share. Palin doesn't need to be beat up on any longer. She's been over for a long time.

PS Did you hear that the Stranger is a bunch of sadist bestiality necrophiliacs? They keep beating a dead horse.
135
@124 and 128: Hmm. Communist Manifesto= Left Wing. Mein Kampf = Right Wing. Guess he wanted to be fair and balanced. You know, like Fox News?
Also, let me be the elventyteenth person to call for the cover to be available as a poster.
136
You missed a white crosshair:

39th Governor of Texas John Connally Jr. was seriously wounded in the chest, thigh and wrist in the J.F.K assassination in 1963 in Dallas,TX...
138
WOW! AND TO THINK IT ONLY TOOK US WHAT, A MERE 100 YEARS, TO ACCUMULATE THOSE SIXTEEN INCIDENTS?

I'd say we have a pretty-damned-good track record. Shit like this happens VERY infrequently, and generally only at the hands of mentally sick people.
139
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Barak Obama (June 2008)

Gun metaphors and military terms are common in politics, sports and any strategic endeavor. I'll admit, I was secretly hoping the AZ nut job would show up for court in a Fox News t-shirt, and a "Mama Grizzly" baseball cap, but life is rarely that simple. This cover is retarded.
141
@140

How do you explain the ones that happened before Palin and Beck (et al.) came on the scene (Columbine, Virginia Tech)?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/8…
142
Before Palin and Beck we had Limbaugh and Gingrich. And it just keeps going.
143
Columbine, Virginia Tech ect.

These are a problem with our gun loving culture that we need to fix. The best system would be the Canadian model where people are interviewed and supply references before receiving a gun.

Which branch of our politics supplied the loose gun laws?
144
Also! Which branch of our politics destroyed our mental health infrastructure?

If Papa Reagan didn't come to mind then your wrong.
145
@25--Glad someone brought up Anton Cermak

But then, you might have to add Chicago mayor Carter Harrison, who was shot to death in his own home by a disgruntled office seeker. Kinda like Garfield... and, no doubt, plenty more mayors, etc. This country is, indeed, shaped by the gun. Consider this map a scratch at the surface, the best-known assassinations.
146
@114 Picking nits, but the US Air Force did not exist until after WWII. In 1921, it would have been the Army Air Corps, I believe.
147
@134: Krugman did a good job in a recent column talking about the difference between incivility and incitement. The British parliament is known for hilarious incivility ("sex-starved boa-constrictor," "damp rag," "miserable pipsqueak," "semi-house-trained polecat"), with little violence because of standards around incitement.

This cover could definitely count as incivil, but there's nothing here that cries incitement.
148
@140 I can't believe Maddow even dares *mention* events like "Gunman Kills 22 and Himself in Texas Cafeteria" as some kind of rational for gun vilification and restriction...

Suzanna Hupp was prohibited from carrying her defensive weapon into the cafe that day, and as a result had to watch both her mother and father get gunned down by the man who took their lives plus 20 others. If anyone has a right to dislike guns, it's her. But she doesn't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiTK4PR…

Instead she is simply angry that anti-gun activists took away her opportunity to stop the man from killing all those people, her parents included.

The same goes for the father of the girl killed this past Saturday; he isn't saying guns are the problem, and asking for them to be vilified: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj47lB1a-…

They both know it's not the tool, but the small number of deranged people who do these things. They would commit heinous crimes with other tools if they had no guns. But honest citizens with guns have the potential to stop these crimes before the police arrive -- 30 minutes too late.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it... darlin'
149
Paranoid Schizophrenia come to mind... in a country driven by both fear, aggression, belligerent egalitarianism...
150
Darlin.

When something is built specifically to kill people, you cant defend it. There were people at Saturdays event who carried guns but they chose to tackle the man instead.

But your choosing to nitpick for your own beliefs. I see that you just joined the Slog to comment on this section. Hopefully your not another right wing attack dog. Welcome to Slog.

DARLIN
151
@148: So what you're saying is that we should let anyone carry a gun anywhere...and magically only law-abiding citizens will do so?
And quit indemnifying guns. Sure, if someone's psychotic and deranged, they might make attempts on somebody's life with a different weapon if guns are unavailable. But you know what? Firearms are not only pretty damn lethal, but they're lethal at a distance and require fairly little physical strength to operate. There is no working defense against a firearm beyond taking cover, wearing body armor, or incapacitating the gunman. If I am attacked by a knife-wielding madman, for example, I can defend myself using my limbs and my clothing. It's not generally possible to block or dodge a bullet. Sure, people kill people, but guns are enablers in that regard. They make it easy and relatively clean to take a life.
153
@140" I can't believe Maddow even dares *mention* events like "Gunman Kills 22 and Himself in Texas Cafeteria" as some kind of rational for gun vilification and restriction... "

God, I know. Using 25 victims or under is sheer gall and rank exploitation on that harpie's part. Especially when you have two experts to cite on the advantages of the entire nation packing heat.
Wouldn't road rage and bar arguments be much more interesting if we all had a Glock at hand? And Super Bowl Sunday -- the murder over/under would keep bookies solvent for a year.
Maddow just doesn't get it.
154
excellent.. and of course after thinking of how much bigger this map could be maybe america could use another' it get better' project..or somehing.
155
“The shooters politics are unknown.” — “Svensven”

But that doesn't stop you and the rest of the knee-jerkers from linking two unrelated things — a poster created by an ideological opponent, and an atrocity. Using a heightened event to erode civil rights in the name of safety seems rather tyrannical to me. When did that happen last? I remember. I'm sure you were bitching about it in the comments of some other story.

156
There are several contexts to consider in the event that took place. Contexts of consideration stemming from the more personal tragedies that are exclusive to a few who would be the direct family and friends, where an emotional tie lives. We can easily imagine the context of the what took place expanding out to other American States, indeed to other parts of the globe. As it turns out the Tucson event has become a global one as all major events find themselves becoming in today's world. This map and the 'target' really have a lot to say, to me it talks of the American legal will in place that allows for gun ownership. As we already know, and this will never change, there will always be a tragedy when a gun is waiting for employment. This freedom to arms has already been argued by responsible, thoughtful and sober people and so the debates were the same. Whatever it's called the majority wins but now what I find unbelievable is that people now in this part of the world are, as I found out, considering some sort of legislation that will allow for University students and faculty alike to carry weapons at the campus. In everything that makes me who I am, I can not fathom that the concept of guns and faculty and that they even meet (HT014 and H2001). This poster has many things to say today as this event, which has become global, has not yet settles and is still healing in peoples hearts, minds and the media has still not finished chewing on it. I think the American people of course are the people who have to face this the most but it is their own children who the current generation is building a world for and that world is strongly influenced by the America on many others today so I hope they see their own child who died, a very young person, born on the day of 9/11 (a tragedy) and died on another. It's all our children that we borrow our world from, it's the future that we are borrowing, how will we leave it? Let's think about the future, our children when we use our politics because they are so important for the next future. My prayers go out to all those who died needlessly.
157
Huey Long?
158
I'd appreciate it a lot more were Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton's duel were to conform to slap fight rules rather than pistols. Or otherwise rules restricting one to shoot their adversary in the buttocks.
Then, at least one would be alive to concede that "yeah, maybe Mr. Burr had a good point, and I never would've agreed to it, but he shot me in the ass, man."
159
Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell is a great read, btw.
160
@155

Thank you for taking one sentence from my paragraph and twisting it to your desires.
161
@ Tironius 155

"Using a heightened event to erode civil rights in the name of safety seems rather tyrannical to me."

So with so many guns around in permit-free Arizona, why were no counter-shots fired, and how many more guns would've made the outcome of this unfortunate event any better after the fact?

Remember. One of the rescuers came precariously close to shooting he who disarmed the shooter because he was holding the firearm upon arriving on the scene. Ignoring this fact would be a gross act of intellectual malefeasance at the convenience of making an egregious socially negligent point.

How could more people w/ guns in a situation of pure and absolute chaos possibly make this situation any better.

I think you may have to re-think your logic a little bit before you impulsively shoot your mouth off again, thinking in your own mind that you have an infallible irrefutable crux.

Burn.
162
At least when conservatives claim that violent movies and video games lead to real-life violence, there's evidence that the killers had ever even SEEN those movies and video games.
163
Only 50-odd million liberals to go...but it's a start, I guess!
164
Andrew Jackson was the first president targetted by an assassin. A crazy house painter caught up with Jackson on Capitol Hill. Both pistols he used didn't fire and when teted later they worked fine. Jackson went after him with his cane.
165
great work. brilliant.
166
Really, is all this needed? People have been killed and all you can do is try to be clever. Very Sad!
167
@155 "Eroding civil rights" would be telling someone she can't publicly disagree with another person's politics, or criticize a political opponent based on her ideology. That's not what's happening here. Palin, Beck, and their ilk are calling out hits, not to put too fine a point on it. When people on the left criticize their opponents, they use pesky things like that person's political platform, or sometimes they make fun of them personally, that's been known to happen...but when the right does it, they use metaphors for killing. Yes, we have free speech, but we also have a responsibility to not publicly call for the deaths of those with whom we disagree.
168
ilk! ilk crossing! i'm sorry. i'm done. but yeah i'm afraid of my country, good job, press.
169
Thank you for including Dr. George Tiller. Other victims killed by anti abortion violence include: Dr. Gunn, Dr. Slepian, Dr. Britton, and James Barrett (as well as Shannon Lowery, Lee Ann Nichols, and Robert Sanderson, who were killed by bombs rather than guns). Dr. Gunn is particularly of interest, since he was shot after Operation Rescue released their "Wanted" posters, similar to Palin's crosshairs map.

But it's a small cover, and there's only so much room for murdered doctors.
170
"There are people I love who are conservative and others who are liberal, some who are libertarian and some who are socialists, there are people I love who are gay and others who are heterosexual. I love people of many beautiful hues and with many wonderfully unique accents. I call some people friends who hold doctorates and others who worked hard for their G.E.D’s. I love some people with loads of money and some without a penny. Among my friends are Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others I’m sure I’ve left out. These friends of mine, who I’m so grateful for, have a lot more in common than they have to differentiate them… after all, we are all Americans and more importantly; we are all human beings. It’s all about the Golden Rule… a multitude of religions and common sense leads us to follow it, why don’t we?" More here: http://dad-on-the-run.blogspot.com/2011/…

171
Oops, limits how much of a link you can embed I guess. Well the site is dad-on-the-run.blogspot.com and the post is called "Aftermath of the Arizona shootings: A Lesson in the Golden Rule"
172
you and the tryrannical Puritains have much in common with eachother... you accuse women who scare you of witchcraft. Random acts are scary... we must blame someone so it is'nt so scary.
173
'The right to bear arms shall not infringed upon." Gee, seems pretty clear to me.

Maybe it is time to alter this amendment in light of a modern urban population. Or maybe not. If all of you hate guns so much, get up a petition drive and begin the Amendment process. Otherwise, we have the right to bear arms. Period.

Mr. Savage has the right to equate murderous scum like Dr. Death Tiller with great men like Lincoln, because we have freedom of expression. He has the right to equate criminals like Malcolm X with flawed but true leaders like JFK for the same reason. I don't get to limit the rights of deviant idiots like Savage to speak because I find these kinds of things offensive. I don't get to do this because we have agreed that the rights we have stand or fall together. Take away the right to bear arms arbitrarily, on the emotions of the moment, and what do you think will happen to criminal civil rights, or those of free expression?

174
John Lennon -- New York, NY
175
@143 and 150

No 'branch' of the government enabled gun laws. While there are 3 branches, the legislative, executive and judicial, none of these wrote the 2nd Amendment, which was done by the Constitutional Convention of 1789.

Oh, you mean 'party?' You seem confused. Parties are not extra-governmental. For instance, the Democrat party is the one which is irrational, unable to read the Constituiton and reality challenged.

Yes, guns are made to kill. Not necessarily people, though some are designed for that, but they are designed to be lethal. There are times when this is necessary, not evil. For instance, Chamberlain did a bang up job talking Hitler out of his agressions in Europe without a shot fired! Oh....wait....

I get that you hate guns. May I make a suggestion? Don't buy one. I don't own one because I don't hunt and do have small children. The means of securing the weapon from small hands while making it available to defend my home aren't compatible. At any rate, unlike the left, I don't life in fear. I don't worry about the tiny chance that a burglar might first break into my home, and second, not run away when I holler at him while holding my Louisville slugger. My brother on the other hand owns a hunting rifle and a pistol, both for hunting. Both are in a safe when not being used for that purpose, as is true of all his friends who hunt.

This myth the left has that gun control will have any effect on violence whatever lacks any data to support it. It lacks any reasonable theory to support it. It is a stupid ploy, as most things the left dreams up, without form or substance.
176
The right to bear arms thing - I say that ammunition is the thing that should be very tightly controlled. bear all the arms you want, roll your own ammo, no problem.

buy cop killer bullets or any other ammo, better be ready to jump alot of hoops.
177
@175: "This myth the left has that gun control will have any effect on violence whatever lacks any data to support it."

Really? Hm. Some figures from the Canadian Firearms Centre (now the Canadian Firearms Program):

In 2000, there were an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which were restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there were approximately 222 million firearms including 76 million handguns. Based on population, the per capita rate of gun ownership in general was three times as high in the US. Looking only at restricted firearms/handguns, the per capita rate of ownership was almost seven times as high in the US.

For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.

For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

Now correlation is not causation, many factors affect crime rates and gun crime rates, etc. The above few data points are not absolutely conclusive, of course. But they do exist. These and other figures from other countries exist, and they can certainly support the proposal that gun control will have an effect on violence.

See, it can actually be helpful to have a non-American perspective in a discussion. It helps prevent you making ridiculous statements - like that there is no data to support gun control having an impact on violence. (And for the record, I don't hate guns. One of those 1.2 million restricted weapons in Canada in 2000 was mine, along with three of the long guns.)

Lastly, this statement is just ludicrous: "unlike the left, I don't life in fear. I don't worry about the tiny chance that a burglar might first break into my home, and second, not run away." Are you kidding me? "I must own a handgun to protect my property from criminals" is a standard right-wing trope. The fear that - absent liberal access to hand guns - ravaging meth addicts will invade one's home is almost entirely a US right-wing phenomenon.
178
Sorry, I still get back to this-

Please show how the education or mental health care programs that carefully are not named, but which Republicans have been accused of cruelly withholding from Mr. Loughner contributed to his acts.

Please show the studies which show that countries which once had legal guns (and presumably have many millions of them in private hands now) has any success at limiting them within the law.

Please, for God's sake pretty please, show how the people on Mr. Savages asanine magazine cover have a single thing in common. Gun deaths of-what, public figures? So, we've had 18 or 20 murders of public figures accross the spectrum from politics to entertainment to murderers like George Tiller or criminals like Malcolm X. For 220 years of having legal guns I'd hardly call that compelling.

In fact, given the 43 times power has been transferred from execcutive to exectutive (the number of presidents, not presidential elections) I'd say that's a good indicator of how non-violent a culture we are. A statistically insignificant number of deaths due to religion, (excluding the terrorist deaths on 9-11 I am assured were absolutely NOT comitted by 'real' Muslims, who apparently only sit in circles and peacefully sing interfaith versions of Kumbaya. After this of course, they invite their many Jewish friends to join them for a and discuss the situation in Palestine in a loving and non judgemental way) and you have the two primary causes of violence causing very little violence.

So you know what Savage? I recomend rolling your magazine up and placing it somewhere biologically specific and unpleasant. Never mind, a deviant like you would enjoy that.

179
For goodness sake, BB,

You even state that none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence.

I could say that Canada has 1.4 maple trees per citizen, who use these for maple syrup. Canada therefore has lower gun violence because they eat syrup, and we should plant more sugar maples in the States.

And really, if you don't like our gun laws, just don't buy a gun. Easy, isn't it? Or you could get your representative....Oh, forgot, you're not a US citiizen so it really isn't your business. At all. Even a little bit.
180
SB - Are you illiterate?

Seriously, are you?

"You even state that none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence."

Do I? Where? When I said "Now correlation is not causation, many factors affect crime rates and gun crime rates, etc. The above few data points are not absolutely conclusive, of course." There? Hint: that is called HONESTY. It is the recognition of the limits of the data that I quoted, and recognition that the situation vis-a-vis gun ownership and gun violence is COMPLEX - not that the link is absent.

How can you honestly read a statistic that states "For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada." and then claim that "none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence." It's a statistic ABOUT THE RATE OF GUN VIOLENCE.

Jesus H. Christ. Disagree, argue, make your own points, but don't think you can just lie about what someone else has said.

And please, stop with the "it's none of your business." It doesn't make you any more convincing.

181
In related news, Sugar Maple violence skyrockets in Canada...
182
@114 -Thank you! This cover gets golf claps for being clever and reactionary, but the list they've compiled is arbitrary at best, complete nonsense at worst.
183
Oh come on, BB

Convincing? Maybe not. But it's true. It really isn't your business. National health care is a stupid way to deliver medical care to patients, for instance. But taxpaying citizens in Canada support it, so I mind my own business about it. I'm not a citizen of Italy and while I own a house there, I don't interfere in local politics while spending time at the house. It simply isn't my business that the socialist system in force has ruined the work ethic of the Italian people. 800 or 900 years ago the hills around the village in which our house was located were laced with pathways of cut and laid stone to link the villages. After all these centuries the most of these paths are still functional. Think mini Roman road in construction technique, with lovely arched stone bridges over streams in the middle of the forest. Foot paths and log bridges would have served, but the idea of doing a thing right as the only possible way to do it existed in Italy at that time. Contrasted to that, a friend had remodel work done recently on their home next door to ours. I am a former contractor, and knew the job should have taken at most 3 months. The real time? A bit over a year, and charged as though the job should have taken a year. Italians have many endearing traits, and some fun ones and many admirable ones. Work ethic is absolutely not one of any of these. It is a pain in the rear to get my mail while there, since the civil servants at the post office are worse than useless. Train service is frequently interrupted by meaningless strikes which the strikers could not tell you the purpose of, and which never accomplish anything. Their socialist medical system is a joke and a shame, with not even the recourse of malpractice lawsuits to alleviate it. Barring actual emergencies no member of my family will ever visit an Italian health care facility. But all this is the business of the Italians. I venture no opinion while there, and do so now only to prove a point. Their country, their business.

What you wrote was in fact as I described it. Taking a few numbers about gun ownership and gun violence, admitting that corellation is not causation, and expecting me to think that Canadian gun laws are the sole reason for the difference in violence rates is not reasonable. You can write statistics all day, but unless you can prove causation between them, at the end of the day you've not proven one thing.

Like any legal form, the devil is in the details, but the bare concept of changing the 2nd Amendment to fit current needs isn't bothersome to me. It's the taking of liberties without that due process which bothers me.
184
I'll try to use smaller words.

You said: "This myth the left has that gun control will have any effect on violence whatever lacks any data to support it."

I provided data that can be used to support it.

You are wrong.

Note: I am not trying to prove the connection. As I have stated, that is a very complex question. I am simply - and successfully - demonstrating that data exists to support a connect.

But your mind is made up, and closed - on this as on so many other issues. It must be reassuring not to have to think about the complexities of things - the complexities of health care service, for example - instead falling back on simple tropes.

185
@183: It's telling that when someone has you beat in an argument, you huffily tell them that since they live on the other side of the border, it's none of their business and that they shouldn't be discussing it with you.
186
@ 185: Careful! Get Seattleblues riled and he'll be calling you "Junior" next.
187
Brilliant... if facts are irrelevant. Brilliant... if you think a man, who was so deranged that a political ad can drive him to murder, wasn't also motivated by a very similar poster that actually appeared just before his harassment of Gifford. You ignorant, deceitful media chumps like to say there's a difference between the Democrat poster and Palin poster. Really? If someone is so weak of mind that a poster can move them to slaughter, do you really think it matters whether or not they're looking at crosshairs or a bullseye?

Yeah... it's brilliant, if you're trying to rewrite history and exploit a tragic murder to advance your politics. Sick shit.

There isn't a shred of evidence that says this guy was anything other than whack job. Again, it's brilliant if you don't care about the truth and if you're twisted enough to use murder for politics.
188
Why is George "Baby Killer" Tiller listed?
189
@186

Nah. VL is pretty good at showing his youth. He doesn't need my help for the average reader to spot it.

mean, apparently someone who proves something by not proving it has me beat, in his estimation. Apparently the Canucks have a deep impact put upon them by our gun laws, though no-one has bothered to point out why, exactly. Which entitles them to help us determine those laws, if I'm reading the boy correctly. Apparently at whatever university he attends providing anecdotal or correlative data suffices to prove a point, without the need for providing links between the effect of gun violence and the supposed cause of what BB regards as lax gun laws.

Gee, hope it isn't law or one of the sciences the lad is studying....

Seems a bright enough kid though. Well...for a liberal.
190
Actually, I've got an idea for VL's future career. He could go to law school, finish his degree, and practice law for about 30 seconds in a nominal position a friend gave him at a law firm. He could teach law at a university while doing some vaguely defined thing called 'community organizing.' Then he could run for Illinois state elected office. Once in office he could totally ignore his duties to his constituency, and run for federal office. Then he could ignore those duties (hint, vote 'present' a lot) and run for president. Without any credentials but a smooth speaking style and minority status, with no experience or professional skills, he too could be president of the United States. Somehow, I think someone already did that pretty recently though... No, it's gone. I could have sworn some president did exactly this to get into office though....

Oh well, by the time VL reaches the required age to run for president most of the electorate will have forgotten how our woefully underqualified president got into office. He could run the same playbook, I guess, by then.
191
You might want to print a few extra copies of this issue. I have requests to bring back multiple copies to Utah and to send some to my poor Dem friends and relatives in AZ. Might actually have to check a bag this time.....
192
@190: Careful there! Your sheet is showing. Seattleblues, homophobia, AND racism in a tidy little package.
193
@189: Okay, calm the fuck down.
You argued that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that tighter gun laws lead to lower gun crime rates. Backyard Bombardier presented some evidence that does support that hypothesis, and admitted that while it does so, it does not do so conclusively. You insisted that because the evidence was not cut-and-dried beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof of the hypothesis, it was invalid. Backyard Bombardier pointed out his qualifier concerning the delicate relationship between correlation and causation and reiterated that the evidence did support (if not prove to be true) his statement. You then proceeded to tell a socialism horror story, skirt around responding to the point previously made, and imply that Backyard Bombardier should keep his big Canuck nose out of it, eh? I'm not saying that the evidence proves Backyard Bombardier's hypothesis correct; I'm just agreeing with him that, in contradiction to your yammering against it, it is supported by the evidence that he provided.
Problem?
194
@189, 190: Just for the record, I'm currently an undergraduate at the University of Chicago. (It's a grand old school, on par with the Ivy League colleges but a lot less pompous. Our biggest pride is the 87 Nobel Laureates who have either taught or studied at our venerable institution. Our biggest pet peeve is being confused with the University of Illinois in Chicago.) I'm currently pursuing a BIOS/GEOS double major, and I'm hoping to qualify for a specialization in ecology and evolution.
I was going to correct you on your implications concerning Barack Obama, but then I realized that perhaps I wasn't feeling quite as charitable as I had previously thought. Then I was going to simply tell you that you're wrong, but it would be unethical to expect you to simply take my word for it. So I'll just encourage you to quit being a little bitch and only talk about issues on which you are decently informed.
I'm not going to try to deny that I show my youth; I'll elaborate on my arguments with as many image macros as I want, come hell and/or high water. I'm more concerned about how you show your age; you epitomize the hidebound, set-in-his-ways old geezer who bitches endlessly about how the world isn't what it used to be, and who constantly reminds us of the colossal metaphorical stick up his ass.
195
Holy crap, Seattleblues really is the full meal deal, supersized. Homophobic AND a political and social leotard...am now firmly convinced he is Glenn Beck.
196
@195

A 'political and social leotard?' Must be a Canadian thing, eh?. Anyway the reference goes over my head. Leopard? Leonard? Nope, that doesn't make sense either. Oh well.

Glenn Beck? That's really a low blow. I've listened to him once or twice. Don't care for the man, with his end of the world hysteria and tendency to make the inherently rational point of view of any conservative look as hysterical as he is. Not that he likely believes much that he says, it just makes him buckets of money to encourage self righteous outrage in people like you. I'd bet half or better of his audience is made up of far left loonies frothing at the mouth at his every utterance.

@192

Two swings and two strikes. I neither fear not hate homosexuals. Homophobia implies both. In fact, I haven't mentioned homosexuality in this thread. I mentioned that our valiant empty suit of a president is a minority, which somehow you take as racist? Wow, the bar for racism is pretty low these days, isn't it? Call someone who is a minority a minority and it's a slam dunk, apparently. You know, us folks in th real world get a bit tired of any and all criticism of your sainted one, the messiah, the holy progressive great one, as racism. Grow up.

197
@196: "potentially rational point of view"
Fixed it for you.
198
Looks like Seattle blues bailed out on the immigration debate to lose another discussion.
199
Oh and in case you're curious Seattleblues, referring to gays as "deviant" is pretty fucking homophobic.

Maybe you didn't get that memo from REAL LIFE.
200
@177: "I must own a handgun to protect my property from criminals" is a standard right-wing trope. The fear that - absent liberal access to hand guns - ravaging meth addicts will invade one's home is almost entirely a US right-wing phenomenon.

You got that only half right. The other reason is also to protect your large and expensive arsenal of guns.

As one of my gun-nut relatives (with a closet-sized safe that is insufficient to hold all his guns, worth tens of thousands of dollars) apparently never understood, is that it's also pretty effective to start by putting a lock on your door.

Not only was his CCW weapon in an unsecured kitchen drawer, said drawer was also adjacent to said unlocked back door. A piss-drunk guy accidentally wandered into his house and started trying to cook some food in the middle of the night. Unable to reach his gun on the other side of the kitchen (thank goodness) he broke a chair over the guy and knocked him out cold.

Take-away lesson from years of NRA propaganda?

Options:
1) BUY A FUCKING LOCKING DOOR
2) Don't leave a gun where anyone can just walk in and take it
3) Have a basic alarm system
4) Make sure to keep an extra gun in your bedroom as well as in the kitchen, in case the perp manages to access one of your guns

Correct answer?

#4, obviously. If everyone had a gun, then the world would be calm and peaceful, I'm told.

Because clearly, there are busloads of home-invaders and rapists just WAITING to break into the home of some poor hillbilly carpenter who owns numerous dogs, and numerous guns... and...I guess rape him or something? Steal his collections of penthouse VHS tapes and spent .45 casings?
201
@173: 'The right to bear arms shall not infringed upon." Gee, seems pretty clear to me.

It would be, if that's what it said. Which of course it doesn't.

The second amendment is only one sentence, one would think you fucktards could remember ONE fucking sentence and at least quote it half-way decently:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.