![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-x7_mwi5EYyZJxpzNqsvkYATDseYTHIovP09YKrIctspB17DY_5s2AeackCCaZqX14NV-rcs5S81-anUoEkQcrbMqc9hATVpw0uU3hH1tyIbe0iq0Jfe5iTwGlJaoODZXAOt_Kg/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
Poor Taste?
This editorial cartoon by Jim Morin was published in yesterday's Miami Herald, the same day a Miami-Dade police officer was buried.
Was this in poor taste? I think so. How about you?
Was this in poor taste? I think so. How about you?
Labels: Jim Morin
posted by Robert at 10:05 AM
15 Comments:
Beyond poor taste. But whoever charged the liberal moral authority of having any morals in the first place?
The poor taste would have been justified if the cartoonist were making a reasonable point. But all he is doing is using a facile visual juxtaposition to demagogue the Second Amendment. You could easily make the same point about automobiles, lawnmowers or surgical instruments that he is making about guns. Someone was killed! Ban the instrument! The cartoonist should explain why criminal behavior by a few individuals justifies depriving everyone else of their freedom.
How about a cartoon showing someone who was hurt by malicious accusations spread by irresponsible journalists, with the text of the First Amendment in the background? I don't think we'll see that anytime soon in the Miami Herald, NYT etc.
The most amusing thing I find about liberals is how they are completely oblivious to their own irony. The same liberals who decry the Bush administrations alleged violations of civil rights through the Patriot Act, have no problem doing the same thing by banning firearms.
Bush is leading this country down a slippery slope by listening in on terrorist phone conversations, but they see nothing wrong with repealing a constitutional ammendment that grants all individuals the right to bear arms.
If they were trying to sneak this by, I would understand it. But the truth is they see no correlation between their belief that "civil rights" are untouchable, yet they can decide which civil rights you are entitled to.
I think Morin's outrage for violent criminals is were it ought to be.
Criminals are outside the system, violating laws at will; that's why they are criminals. The criminal in THIS case used someone else's ID to procure the weapon he used to murder the cop and injure three others. If the assault weapons ban had been in place, he wouldn't have had an AK-47.
When the system is distorted to AID the criminal, then our outrage should be aimed as much at the system as the criminal.
It's not only liberals that support more coherent control over access to assault weapons. Rudy Guliani, a Republican, fought successfully to limit possession of assault weapons in New York City. And guess what? The murder rate dropped 66% during his administration. Sure, there were other factors that contributed to that drop, but it's still worth noting.
If that murderer had had to rely on using a car to attack those police, they'd have stood a better chance than facing down a machine gun.
BTW, I am opposed to appealing the 2nd ammendment. I just think we need to be more selective on who gets weapons capable of killing busloads of people with a single magazine load of ammo.
c.j.,
Don't you think the image of a shot and blood soaked police officer on the day of a local officer's burial may be just a tad offensive? There are better ways to make a point, even a flawed one as Morin's, without having to be over the top and sensationalistic.
Oh wonderful. Another right-wing fainting spell over a cartoon, so you can ignore the issue.
Moveon, people, and stop the mau-mauing.
Moveon.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Robert, I do not find it as offensive as the fact that the criminal had little trouble getting a sub-machine gun that he then used to shoot down that office, and send three others to the hospital.
Morin's intent was to remind us that a terrible thing happened. We didn't put that weapon in that thug's hand, but we didn't keep it out of his hands, either.
Outrage is a reasonable response, but be outraged at the man who murdered someone, not the man who reminded us how it happened.
c.j.,
I'm not outraged by the cartoon. I wasn't happy with it, obviously, but outrage is something else.
Anyway, the criminal (whom by the way I AM outraged about) had to use a false identity to purchase the weapon. Why? Because as someone with a criminal record, he probably couldn't purchase one on his own. Therefore, he resorts to breaking the law to purchase the weapon. What's to say he wouldn't have attempted another handgun had the attempt to purchase the AK-47 failed?
The law is already in place to deny criminals access to weapons. Unfortunately, as long as you have bad people out there more than willing to do bad things, they will find ways to get weapons into their hands, ban or not. That's the sad fact that we should ALL be outraged over and find a solution to, not displaying a cartoon of a dead police officer drenched in blood while the officer's family and friends are preparing to bury him.
C.J.,
You don't know what you are talking about. The AK in question was not a machine gun, it was a semi-automatic that is functionally identical to common hunting rifles. Such weapons are rarely used in crime. Giuliani reduced crime in NYC by aggressively prosecuting minor crimes, like squeegee extortion, whose perpetrators also commit more-serious crimes, by using new methods of tracking crime by neighborhood, and by making police accountable for reductions in crime rates. Guns were already effectively banned in NYC, so the "assault weapons" issue is a red herring, and most NYC criminals (like criminals elsewhere) use handguns rather than long guns anyway. It is very unlikely that the restrictions on gun possession that you advocate would have prevented this or other crimes.
There are more than enough guns in this country for any criminal who wants one to get one. If the guy who murdered the police officer couldn't use an AK he would have used another gun that looked less bad to ignorant people but would have been just as deadly. Bans on semi-automatic weapons have as little effect as did all of the other failed laws that came before them. The only policy that has been shown to work is the policy of severely punishing violent criminals.
"It is very unlikely that the restrictions on gun possession that you advocate would have prevented this or other crimes."
And yet, since the ban has been lifted, gun crimes using these weapons have increased every quarter. Giuliani himself credits the ban as a major part of the 67% drop in the murder rate in NYC under his administration.
BTW, I do understand that the AK-47 is not a machine gun; it IS a SUB-machine gun. I should proof these comments better.
The cop is still dead whether is was a machine gun or not, and idiots are whining about a cartoon.
C.J.,
What's the deal with you calling people whining about the cartoon idiots? Up to now, this discussion, and the other one on the girl, have been civil.
So we disagree. I think Jonathan's solid points pinned you to a corner and you have no other answer than to resort to calling us idiots, because of course, you're so much smarter and enlightened.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathon didn't pin me anywhere. The fact is that the cartoon has no importance in the greater scheme of things, and people gunning cops down do.
If the cartoon offends you more than the fact that a criminal got hold of an assault weapon without breaking a sweat, I'd have to say that's pretty idiotic. And if you think that means that I'm calling you an idiot, then go review the facts and consider the possibility that I might not be wrong.
C.L.,
(Sigh!!)
Did it ever occur to you that my criticism of Morin's cartoon was out of respect for the family of the slain officer?
Also, where and how do you determine that my "outrage" at the cartoon supersedes that of the act itself? If you go back to a post I did from Sep. 14th, you will see that I honored the work that officers do to protect us day after day. Quite obviously, it was that heinous act that prompted my post that day.
The killer didn't only have to break a sweat obtaining the weapon and killing the officer, he obtained the weapon ILLEGALLY. Does that register with you, sir? Does that make sense? Hell, if it makes sense to this idiot, then it must make sense to you.
Tell me which law enabled the guy to buy the weapon with a stolen ID, then I'll buy into your argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home