tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post113024473455044923..comments2024-03-28T03:24:03.551-04:00Comments on MYRANT: SRBissettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-1130794985344582622005-10-31T16:43:00.000-05:002005-10-31T16:43:00.000-05:00Arctic Luke:OK, bully for you. I don't make the fo...Arctic Luke:<BR/><BR/>OK, bully for you. I don't make the former, I have made the latter. See above comments/replies for my point, if you missed it.SRBissettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-1130794643403986942005-10-31T16:37:00.000-05:002005-10-31T16:37:00.000-05:00Thanks for your comments, brumbarr, much appreciat...Thanks for your comments, brumbarr, much appreciated. However:<BR/><BR/><I>"Steve, you're flat-out wrong about the civil lawsuit thing."</I> <BR/><BR/>Well, I was glib -- I'll post further on that here, I haven't the time I'd like right now to address the point -- but not "flat-out wrong."<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"The point of the legislation is that business engaged in legal commerce should not be subject to politically-motivated harassment or "revenge" lawsuits."</I><BR/><BR/>That is "the point" as articulated by those who support the legislation, but narrowly intepreting/assigning parameters defined by caricaturing lawsuits against gun manufacturers as being "politically-motivated harassment or 'revenge' lawsuits" in the context of such an open-ended law is glib, too. <BR/><BR/>Many of the key lawsuits -- such as the New Orleans case, detailed in all its intricacies by Peter Harry Brown and Daniel G. Abel in the book <B><I>Outgunned: Up Against the NRA</B></I> -- were prompted by police departments and entire cities that were so fed up with the inability to enforce any form of regulation, control, or sane restraints on gun-trafficking traceable to increasingly devastating homicides. As firearm technology enjoyed vast refinements in the 1990s (laser sights, armor-piercing bullets, etc.), the firearms were simultaneously becoming more lethal and more readily available on urban streets, while safety devices were woefully inadequate when they existed at all and gun trafficking spun completely out of any imaginable control. The NRA has carried major stick in Washington, and this is the ultimate revelation of that political power; legal recourse was all that was left to cities like Chicago and New Orleans, and to glibly dismiss those suits as "politically-motivated harassment or 'revenge' lawsuits" distorts the core issues beyond recognition (which the NRA does quite effectively). <BR/><BR/>As Wendell Gauthier stated almost to the week seven years ago, "We are taking the gun dealers to court because the political process failed us." <BR/><BR/><I>"Put another way: it's one thing to sue GM for making an unsafe car; it's quite another to do so because you hate cars and hate GM for making them."</I><BR/><BR/>The presumption in your statement inherently misstates the issue: <BR/><BR/>Cars are not manufactured to blow big holes in things or kill, they are manufactured as transportation devices. Injury, destruction, and death can be consequences of unsafe vehicles (and, more often, unsafe driving/drivers). However, guns are not manufactured to do anything but fire metal projectiles (now customized to maximize their destructive power) with greater accuracy and at greater speeds (as projectiles, and in terms of increasing rapid-fire quantities of projectiles). That is what they <B>do</B>, and all they are intended to do.<BR/><BR/>The equation of guns and cars is specious and obfuscating; if you want to get into cigarettes and guns, let's dance. <BR/><BR/>And for the record, I made it quite clear I didn't "hate" guns. I've grown up with them, I am a solid shot, but I choose not to have them in my home any longer. However, I face greater risk of facing legal prosecution for having published <B><I>Taboo</B></I> than I ever did for having a firearm in my home, and that is what prompted my post and was clearly stated as its context. <BR/><BR/>I am only emphasizing the absurdity of the greater legal threat those who write/draw/publish now face in comparison to that faced by firearm manufacturers. <BR/><BR/>You are twisting what I've posted into an anti-gun screed, which is not what I posted. <BR/><BR/>I'll respond to your Brady Bill paragraph when I have more time, but do want to follow through to your concluding comments:<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"Steve, some of us go to bat for the Bill of Rights ACROSS THE BOARD. That means cutting checks to Comic Book Legal Defense Fund _and_ NRA _and_ ACLU and so on..."</I><BR/><BR/>If the CBLDF and ACLU had the lobbying clout of the NRA, we wouldn't be having this online conversation. For reasons I'll go into in discussion of the Brady Bill, the former two organizations have my support; the NRA does not.<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"I am curious, though: Do you extend your "rapacious corporate greed" critique to those who make and sell books and movies?"</I><BR/><BR/>I have plenty to say on that topic, but I repeat: books and movies are not, in and of themselves, created or manufactured to inflict harm. They are, in and of themselves, as objects, inert, stationary, and of little real threat as objects. Guns exist only to be fired. They are, in and of themselves, often lovely constructions -- I dig that -- but their intent is to fire projectiles at great speeds efficiently and with great accuracy. Books exist to be read; movies exist to be viewed. <BR/><BR/>Bringing us to:<BR/><BR/>Re: <BR/><I>"Ideas, as Lenin famously said, are far more dangerous than guns. Books like THE TURNER DIARIES are worse than a roomful of rifles because they tell to take those rifles and murder people with them. The rifles have no opinion on the matter."</I><BR/><BR/>If I didn't believe in the power of images and words, I'd be neither an artist or a writer. I am fully aware of the potential and the history of books, images, speeches, ideas prompting much harm -- but ALL books, images, speeches, ideas are not inherently, by definition, in and of themselves, dangerous. <BR/><BR/>ALL guns are, by the nature of their intent and being, inherently, by definition, in and of themselves, dangerous. They exist only to fire projectiles with rapidity, efficiency, and great accuracy. That is what they do. That is all they are meant to do. That is what they are manufactured to do. <BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><I>"I defend such loathesome stuff on account of the 1st Amendment, but let's not be coy: You are in far more peril from what's in your neighbors hearts than from what's in their gun racks."</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed, but I am in far less peril if my neighbor comes at me with a stick or boomerang or blade -- or, for that matter, with a book or rolled-up comic or videocassette or movie -- than if he sets up on the road above my house with an Uzi and lets loose.<BR/><BR/>This does not, per se (as you would have it), mean I want to empty my neighbor's gun rack, or that I want the government to come in and empty it for me. Hell, he can fire that fucking Magnum of his over that bird-seed-raiding bear's head at 3 AM all summer, for all I care. <BR/><BR/>I just find it ridiculous that I'm more vulnerable for what I DRAW and WRITE and PUBLISH than if I manufactured that Magnum for my neighbor to blast at the fucking bear with.SRBissettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15861891.post-1130791333562075602005-10-31T15:42:00.000-05:002005-10-31T15:42:00.000-05:00I'll post thourough replies, as time permits. Let ...I'll post thourough replies, as time permits. <BR/><BR/>Let me tackle your comment, Jim:<BR/><BR/>That's a sorry news story, indeed, but those kid's motives are unknown at this time (as far as the available reporting online I could find), nor are his actions representative of any definable group, orientation, or movement, Jim. I know countless Goths, with and without guns, and they're just people -- just people. Some of them are really great, funny, talented, and creative people. <BR/><BR/>Consider the following, and the wrong-headedness of applying your line of logic to it:<BR/>__<BR/><BR/>http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-us-12-l13&flok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050101%2F2233197210.htm&sc=1110<BR/><BR/>[January 1, 2005 AP news story]<BR/><BR/>36 Children Injured in N.D. Sled Accident<BR/><BR/><BR/>MINOT, N.D. (AP) - Thirty-six children were injured in a sledding accident during an all-night New Year's Eve<BR/>party hosted by a religious organization. <BR/>Three of the children were hospitalized, but all were in stable condition Saturday, hospital officials said.<BR/>The others were treated and released. <BR/>Police Sgt. Winston Black said more than 100 children ages 12 to 19 attending a Youth for Christ event gathered at a high school around 4 a.m. to slide down<BR/>a hill using sleds built out of cardboard boxes. A sign posted on the hill prohibited sledding. <BR/><BR/>The children and Youth for Christ staff piled eight to 12 passengers on the sleds, then went down the hill in<BR/>quick succession, Black said. ``The sleds struck rocks, a light pole and each other,'' he said. <BR/><BR/>Black said he did not know if the organization had permission to use the hill. Police were investigating.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Larry Stenson, director of the Minot Youth for Christ, said Saturday that the injuries happened when some of<BR/>the children went down the wrong hill - one that was much bigger than the hill organizers intended to use. <BR/><BR/>Stenson said parents of the injured children ``were gracious.'' <BR/><BR/>``They know that it was an accident,'' he said. ``I think most of them believe our intent with kids is to love them, help them - help kids grow mentally, physically and spiritually.''<BR/>__<BR/><BR/>I could hit below the belt, and cite no less than two separate events in which women attacked pregnant women, cutting them (and in the first case killing the mother-to-be) in order to remove their fetal infants. But I think you get the point: my caricaturing these tragic events by extrapolating the actions of either an unfortunately reckless and arguably stupid Christian group (in the case of the news story I did cite in detail) or homicidal zealots (in the case of the women assaulting pregnant mothers) as being de facto representative of extreme stupidity/and/or/homicidal zealousness on the part of ALL Christians is patently absurd. <BR/><BR/>"Regarding sleds, sure, people should have them if they want them -- but you want Christians to have them too??"<BR/><BR/>I am not, of course, arguing that, though that's pretty damned close to what YOU'RE saying, Jim.<BR/><BR/>It's all people. Just people. I know some devout Christian Goths -- what do you do with THAT conundrum? This is neither here nor there, but the absurdity of your statement is informed by more prejudices and presumptions than I am able to dissect in a single post.<BR/><BR/>Re: "How should YOU relate to this, Steve? Try to imagine that one of these guys came to YOUR home when YOU were out and found only YOUR wife home . . ."<BR/><BR/>I don't have to stretch far to imagine that, Jim, given a family crisis I had to deal with last year. The fact was, the young man who so derailed and threatened our home and peace of mind (he had, in fact, threatened my life) wasn't twisted by "living in a society that publishes so much material that is so focused on evil and violence," but apparently by his life situation, which included being raised by born-again former drug-addict religious zealots who abandoned him at age 18, leaving him homeless to fend for himself. I can no more extrapolate (much less state with the absolutism you assign motives to the "16-year old Goth kid" you do not know, but only read of in the news) what TRULY drove him to his acts than I can state without question the role religion did or did not play in his actions -- which, by the way, I dealt with via the police and (by his own decision) the courts. Relevent to the topic at hand, I in fact turned over the shotgun in my home to the police at the time, to ensure any violence that might arise would not involve firearms in our home (thankfully, the violence that arose was minor, and none of it as terrible as it might have been).<BR/><BR/>Our civilization provides certain tools to work with -- including, yes, guns -- and I chose what seemed to me the most rational and compassionate path to deal with what was a very real, pressing, and emotionally damaging crisis. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, it could be argued, with some justification, that religion has caused far more destruction, death, and harm than anything we're discussing here. Our current global state of affairs could be presented as a prime example -- but that, too, would be a specious and prejudiced argument to present, as clearly religion has also inspired many great works and positive changes for cultures, populations, and individuals.<BR/><BR/>You've muddied the waters with your comment, Jim, and I've no reason in my world to be more afraid of Goths with guns (BTW, that Goth teen didn't have or apparently need a firearm) than I would be of Mormons with guns or Seventh-Day-Adventists with guns or Buddhists with guns. In fact, I would probably have a much better chance with the Goth, given circumstances and the bent of my nature.<BR/><BR/>"By beholding we are changed" -- the role horror fiction/films/art has played in my life, and that of many I know or have had the good luck to meet, has been positive and beneficial. It is part and parcel of who I am, and I'm not a threat to anyone. Well, except the mice this time of year. It is, after all, mouse holocaust (as noted in prior posts) in the Bissette household. <BR/><BR/>Restated for all comments here (which I will respond to more fully when I have time):<BR/><BR/>My point, pure and simple, was that under the current proposed law, gun manufacturers would enjoy indemnity that is NOT available to cartoonists or publishers. <BR/><BR/>That Mike Diana or Berni Wrightson or Steve Bissette are now more vulnerable for prosecution than Smith & Wesson, Colt, Glock, Ruger, or Raven Arms is ridiculous. That the publishers at Eros and comics retailers who sell adult comics face greater risk of legal prosecution than the manufacturer of the AR-15 assault rifle is a sorry state of affairs. That making marks on paper in patterns that inpreted by a viewer could be considered "horrific" or "harmful" is now a less protected right than the mass manufacture of firearms or armor-piercing shells, which are manufactured solely for destruction ("amusement" or "collectibility" is not the point of the technology), is insane. There are no marks I can make on a piece of paper, however they are interpreted by anyone's eyes or mind, however deranged, that in and of itself would shred flesh and bone, pulp organs, splinter internally into multiple explosive fragments, and blow a ragged seven-inch hole out of someone's back as it exits.<BR/><BR/>Do I make myself a bit clearer?SRBissettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426874992235196378noreply@blogger.com