"Tasteless" cartoon?

guns don't need to be a 'tragic part of life'
Depending on the election results, I may have to move back to my home, Canada. There we have the freedom to walk down the streets and not worry about being shot at...that freedom is more precious than the 'right' to bear arms, which should not be a 'right' at all.

Yeah, McCain is a gun control nutbag! He is not getting my guns!

Please vote Obama 2008!

I agree TOTALLY with Wasserman on this one, myself not being an anti-gun zealot or an NRA paranoid wacko. I myself plan to take my daughter shooting on a range when she's ten, which I personally believe will be a good age for her to use firearms. But to allow an eight year old to have an uzi in his hands, in my view, constitutes being an unfit parent. If DSS doesn't get involved in this one, something's definitely wrong!

The United States is the most violent country in the 'industrialized world'; a country where gang members in East LA have the support of the NRA and apparently the Supreme Court when it comes to possessing Assault Weapons loaded with armor piecing bullets. Why is anyone surprised?

The cartoon is totally tasteless. So since an accidental drowning or a bike mishap isn't a firearm we just give those parents a pass? But when it's a firearm related incident we go on that anti-gun liberal witch hunt???? Makes sense.

I'll make a note that a kid who accidentally was killed with a firearm during a recreational event is more tragic than a kid getting hit by a car or drowning in a
pool.

Maybe the next time a kid is hit and killed by a drunk driver you can make a cartoon of TK slumped over the wheel of his suv on top of a kid on a bike.

I could not agree with you more! The fact that may people didn't even get your obvious point, scares me!

Kristah, the election will have no bearing on changing the second amendment of Constitution. If canada is that great why don't you live there now? Exactly.

The moment anyone calls for "sensible limits" on anything, you need to ask what's really being called for, and to what the precedent will lead.
One could easily argue for sensible limits on writers, actors, singers, and artists (including cartoonists), because of their inherent ability to inflame passions within the populace-- akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
No parent will be served any more by legislation than by the example already made by the news of this terrible tragedy. If laws were written every time a kid got hit by a car, we'd all be on foot or horseback.

I disagree with: "We all have some responsibility, as a society, for the recklessness behind Chris Bizilj’s death."
Parents need to take responsibility for their children. Lets waste tax payer money making new laws everytime an idiot screws up. We wouldn't be able to leave our homes.
I feel bad that a child suffered here, but his father should have known better. Do we have laws now for the baby that fell out the window this summer? This stuff is common sense stuff, either you get it or you lose. Stop wasting tax payers money and time working on these types of things, just throw the father in jail or move on.
I am a gun owner, the gun didn't cause this, a person not fit to parent did. Maybe we should spend tax money on "Parent Licenses". I might be for that.

Good job, Mr. Wasserman. Cartoons are also used to educate, and you did that today.

But ... "we" do *not* have "responsibility* for the child's death. It was *not* a tragedy. It was a preventable accident. As for *we,* I have been working with my state and federal legislatures for years on gun control. The responsibility belongs with the organizers and parents.

The cartoon is relevant - we currently have one candidate running for president who makes a mockery of the idea of certain weapons being considered more dangerous than others, using quotes to describe "assault rifles" as though it's a make-believe term. We need to use this horrific tragedy as a teachable moment to consider the very real consequences of our actions as a society.

A car crash or a drowning are not in the same league. Not even close. The irresponsibility demonstrated by this parent and the organizers of the event is more akin to dumping a child out of a moving vehicle on I-90 or throwing a child out of a helicopter over open ocean and then wondering why the child was hit by a car or drowned.

To WSJevons on Mccain's stance on gun control vis a vis Obama's: What?? Mccain is generally opposed to gun control. Obama tends to favor gun control, and has supported local bans as well as handgun bans.

If you're voting for Obama because you think he's the "pro-gun" candidate, and you're opposed to Mccain because you think he's for "taking your guns away," you've misinterpreted both candidate's positions on this topic.

If gun lovers want to have an expo where children can fire guns...then they shouldnt complain when a gun KILLS the kid. GUNS KILL PEOPLE. Hello!!!! It's not like they were playing with a Nerf ball and the soft ball hit him in the head and killed him. That would be tragic because that's not supposed to happen. I like how people get upset over a CARTOON but not over the dangeous nature of guns. Weirdos! CARTOONS DON'T KILL PEOPLE!

I typically hate Wasserman's editorials, but he hit this one right on the button. I, also, am not an anti-gun zealot, but there is absolutely no reason for an 8 year old to shoot an Uzi. It should be against the law.

"...is more akin to dumping a child out of a moving vehicle on I-90 or throwing a child out of a helicopter over open ocean..." (Post # 11)

I dissagree - it is more along the lines of a parent and a life guard allowing a marginal swimmer to go into deep water far from shore or a parent allowing their small child to ride an adult sized 4 wheel ATV. Both the parent, and, more importantly, the subject matter expert in this situation failed to correctly gauge Chris Bizilij's ability to control and safely operate a dangerous piece of machinery. The event sponsor also has some responsibility for creating the situation that made this error in judgement possible.

As a tradgedy - this is the death of a child. End of discussion. It makes no difference that the child's death was the result of a gun accident rather than a swimming accident or an automobile accident. In fact, I believe that any legislation desingned to reduce accidents would address a far larger population if it were related to automobiles or swimming pool regulations than gun regulations.

Unfortunately, we cannot legislate good judgement. Neither the boy's father, nor the firearms instructor set out to arrange the death of a child. The most we should hope for here is that the laws are ammended to prevent the parties who showed bad jugement from ever being in the position to make such a judgement - ever again.

We can draft laws that prohibit specific cases where bad judgement is possible, but it would be absurd to create a law requiring a parent to "use good judgement in all cases where the safety of their child is concerned". More specific regulations will prevent this specific situation from presenting itself again. But, parents with poor judgement, will always be able to go "outside the box" to find new ways to recklessly endanger their child.

Back before the NRA got into politics, it held classes to teach young people about firearms safety, and it did a great job. Now it promotes killing -- cop-killer bullets, assault weapons, large-capacity magazines and .50-cal. rifles built for assassination from a mile away. Most responsible gun owners have fled the NRA, and, like the Republican party, anyone who does not tow the radical-right line is not only shunned, but threatened. So a medical doctor watches as his kid puts a 9 mm round through his head. There oughta be a law... but I guess you can't outlaw stupid.

"Callin' it your job don't make it right, boss."

As is typical with the American way of life and proven with this extensive blog, we'll spend more time arguing over who is to blame rather than taking action to prevent this from happening again.

The Second Amendment is a relic from the birth of our country. Standing armies did not exist and therefore it was up to each and every individual to defend their homes from the theat of hostile encroachment. Foreign armies have not occupied the United States since WWII, and even then they came as far as the Aleutian Islands.

The founding fathers of our nation were smart enough to realize that times were going to change and allowed their descendants the ability to modernize the constitution to fit those times. Why are we too stupid as a nation to abolish the ownership of firearms? What purpose do they serve other than to harm and kill?

Our gun control and safety laws are the joke of the world. For a first-world country we have quite a few cities with streets unfit to walk at night. My suggestion is that if these gun enthusiasts are so adamant about preserving this right, how about they pay their dues by patrolling these unsafe areas and cleaning them up a little? Just a thought...

this cartoon is very relevant and if it shocks you - well it should - no adult or child should be able to test drive an uzi or any gun designed to kill multiple people unless you are training to be a soldier -- this is not a hunting gun or a gun to protect yourself -- this is a killing machine

Dan, if he had died bungee jumping, an obvious reckless act for an 8 year old would you have taken ink to paper over that? If you have a FID card or a Permit to Carry in the Commonwealth you already know what a draconian and arbitrary process it is. I find it hard to condone or understand letting an 8 year old fire an Uzi type weapon. But the blame doesn’t lay solely with the father or the instructor. This event didn’t happen in a black hole and had seemingly been going on for a few years with the blessing and participation of local law enforcement agents. The gun is hardly to blame for what happened just as the flammable foam and pyrotechnics were hardly to blame for the Station tragedy in RI a few years ago. Just people making really bad decisions with very tragic consequences.

Second Amendments debates aside the cartoon was tasteless.
David427

Go F yourself and your "comment"...you screwed up!....admit it!

The cartoon was perhaps in bad taste when reflecting on its basis. The message, however, was perhaps 'on point' in expressing an honest view point of what seems to be an absurd circumstance that cost a young boy his life.

Regarding the 'off the point' comments about gun control and gun violence: The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights has been misunderstood by the American people and misinterpreted by our Court systems for a very long time. The very basis of the Amendment is frightening to us and our political structure - which is perhaps the reason for the 'misinterpretation' and subsequent 'misunderstanding'. This Amendment was not incorporated into the Bill of Rights to ensure gun ownership for hunters or private citizens for the purpose of defense of themselves, their loved ones or their property. IT IS MEANT TO ENSURE THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS A NATION, IS NOT AN UNARMED POPULACE. It was to ensure that We the People were not left defenseless AGAINST OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

I always find it quite confusing that more often than not a person who explains to me that the President of the US is expanding the Excutive office's power and is taking tyrannical control of the nation is the same person who will explain to me why no private citizen in Amercia should have access to a weapon. When a 'dictator' president rolls those tanks down Main Street, what will you do? Throw rocks? Stand in front of them, Tienamen style? Oh wait, that will never happen here in America.

Talk, talk, talk.

So an 8 year old in MA legally must be in a booster seat with a seatbelt on to drive to the gun club to shot his uzi? That makes sense.

The NRA is the largest domestic terrorist group we have and it's about time they are treated that way. Why in this day and age is the right to bear arms more important than other peoples right to safety and life.

ninthgate,

First you have no grasp of irony.

Second, you are wrong. In 2001, the NRA's magazine, America's First Freedom, said that John McCain was "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.".

See also . . .
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/about/obamaendorsement

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/#crime-and-law-enforcement

I am sick and tired of hearing how immoral it is for people to have guns. What was unquestionably immoral was this idiot allowing his eight-year-old son to operate a machine gun, and an uzi at that. I personally do not own guns, but a few people in my family do. They own them for hunting, for sport or for personal protection and are trained and certified to own them. Who do you think you are telling me as an American that I can't own a gun? The people committing violent crimes with guns do not have permits and have them illegally, and will continue to do so if guns become illegal, while responsible gun owners won't have the means to protect themselves against those animals.

I agree that the cartoon was tasteless as presented. It seemed more impulsive than constructive. Why would Dan or any other person allow children under the age of 16 shoot a rifle even if it is age appropriate in size etc. It is not age appropriate for a child's emotional or cognitive development. Perhaps a cartoon about Dan taking his daughter to a shooting range is a good topic. The title could be "What Good NRA Parents Do for Their Children". Dan and the Doctor need an examination.

Here's the deal. Forget about Wasserman's cartoon. there is no way an inexperienced child or adult for that matter should be firing a micro uzi. the micro weighs less than half that of a standard uzi. it's retractable stock is much smaller than the standard. It fires 1250 9mm rounds per minute, the standard, 600 9mm rounds per min. there is no area by the barrel to place your front hand as opposed to the standard for stability. In short, lighter, higher fire rate, less stable much more recoil. If that instructor did not have his hands and control of that weapon when the child fired. in my opinion he's responsible.

Stop using hypotheticals. There's no need to compare this to a car wreck, bungee accident or anything else. An 8 year old child allowed to fire an Uzi is in its own category. It was irresponsibility and the cartoon is expressing outrage, not humor. If the media type offends you, or you find it inappropriate, then you're probably mistaking the media for the message.

AM, I think you are right, but don't follow the logic of your argument to its conclusion. I don' t know about laws for ATVs, but we do have laws for age appropriate use of automobiles. It seems like the least we could do would be to regulate the age appropriate use of machine guns. As far as taste, it left a bad taste in my mouth - perhaps Wasserman could have gone for a similar point without being snarky and sarcastic. btw - I generally like snarky and sarcastic, but not in this case.

"Our gun control and safety laws are the joke of the world. "
I AGREE 100%

To "daceman":,
I thought the cartoon was mild considering the stupidity of allowing a young child access to
such a weapon - I'd have preferred a (do forgive me) "harder hitting" bit of cartooning, to
bring the point more forcefully.

And regarding "TK"... Mr. Kennedy does more actual, definable (truthinessfull?) good
for this country in any one day than you will be able to scrape together in your entire lifetime.
If you wish to point to a ex-drunk politician who's reckless actions have caused untold (and
much told) damage, look to your buddy Bush II, who's killed many thousands of good,
loyal young American men and women in his Iraq debacle. That he will walk unimpeached
from the Whitehouse in January will go down as one of America's greatest moral failures...

How misinformed some people are about guns... 90% of the respondents in this post have NEVER fired a gun, nor do they have any idea about the training, storage requirements, and licensing. So you shouldn't comment. It was simply poor judgement on the part of the father...this boy was not ready for a gun like that. I'm a State police trained gun owner (yes, that training is a requirement for anyone applying for a license in Mass!!!) and follow all statutes in Massachusetts ( even the unreasonable ones...good ole Martha). I can say, without bias, that machine guns are not kids play and they are an age appropriate experience. Some of the quotes of "guns are ridiculous' or 'American fascination with guns' or 'I'm Kanadian and I don't believe in guns' (love this one and the K is intentional, ehh!) are so far left it is sickening. The NRA fervently fight any restriction because they are strong armed from every direction and to give up 1 ounce of ground can (and will) mean an opening of floodgates that will ultimately see the end of personal gun ownership. I never heard of the NRA backing gangs in south central, nor have I read an endorsement the use of armor piercing bullets...and those that say this are slewing propaganda to eliminate guns from all households. 99% of the gun problems in the inner cities are a result of unscrupulous dealers. They should be the target of you aggression...not the law abiding citizen who walks into their local P.D., applies for a license through an exhaustive process, gains the trust of law enforcement and safely stores and operates guns. Safety and gun ownership can co-exist. Why more of you can not see this is beyond me...

The poor parents, family, & friends who will see this cartoon. As much as you justify your intentions, it will only be viewed as joke on the loss of Christopher. Resisting the urge to have it printed would have been would have made a you a class act. Instead you ran with it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

A recap of the argument so far: rational people are arguing that it seems common-sense to regulate the use of UZIs by 8-year-olds. Meanwhile, on another planet, there are people arguing that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own guns. And thus, Wasserman makes his point (I still don't like the way he did it) - that there are people out there that are so paranoid that they will use the "gun rights" argument to justify the use of any gun by anybody because any sensible legislation MUST be the conspiracy of the liberals to foist a fascist state upon us. Give me a break.

Empty words from Wasserman for running this cartoon..I'm saddened by how poor his judgement was on this...

Wasserman writes that "Today’s cartoon is not funny in a `Ha ha' way." It would have been more accurate to write "Today’s cartoon is not funny." And it would have been better still if he could have written "Today’s cartoon is not" and never drawn the filthy thing in the first place.

Comments miss the point about what the author was getting at, which is the point of an editorial cartoon. It's an artistic expression of one's views intended to spark debate, upon which no boundaries should be placed.

Clearly those commenting here and writing in have had a healthy debate which is good, but to discuss 'appropriateness' or 'tastefulness' in the context of editorial cartoons is senseless as expression through these cartoons went back to Revolutionary days and is protected by First Amendment rights. If you cannot connect the concept to the media type, do not read the editorial section.

This was a personal tragedy but it was also a massive societal and parental error in judgment and that's what the cartoon reflects. For those who found the cartoon offensive, think again before using the 2nd amendment to defend the wisdom behind giving an 8 year a "fully loaded rock and roll" Uzi. Think again before claiming that because more children die in car accidents than from guns (never mind that far more children come in contact with cars than with guns), we should continue to let small children handle submachine guns.

Dan, I usually like editorial cartoons. They have a way of getting directly to the heart of an issue by stirring emotion about the issue. I did not care your cartoon. Not only was it in poor tasts on your part, but it was also poor judgment by the Globe to print it. When an event has tragic consequences most editorial cartoons tend to have a more somber tone to them and are still able to get their point across. All the 9-11 drawings come to mind. To be honest your drawing made me cringe. My first thoughts were for the boys family that has to deal with this awful tragedy. Your message on gun control did not resonate on a social level, instead, I found it vulgar on a personal level. Quite frankly you failed to make your point . All you did was draw attention to you, and you awkward ,clumsy cartoon; not your cause. The fact that you have write an OP-ED explaining it shows you failed. I think you and the Globe need to step up and apologize to the boys family and to your readership for this one because that not so pretty reflection in the mirror belongs to you and the Globe.

I would bet that the vast majority of posters here had no idea these shows existed and now they are outraged and demand new laws blah blah blah. This was an isolated incident and had much more to do with an irresponsible parent then the gun show or the uzi itself.

I've read all these comments. The tragedy here is that a boy is dead. The fact is that there is outrage over this death only because the boy was killed using a firearm. Had the boy been hit by a car on his bike or accidentally fallen from a third story window there would not be this much attention related to his death. Nobody would be saying the bike killed him or the car killed him or the window killed him. This was an accident. Should there have been more supervision or perhaps better decision making in allowing this young boy to fire that firearm? Looking back at the outcome I would say absolutely.

Someone mentioned bungee jumping. People die all the time doing recreational activities. Do we arrest and convict people in all those cases? No. Because sometimes they are just what they are....accidents. That's what this was.

There is risk in most things we do, even the fun stuff. But lots of those things are routine to us so when something bad happens to someone we dismiss it as bad luck. Why not now? Because a gun was involved and you hate guns. So ban amusement parks and skydiving and scuba diving and water skiing and automobiles and bugee jumping, rock climbing, eating hotdogs, backyard swimming pools, beach access, boating, crossing the street and the list is endless. Life is a risk. The boys death is tragic. But it's not more tragic because a gun was invloved.

It is tasteless to mock a boys death no matter what point you are trying to get across.

There are those here who say the second ammendment is a relic from a time when this nation's citizens needed to defend themselves. Maybe so....but those documents are the foundation of what has created this Nation. As with any building or structure if you start to remove pieces of that foundation the building or structure will start to fall and collapse in on itself.

Anyway....scap the second ammendment and you can scrap the rest of the Bill of Rights. But that's what liberals do right.....only use the laws for what they like and try to steal freedoms from those they disagree with.

This is supposed to be a free nation. By imposing more laws and restrictions on those freedoms we lose our rights as a free people to choose what we want to do. Use more common sense? yes. Make activities safer for all to enjoy? yes. To restrict or ban anything even firearm ownership is stripping away our freedoms a little at a time.

Sooner or later it will be something you like to do or are very passionate about. Then who will be there to help you defend your rights and freedoms?

JR,

You has such a good, solid and relevant post until you went off the deep end and started blaming liberals for destroying gun ownership rights. That is so base and inaccurate that it invalidates your entire point of view. The fact is that the NRA has become a political organization not a gun rights organization. (Similar to how the AARP is no longer a benevolent senior citizens organization. )

I point you to my previous post #26 for facts and not NRA lies.

If vendors taking advantage of the gun show loophole won't self regulate to keep guns out of the inner city, then we need to close the loophole. If jacketed rounds are killing cops, then those rounds need to be banned. If I want to fire full automatic weapon as a licensed gun owner, the government should stay out of my safe. If I want to walk stubble for ring necks (bogs for canvas backs, hills for mulies), then I will go to jail defending that right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html
http://www.huntersandshooters.org/about/obamaendorsement

" It's not like they were playing with a Nerf ball and the soft ball hit him in the head and killed him. That would be tragic because that's not supposed to happen. "

Jennifer, this wasn't supposed to happen either, nor was it predictable. When was the last time this happened? (This being someone at a licensed and supervised full-auto shoot losing control during a lapse of supervision and shooting himself.)

All of you who think the cartoon is "tasteless" are a spineless wimps that deserve what they get in life. Why don't you just sew your mouths shut, poke out your eyes then cut off your hands so you can't type your meaninglesws messages.

The real cartoon should of showed the stupid parents handing the child the gun.

Darwin was right.

The last time I checked the sole purpose of amusement parks, skydiving, scuba diving, water skiing, automobiles, bungee jumping, rock climbing, hotdogs, backyard swimming pools, beaches, boating, [and] crossing the street is not to kill. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. That's all it does. The sole purpose of a mini Uzi is to kill even more efficiently. Every object and activity has its risks and regulations are put in place in proportion to the risks. If some adults are so stupid that they want to hand a fully-loaded Uzi to a small child, then the rest of us (which is the definition of the government) have to put laws in place to stop them. If everyone used common sense, regulations and laws would not be required.

Mom of 4 from Marblehead, You said it best! 8 and under must be in a car seat now. Since the kid died in MA has anybody asked his Dad if he was in his car seat on his way to the show?

I can only add one other question. Why in the age of columbine type school shooting massacres are we allowing 8, 10, what ever year olds to be trained in how to handle any type of gun... especially an Uzi?

I thought Uzi training came around the time kids were old enough for the Army or West Point.

Kristah, please go back to Canada. I don't need you taking my rights here.

As for the US being the most violent country? Have you looked at the UK yet? Folks are being killed with knives and bats and anything else (including illegal guns) just as fast if not faster than the US. Don't look at the overall number but look at the rate per 100,000 so the population difference is taken into account. It is safer here in the US unless you live in a gun free zone like Boston where the crooks know they can attack you without fear.
Do your homework and stop drinking the kool aid folks. . . .

Great cartoon -- and no more shocking than any front page news when there is a tragedy involved.
In a state where 8 year olds have to be seatbelted and booster seated and bike helmeted and god forbid you leave them at home alone for 3 minutes while you run next door or in a locked car for 15 seconds while you pay the gas station attendant -- in this over-nannied it is a-okay to allow the same 8 year old to fire an Uzi?
That is just plain wrong. My kids weren't allowed to use steak knives when they were 8.
You want to teach your own kid about guns and gun safety and proper useage, fine, that's your business; and you start with something smaller and more controlled and you very closely involve yourself in that child's handling of the gun, you don't step back to photograph it.
The freedom to own guns and to use guns carries great implied responsibility and the father and the instructor failed this kid and those around him miserably.
When your kid wants a bike you give him a tricycle or a two wheeler with training wheels, not a Harley.
What makes it a tragedy is that it was absolutely avoidable.

What's more appalling, a father allowing his CHILD of 8 YEARS to play with an UZI, or for an editorial cartoon to show us just how ridiculous gun laws and unfit parents are. I'm in support of the cartoon.

While the cartoon is painful, it is nowhere near as painful as the thousands of people accidentally killed and wounded (mostly famiy, friends, and innocent bystanders) each year in the usa. The individuals involved in this atrocity should be charged with criminal negligence. The NRA should have the balls to say so.

Hey JD -- I live in Boston, Roxbury in fact -- who are these crooks and criminals you're talking about? Boston isn't the wild wild west and our crime stats prove that. The US has 30,000 gun deaths per year, roughly half of which are suicides. That's about 10 per 100,000 people. In the UK, the rate is 0.17 per 100,000 (and that's including suicides and accidental shootings, not just homicides. (Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic). With the economy tanking worldwide it is not surprising that there has been a recent uptick in crime in the UK and elsewhere -- but their crime stats pale next to ours and their gun crime is miniscule. Their headlines make it sound ominous until you understand that "GUN DEATHS HAVE DOUBLED" in a particular place means the jump was from 1 to 2.

I knew Chris Bizilj, I know his father, who is a good man.
If you think you are smart and brave, why don't you come with me tonight to the funeral mass and show him your cartoon in person and see what he thinks?

You won't because you are a coward, and hide behind a desk. There is TV advertisement that teaches young people not to say things online, that they wouldn't say in person. You could learn from this. If a tragedy happens to you, I hope people treat you with more kindness that you have shown here, even though you don't deserve it.

I find nothing wrong with this cartoon. As for guns, who cares? Gun laws will only keep guns away from the people that canown them legally. What do you think some gangbanger will drop their weapons because guns are illegal or is it becasue they will not be available? Becasue both are laughable. Let people make up their own minds. The egocentric, self righteous mindframe of our society needs to go. As a centrist-democrat, I do not understand how people can be pro-choice with unborn children but not pro-choice with owning firearms.

Dem4Mcain: the same way people can be pro-life and yet pro-death penalty. Or pro-life, but against universal healthcare, or pro-life but anti-welfare (because too bad for the kid that his mom is unemployed and his dad is in jail). Pro-life -- but only as long as that life is in utero -- once it's born, it just becomes another unwanted child and may grow to to be a criminal and then it can be executed. Prolife means all life, not just a select segment. Republicans, they love you 'til you're born.

JR, not looking to revoke the 2nd Amendment. Simply trying to 'amend' it. Obviously guns can be used as tools in the right format (law enforcement, wars, etc.), but the 35 year old father of two living in Woodstock, CT does not require a semi-automatic handgun. This issue needs to be looked at and address; a simple repeal of the amendment will not suffice.

As for INF, I love how people manipulate stats to serve their own agenda. Notice I said 'cities' without naming specific ones. Boston has issues, but it is far down on the list. When you take the entire populace into consideration, yes it does appear that gun violence is not as large an issue as cancer or aids. But when you look at the areas MOST AFFECTED by gun violence and run the numbers, the results are staggering. Take a look at LA, Chicago, NYC and Detroit...run the stats for gun violence per 100,000...then get back to me. Its a nationwide issue because as a nation we should be concerned about all areas of our country, not just the ones in the line of fire.

I do not bear any responsibility for the tragic death of the young boy, and for anyone to say that I do (in an attempt to get me to believe their anti-gun sentiments) is a cheap shot that uses a family tragedy as a prop for a political statement. The issue here is supervision, permissiveness, and bad judgment. The NRA is not the bad guy in this story, and shame on Dan for exploiting this death as a roundabout way to restate one of his personal stances.

" I first took my son shooting when he was 10 – with a rifle that was appropriate to his age and strength "

You obviously are heavily misinformed and have no idea about guns in the first place or the actual tragedy that happened. The boy was shooting a Micro UZI 9mm. This is a very small gun and has less muzzle climb and axial recoil than a rifle!!! One you would let your son shoot! You obviously have no idea on gun safety or guns themselves! This was an accident plain and simple,. I am niether a NRA supporter or anti-gun zealot and I basically fall into the middle of the pack when it comes to guns, but c'mon this is a bad example to base any opinon of guns on. Tragic. It is tough to blame or scapegoat any one or thing in this scenario, it was simply an accident and should have been prevented by the father or trained operator on site.

David- Why don't you tell the father he is responsible for his son's death tonight.?Or are you too afraid? Parents who act irresponsible should be called out on their reckless behavior. Let's hope the other children in his family survive.

There are actually a few good points in the comments, I'm with Mike, there should totally be a license needed in order to become a parent, for way more reasons then I want to get into here. I also completely agree that gun laws only effect the law abiding gun owners. I don't particularly care if my neighbor has a gun license and owns guns legally. I do care that most of the random shootings and gang violence takes place using illegally owned guns. If people could be responsible for their children, themselves, and their guns, it would be a better place.

All you anti-gun nuts should shut up as well. This is about the death of a boy and his irresponsible parents, and only that.

Anyone dumb enough to not understand the meaning of the cartoon is dumb enough to think it's OK to let an 8 yer old fire an uzi - or any gun, for that matter.

I really think it's time for cartoonists to be done away with, or at the least require a license, it's just a reasonable and common sense matter. What, don't agree you knuckle dragging cartoonist-nut!?

Think back to Joe Camel, and all the lives cartoonists have claimed. Think of the countless billions that they have helped squander thought TV shows made solely to sell toys to children that could have went to feed the hungry and cure poverty. Remember the cartoonists during WWII? With their racist drawings and pure propaganda.

The fact that anyone can just pick up a pencil and paper with no responsibility or approval from a government agency is sickening. We have a duty as a society to limit the harm that these people and their objects can do.

Do it for the children™!

Tasteless? Perhaps. So is allowing a child to play with an uzi. The job of editorial cartooning is to point out the ridiculousness of society. In this case it was spot on. Shoot too close to home for some? Oh, sorry, tasteless.

I didn't see much problem with the cartoon. It was wrong to let the child fire a gun like that. But this defense of the cartoon is way off base in the senseless bashing of the NRA.

The NRA does not block commonsense laws. They only block extremist laws that violate people's rights.

And more to the point, the laws governing full-auto weapons are quite strict. The NRA has never blocked a single law relating to full-auto weapons.

-----

In glancing through the comments, I saw a couple posts linking to an anti-gun group, disguised with a pro-gun sounding name, endorsing Obama.

I don't want to get bogged down in correcting all the inaccuracies that person used in talking about what they would like to see banned, but it is important that the Democrats not disguise Obama's rather lengthy anti-gun record, so here is a link that lists some of Obama's past positions and votes on gun issues:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html