One thing has become clear to me after reading about all these murders.

[Nailzberg]

Murder should definitely be outlawed.

[cliffordu]

1. Then only outlaws will have murders.....

[dmallind]

2. True dat - but we could stop these murders easily!

Somebody willing to break about the most universal, oldest, and most seriously enforced law in human history - that against killing one of your own - would NEVER be willing to break a much more limited, recent and less enforced law against owning a tool with which that killing can be done - so make guns illegal and we're done.

[Common Sense Party]

4. And nobody would die at the hands of drunk drivers if we would just

outlaw alcohol.

And nobody would ever be raped if we would just outlaw penises.

And we're done!

[dmallind]

9. surely the dripping emoticon was not necessary after all?

[Common Sense Party]

10. Yes, I guess it is--as those exact sentiments are prevalent

on these hyperemotive gun threads.

[dmallind]

19. it wouldn't be sarcasm if they weren't. However, those folks tend not to spell out the logical flaw

[MineralMan]

3. Laws can't prevent murders.

Only people can do that. Laws are about punishing people who break them, not prevention.

[sharesunited]

5. How very specious and wry.

The point of those posts is to illustrate how America enables the convenient infliction of death under a mistaken claim of enjoying freedom. Power to kill is merely freedom to die by the same unjust means.

[jaksavage]

6. If we stopped glorifying war

and the violence that it necesitates...
Our nation is addicted to violence.

[rfranklin]

7. Well, we sure do like invading other countries...

which when others do it is considered criminal. But there's always an exception to the rule.

[jaksavage]

8. Exceptionalism

REVOKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[xchrom]

12. we glorify violence on the level of individual here.

look at the 'justified' shootings here.

gunners aren't ever going to get how they contribute to the overall victimization of people with their attitudes - there is simply no combating the ;2nd amendment' pathology

[eqfan592]

13. Wow, the hypocrasy of somebody who...

....glorifies defenseless victims over would be victims who defended themselves speaking about "victimization" is truly astounding!

Our "attitudes" are not about victimization, they are about empowerment. Your's however, ARE about victimization. You're about convincing people that not only are they victims, but you're attempting to give them somebody to blame for it.

You have no interest in solving the real issues of crime, and like Sharesunited, would rather cure the symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself. And what's sad is that your supposed cures wouldn't even work for the symptoms you are trying to attack. You are literally promoting the worst of both worlds.

[xchrom]

14. you have no idea what you're talking about

'empowerment ' has never nor will it ever come from a weapon.

that's the very thing we decry in other cultures tha abuse and neglect women, children and 'other' in cultures we deem substandard from our own.

but hold up as 'different' in our own society.

i'm sorry but as far as i'm concerned every legal gun owning person -- man,woman or child is a part of this problem -- every bit as much as you decry your imagined multitudes of threats.

the wild west is dead, done, dust. -- join the rest of us that want to build better from every family member, every woman, every child, every real individual up.

enough -- i'm done with this for now.

[eqfan592]

15. lol

Sounds like somebody is projecting a bit. I'm not sure you are rational enough to even understand what we're discussing now. Also, I find it amusing that you are freaking out about violence, but are saying that I am "imagining" the potential threats of certain lower members of society. For the record, I have had my life threatened in the past. These were not "imagined" but rather vocalized and witnessed by many people. It's a consequence of working in a QA department that some people will blame the person catching their errors rather than themselves. This person also just happened to be an ex-con. Yeah, fun times had by none there. And here in the state of Wisconsin, I can't even take action to defend myself because we don't allow CCW in this state. This restriction, of course, does nothing to prevent somebody who has no interest in obeying the law from keeping a gun on them.

No, trust me, I'm not part of the problem. You, however, are a very large part of it. You distract from the REAL issues behind violence, such as poverty, education and gentrification. You make the lives of those of us who ARE paying attention to these issues more difficult with your distractions. You would prefer a society of would be victims. You are right though, empowerment doesn't come from weapons, or at least not directly. It DOES come from the knowledge that you are effectively able to defend yourself from the scum that exists at the bottom of every society. That you won't be that person sitting on the phone with 911 waiting for the police to arrive as somebody breaks into your house and kills you (which has actually happened, if you weren't aware).

Oh, and maybe you should check into the "Wild West." It wasn't as "wild" as the movies would have you believe, and they had a VERY high gun ownership rate.

[xchrom]

16. oh boy -- are you ever part of the problem.

carefull -- there's somebody behind the bush trying to get you.

[eqfan592]

17. lol, yeah, I'm part of the problem.

You're the one incapable of a rational discussion of the issue at this point in time, and are only capable it seems of resorting to personal attacks (mind you, I do acknowledge that I did attack you a bit in my post as well, but there was also a lot of substance in my post, something that is sorely lacking in your latest endeavor).

A lack of naivety is not the same as paranoia. By wearing a seatbelt, am I being paranoid about getting into a car accident? Well, a rational person would say no, generally not. It's a simple safety precaution to take because the roadways can be dangerous at times, and sometimes shit just happens. Am I EXPECTING to get into an accident? Hell no. But it could happen, and why take unnecessary risks by not wearing my seatbelt?

I also refuse to take those same risks when it comes to my family, and the same goes for my wife. Do we expect to ever have an intruder in our home that may do harm to us? No. But neither did our neighbors when they found themselves in that very situation. Thankfully, they took the steps necessary before hand and were able to defend themselves from an armed intruder with the use of a firearm.

No, my backwards friend, if you want to see a "part of the problem," you need only look in the mirror.

[SteveM]

20. Please, a little less parlor psychology...

"Gunners aren't ever going to get how they contribute to the overall victimization of people with their attitudes -- there is simply no combating the 2nd amendment' pathology."

Could you please define '2nd amendment pathology?' I would appreciate a definition that comports with a conventional understanding of "pathology."

When you say gunners, do you mean those who fire a weapon in self-defense or the many millions who never fire their weapons in self-defense? Once your definition is established, can you define "their attitudes" (keeping in mind over 80,000,000 of your fellow Americans own guns) and how said attitudes "contribute to the overall victimization of people." Please show which people are "victimized" and provide a causal link.

[spin]

22. Justified shootings are shootings in which the shooter used his/her firearm in legal self defense...

which means the person who was attacked had damn good reason to believe the attacker was about to inflict serious injury or possibly him/her.

Are you seriously arguing that it would be better if victim merely ended up in a wheel chair or six feet under?

Or are you upset because such incidents are brought up in posts on DU? If so, I would suggest that the reason you see these posts is that the anti-gun faction of the Gungeon used to claim that firearms were rarely used for justifiable self defense.

Some posters just decided to counter that bullshit by posting a bunch of news stories that disproved it.

This tactic must have been successful. Where I used to see posters say that firearms were hardly ever used for self defense and more often were used against the victims, now I see the anti-gunners whining because they stories "glorify violence".

I believe I've seen an improvement. Your complaint is laughable.

[xchrom]

11. i'll repeat the first post because it makes the most sense with gunners --

then only outlaws will have murders.

[PavePusher]

18. You're an idiot. And you know it. n/t

[winyanstaz]

21. umm sheesh...only outlaws will have murders??

Are you saying they will only kill other outlaws? sheesh...
As sayings go..that one sucks kiddo...