HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So why is it that some pe...

Sun May 12, 2013, 06:50 PM

So why is it that some people seem incapable of phrasing the killer argument properly?

If someone or some people are killed by people using guns, why not say so? Why do I see the phrase "killed by guns" so often here, especially here, where presumably people are a little more educated than the hoi polloi?

It seems to me that the weight in any gun control argument ought to involve the shooters, not just the weapon of choice. I ask because it seems weak to claim that guns kill people, and since clearly they don't do anything without a shooter, being unable to act autonomously. However, people do kill and maim each other using guns, bombs, knives, and so on.

To center your argument around the weapon du jour and not to place the blame securely on the people who buy, hold and use guns is a losing proposition from the start.

I'd like to see postings about these insane, dumb, careless, feckless or reckless people who kill and maim others using guns be more focussed on the perpetrator than the weapon. Don't you think it would both have more impact and be more accurate if we did? I think you would have to agree.

So why do so many make such clearly inaccurate statements in postings about the killer issue of the day, which is people who are violent, not guns, pressure cookers, poison gas or knives? I guess that's a rhetorical question and what I really want to say is STEP UP THE ANTE - place the blame squarely on the people who kill and maim. Address the root cause and you will get a better response, IMHO.

22 replies, 2714 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply So why is it that some people seem incapable of phrasing the killer argument properly? (Original post)
Cronus Protagonist May 2013 OP
NYC_SKP May 2013 #1
Fumesucker May 2013 #2
bowens43 May 2013 #3
msongs May 2013 #5
Fumesucker May 2013 #6
ChoppinBroccoli May 2013 #12
Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #7
Fumesucker May 2013 #10
Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #17
MannyGoldstein May 2013 #19
Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #20
Cronus Protagonist May 2013 #14
AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #4
WinkyDink May 2013 #8
Cronus Protagonist May 2013 #15
WinkyDink May 2013 #22
Electric Monk May 2013 #9
billh58 May 2013 #11
sigmasix May 2013 #13
Cronus Protagonist May 2013 #16
OneGrassRoot May 2013 #18
Cronus Protagonist May 2013 #21

Response to Cronus Protagonist (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 06:59 PM

1. I agree.

 

The media doesn't help, often exaggerating or misstating the weaponry involved.

One anchor called the Newtown rifle a "Bushwhacker", others refer to three weapons as "an arsenal", they generally make things sound more scary than necessary, to no productive end.

Given the choice between a world without guns and a world without violent gun users, I would chose to live in the latter.

If guns were removed from the world, we'd still have the murderers and freaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Sun May 12, 2013, 07:05 PM

2. Get rid of the violent gun users and there would be no guns either

Guns would never have occurred to anyone to make in the first place if humanity was that peaceful.

Probably wouldn't be any people either, it takes a certain type of crazy to face down a smilodon with a sharpened stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronus Protagonist (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 07:23 PM

3. every case of gun violence has one thing in common, a gun. Guns kill people

 

its what they are designed to do, it's their intended use.


any one who claims that the people are the problem is making a ridiculous and irrelevant, NRA talking point argument.

The guns and the gun culture and the gun fetishists are the problem. Period.

Your argument in favor of continuing to enable 30000 deaths a year is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #3)

Sun May 12, 2013, 07:59 PM

5. they also have in common "gun owners" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:26 PM

6. Like the five year old who shot a three year old recently?

That kind of "gun owner"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Sun May 12, 2013, 10:48 PM

12. There's A Difference Between A Gun OWNER And A Gun POSSESSOR

There are many examples of guns being taken from gun OWNERS and then being used by their POSSESSORS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #3)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:05 PM

7. Every single one of those also involves at least one human.

 

Arguing on the basis of that commonality is pointless.

"The guns and the gun culture and the gun fetishists are the problem. Period."

Utter bullshit. Period.

There are c. 12,000* annual firearms homicides. There are c. 80 million gun owners.

The problem is (obviously) the tiny minority of shitheads committing violent crimes with firearms.

*There are also about 17k suicides with firearms, a very different social problem, and more of an indictment of our embarrassing neglect of mental healthcare than of any other factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Fumesucker (Reply #10)

Mon May 13, 2013, 01:34 AM

17. Apple, meet Orange.

 

Japan is also an island that never had a tradition of allowing anyone but the feudal ruling class and their enforcers be armed. We, instead, are an already heavily-armed nation with absurdly porous borders. Japan's experiences in this are could hardly be any less relevant to our own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #7)

Mon May 13, 2013, 06:19 AM

19. States with strong gun laws have far fewer suicides

 

Last edited Mon May 13, 2013, 09:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Guns make suicide easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #19)

Mon May 13, 2013, 08:21 AM

20. That may be the case.

 

But you're preaching to the wrong choir on that one. I consider suicide to be a human right (hey, I live in Oregon...we have legal suicide, at least when the feds leave us alone). Ensure that mental healthcare is readily available, then leave it to individual (adult) choice...

Incidentally, there seems to be an even stronger correlation between population density and suicide, at least for the 2010 figures (American Association of Suicidology). The top ten states are all low population states with large geographical areas. I'd have to look deeper, but I'll bet those suicides occur at a proportionally higher rate among rural people, too. Isolation would seem to be an even greater risk factor than firearms possession...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #3)

Mon May 13, 2013, 12:19 AM

14. So you think I just made an argument in favor of enabling 30000 death a year?

The dumb is thick with you. Best wishes for next Christmas, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronus Protagonist (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 07:47 PM

4. "why do so many make such clearly inaccurate statements in postings about ..." It's what they do.

 

It gives them pleasure to take a hate-trip, make irrational statements, and engage in name calling.

If they really wanted to address the root cause or root causes, they would have done so. And they would be doing so now. But that's not what they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronus Protagonist (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:10 PM

8. Because that is our vernacular, is "why." Live by the sword; die by the sword. NOT "swordsman."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #8)

Mon May 13, 2013, 12:24 AM

15. In that example, "the sword" is clearly a metaphor for "violence"

I would think that's basic English comprehension. Still, it doesn't mean that my point is invalid. Until we start calling out the people involved in violence, and simply blame the weapon as if there were no prime mover we will continue to miss the bull's eye. I say address the murderer, not the weapon. Is that so hard?

Sorry for the additional heaping of metaphor, but since we're on the topic... I don't really mean the actual eye of a bull here, you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cronus Protagonist (Reply #15)

Tue May 14, 2013, 07:53 AM

22. Yes, yes, but it is still our vernacular. And the metaphor nonetheless supports that. It isn't "Be a

swordsman; die a swordsman." (And nothing salacious intended). When was the last time you heard the word "archer" rather than saying someone or some animal was killed by an arrow?

"He was killed by a .22" (e.g.; I don't know about guns) is, IMO, more common than "He was killed by some person firing a .22."

But hey; I'm a misanthrope. Blame the "prime mover" any time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cronus Protagonist (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:48 PM

11. Let's see...

Killing with a knife takes a lot of physical effort, and killing with a bomb takes technical expertise. Killing with "and so on" usually takes some amount of physical effort and/or technical expertise, or a combination of both, coupled with the requirement to be relatively close to the victim (strangling, bludgeoning, smothering, "and so on". Shovels and axes are unwieldy and messy, and drowning someone in a bathtub or a swimming pool is iffy at best.

OTOH, killing with an easily obtainable and readily accessible gun is relatively simple, because that is what guns are designed and manufactured for, and are very efficient at getting the job done. Point, aim, and pull the trigger -- mission effortlessly accomplished. They are perfectly legal to buy, practice with, and handguns are easily concealable. Yes, the "shooters" weapon of choice is a gun, because nothing deals death quite so beautifully as a tool designed for the purpose.

So I agree that it is "insane, dumb, careless, feckless or reckless people" who kill other people -- and themselves. It's just that guns are designed for that purpose, easy to get, and make it ever so much easier to get the job done. Most suicides by gun are successful, whereas other methods of "attempted suicide" often fail. Just like an unsafe automobile, or a faulty household appliance, an unsafe (unlocked, loaded, and accessible) gun is a public health issue.

The RKBA/Gungeon argument goes something like, "but the gun is just an inanimate tool until it is fired by a person, and it is these people that we need to blame, and not the gun." I would just like to take that one step further: it is indeed "people" that we need to blame, but the people are our politicians who have been bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers and their bag-men, the NRA. It is these people who have allowed the scourge of unaccountable and unregulated guns to plague our nation.

These are the people who have allowed the unfettered proliferation of lethal weapons to be inflicted on our society, and have allowed those "insane, dumb, careless, feckless or reckless people" easy access to fucking guns and absolutely no accountability for the source of the guns used by them. They have allowed and enabled this epidemic of gun violence on this country for nothing other than greed and profits through outright corruption.

So if you really want to phrase the "killer argument" properly, blame the people who are the source of the problem of gun violence: the right-wing, greed-driven, arms dealers, promoters, and politicians who don't give a rat's ass WHO gets to "keep and bear" guns as long as the profits and pay-offs keep rolling in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #11)

Sun May 12, 2013, 11:45 PM

13. agreed but it goes further than that

The right wing in America has long harbored hopes of dismantling American liberties and cohesion. The NRA has proven over and over again that they are part of the right wing class and culture war. They feature partisan social commentary that has nothing to do with gunz- homophobia, misogyny and paranoid conspiracy theories about the president and our hard working law enforcement officials.
Over the last 30 years the NRA has successfully lobbied for gun ownership rights of violent felons, rapists and child molesters. These are the dangerous people that our society has decided ought to be disarmed, but the NRA disagrees. There is ample evidence that the NRA is not in favor of safe gun ownership in America- thier role as a right wing antiAmerican organization is proven by thier actions.

Many have stated that the NRA's evil is about profits for gun manufacturers- but it's becoming increasingly obvious that the present spate of increased stockpiling on the part of unbalanced NRA members and advocates is intended to contribute to an atmosphere of fear, threats and death amongst the American population. The continual threats of armed treason on the part of gundamentalists is intended to dissolve our national cohesion and hard won liberties.
The end goal of all anti-American right wing extremism is to destroy the gains made since the civil war and reduce America to a loose confederation of states with no commonly held federal bill of rights and a toothless federal government that is incapable of defending the constitution or conducting the business of the people.

The question that ought to be asked is "how can any clear thinking, fair-minded individual believe the lies and hyperbole of the NRA and other "gunz on demand for anybody" crowds. Sensible gun laws begin with sensible background checks for every gun purchase ever made and fully funded gun law enforcement. Owners that create deadly atmospheres in thier home and amongst thier family are not responsible and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law- even when thier gun fetish costs the life of thier own children. Why does the NRA resist almost all laws designed to prevent bad people from legally obtaining guns?

These are more appropriate questions when attempting to deal with the gun debate, not the proverbial NRA/teabagger/Glenn Beck lies presented as talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #11)

Mon May 13, 2013, 12:29 AM

16. Good work, my friend

I think your post both expands my point and exemplifies my recommendation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #11)

Mon May 13, 2013, 04:40 AM

18. Well said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #11)

Reply to this thread