Skip to main content

View Diary: Neal Boortz, his death is on your head (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, they're not. (0+ / 0-)

    Those gun owners are absolutely covered head to toe in the blood of the murdered. They are the ones who have lost or had their guns stolen or "borrowed". They are the ones increasing the gun supply and making it cheaper and easier for guns to get into the hands of those pulling the triggers for them.

    Sorry, but it's time for the gun owners who think they're so "responsible" to take a look in the mirror and realize what it is they're really responsible for.

    •  Bullshite. (0+ / 0-)

      I refuse to accept your accusation. I am in no way responsible for harm to anyone that has been murdered. I wasn't there, I had nothing at all to do with it. The MURDERER is responsible for their actions. They and no one else chose to take the lives of others.

      I am not responsible for the criminal acts of other people I have no contact with. The concept is as ridiculous as claiming gay marriage is damaging to straights or the "institution of marriage". It's a false claim of harm to try to leverage an excuse to restrict something you don't like.

      Sorry, I'm not buying it.

      "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

      by DarthMeow504 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 12:40:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Refuse if you like (0+ / 0-)

        It doesn't make you any less culpable.

        Do you agree or disagree that purchasing an item increases the demand, thus the supply, and thus decreases the price and barrier of entry for ownership of said item (this is basic economics)?

        Assuming you understand that simple concept, you must agree that buying a gun makes you responsible for making it easier for others (including those who commit crimes) to obtain their guns (legally or illegally). You are therefore guilty. Obviously you are less guilty than the person pulling the trigger, but you undeniably helped him get his weapon.

        Do you support the right of individual people to own guns? Do you understand that some of those individuals will go on to commit crimes, including murder?

        Then you must take responsibility for those murders you are enabling.

        Hey, maybe it's worth it to you. Many people (myself included) accept the convenience and life-altering capabilities of cars and airplanes, accepting that accidents will happen and some lives will be lost-- not to mention the effects on the environment and on foreign policy stemming from the use of fuels and materials. Therefore I accept laws and regulations that decrease that risk. But I admit to being part of that problem, and would like to ameliorate it as much as possible.

        Not admitting your role in gun violence is intellectually dishonest.

        We won't get anywhere until people who own guns recognize their responsibility and stop pretending there is such a thing as a "responsible gun owner" who somehow magically isolates himself from the effects his choice has on the rest of society.

        •  Look at Chicago (0+ / 0-)

          Some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and they had over 500 murders last year which vastly outstrips virtually anywhere else. That gun ban really reduced the criminal market for guns, didn't it?  Worked real well for them, indeed.

          I do NOT accept your premise because the facts don't bear it out. Your policies have been tried and they do NOT get the results you claim. Disarming law-abiding citizens does NOT affect the murder rate and it does NOT reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. Chicago proves it, and Mexico proves it. Both places have incredibly strict and comprehensive gun bans AND a gun violence rate through the bloody roof.

          Here's a clue for you: banning something, criminalizing it's sale makes it contraband and does indeed raise the price. You know what happens then? An unregulated black market springs up to profit from the increased price. Bans don't affect demand, never have and never will. What they do is decrease supply, which increases price and makes trafficking in the items vastly more profitable. Prohibition creates criminals, and lots of them. This has been proven time and time again.

          For a murderer, a gun is a tool of the trade. Prohibition and the black market increases the job opportunities for criminals and enriches them so they can buy better tools. Al Capone's people never wanted for top of the line illegal weapons, did they? Neither have the mafia, or the drug cartels.

          Your proposed cure is worse than the disease.

          "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

          by DarthMeow504 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:33:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As if those things happened in isolation (0+ / 0-)

            Chicago has strict gun laws but is surrounded by areas with lax gun laws.

            Actually, the facts DO bear out my premise. Places where gun bans exist over large stretches of territory work extremely well in reducing gun violence (see: Australia, most of Europe). Prohibition actually works extremely well for some types of items.

            Increasing the cost of weapons makes the kinds of casual accidents and killings we see literally hundreds of thousands of times a year a thing of the past. How is it you admit that banning the item makes it more expensive and harder to obtain and reduces the supply... and then turn around and say it makes it easier to obtain? Your logic is confused.

            The things you write about buying better tools and such are just nonsense. When guns are rare, expensive, and difficult to obtain the kinds of casual use/abuse you see in the USA goes away. Very little of America's gun violence is committed by the Mafia or drug cartels, and making it harder for them to obtain guns would be a good thing as well.

            As a nation we would be far better off with one Al Capone than the 30 million insane gun nuts we have now shooting up schools, movie theaters, and one another in their homes.

            You honestly believe that not having guns would be worse than 300,000 people shot and 30,000 killed each year? You must really think guns are magical items and love them dearly to be so deluded.

            •  Your numbers are insane (0+ / 0-)

              You claim 30 million "insane gun nuts" shooting people, are you even serious at this point? You just described a state of open civil war. And while the number of shootings we have is too many, it's sure as hell not 30 million.

              You agree with that as well, as you claim later in your post that there are 300,000 shootings and 30,000 murders. So which is it? 30 million really bad shots, or what?

              Since you're already pulling numbers out of your ass, why don't you pull your head out of there while you're at it?

              "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

              by DarthMeow504 on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 01:50:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My numbers (0+ / 0-)

                Are all correct: 30 million gun owners in the US; 300,000 shootings per year; 30,000 gun related deaths.

                I suppose when someone is as far removed from reality as you appear to be actual numbers must seem like a shock.

                Look it up. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

                •  Citation needed (0+ / 0-)

                  Actually there are 80 million gun owners, but that's not what you said, you said "insane gun nuts shooting" this and that. There aren't thirty million people shooting anyone and you damned well know it. The other numbers you cite are significantly higher than the others I'm familiar with as well. Please cite a source for your statistics.

                  Still, you fucked your own argument by claiming thirty million "insane" people "shooting up" places and people. It's a clear delusion and informs about your motivations, but it destroys any credibility you might have had.

                  Good day, sir.

                  "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

                  by DarthMeow504 on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 03:23:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site