THAT HE DESERVED to have his firearms taken & confiscated. Let the stupid own Guns, & this is what happens. Safety courses? Didn't help him. They already KNEW he had them, No help. Mental Stability tests, perhaps it would have prevented this. If you want to keep your second amendment rights, please, be responsible & Turn in the NUT CASES, BEFORE they do harm. If you are a NUT CASE. STOP BEING ONE & GET REASONABLE, FAST! By Clinging to unreasonable tenets, we as a species will kill each other off, before the bright white light of realization comes to us, that we NEED to clean up our act collectively.

the government is the enemy. Often linked to that ridiculous idea is that only a gun can be used to defend against the supposed tyranny of the government.

According to the NRA, the only solution is more guns, correct?

So disarm the ATF.

The way some of you go on about the NRA, one gets the impression that the ranks
of gun control advocates are filled with the equivalent of The Onion's "Area Man":

http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849

It appears that "the NRA" is serving as the equivalent of Area Man's "Constitution"...

Is his death merely a useful anecdote to you?

Another testament to the power of fear over the lives of US citizens.

So prove it.

I have never killed or wounded anyone (accidentally or intentionally).

Therefore not having a gun prevents killing.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(it's as logical as anything Wayne LaPeeError has ever said....................)

How well has that worked out?
After all, drugs, legal or illegal, have killed far more people each year than firearms.

as much as I love ya, it's really no concern of mine.

but I don't begrudge those that choose to do so.

Isn't firearms, or knives, or clubs. The worst offender is a human being, who decides that he/she wants to kill another, and does so with a gun, or a knife, or a club, or his/her fists.

More logic:
- Since fewer deaths and injuries is good goal, I want to find a commonality to exploit that will help in reaching the goal.

>>> Seems like a good idea. I'm not seeing anything wrong in the reasoning so far.

- Looking at the means of assault shows that a firearm is used more often than in murders than any other means.

>>> Seems like a good idea. I'm not seeing anything wrong in the reasoning so far.

- If I can rid the world of firearms, I can cut deaths and injuries a great deal.

>>> There are 2 huge problems with this: first, you can't. Second, since a firearm is also the first line of defense against the assailants, even assuming that every lawful honest person agreed with you, there would be a point at which the divestment of firearms from the lawful honest folks (all the non-criminals) was balanced by the theft and loss of firearms from the police and military. There would also be a concurrent rise in the use of other weapons for criminal ends. Even if the firearm was no longer the "worst offender" and tool would take its place.

The use of this kind of non-logic leads to things like assault weapons bans. The idea is banning weapons with the potential of killing the greatest numbers in the shortest time. The problem with that thinking is that those types of weapons are also the ones that kill the fewest people per year.

In truth the greatest commonality to exploit among violent crime is the criminal. The worst among us are imprisoned, disarmed and monitored 24 hours a day and yet prisons are often the scenes of violent assaults.

* UBCs are a good thing. They can cut the rate at which the lawful honest folks unwittingly pass firearms on to those with violent histories.
* Picking a type of gun as the "worst offender" leads to a total ban. Since, even with bans on the "worst offenders", a new "worst offender" will take its place. Consequently, the job will never be done, many folks that would never murder or maim will be criminalized by the banning process and the cost of banning guns will quickly exceed the cost of gun violence.

but good luck with your dream of a gun free America.

FerChristsakes, we don't have to make it so easy for them, do we??

You gunhumpers are sick puppies. I feel for you not being able to care for your fellow human beings.

So typical and predictable.
And you wonder why gun control is a smoking wreck in this country.

If you think it's insulting, do something to change my mind.

Have I called you names?

If it goes down because of nuisance laws and prohibitions then rights are being infringed upon with no benefit to people or society.

To some, victims are only the means to an end....

situations

Of violence commits an act of violence. Was there something deeper you wish to notice?

Sympathy for the deputy's family

Deputy Myers only worth to them was as a political tool due to the manner of his death, not as a
human being

save for pro forma expressions of sympathy while they talk about their Second Amendment rights.

Much talk about rights, little consideration for responsibilities.

And you only mentioned the victim when it was pointed out that you and the other
'travelers on the same path' hadn't...

Because I'm certain that a fine, upstanding DUer like yourself would never, ever
put words in someone else's mouth- so you must have imagined this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=176508

As I stated to one poster about Hemenway's quote of disdain for victims-

His words taken at face value indicate a prejudice against any gun use. Criminals using guns, victims defending themselves and even suicides are all perpetrators of gun violence and not differentiated in any way. Logically such a viewpoint would combine those distinct actions under a single total of gun violence. It would show the core of Gun Control is not about victims but about guns

Just your Second Amendment in action.

They have to understand that some of their crazier followers buy into this stuff.

You would rather blame a dead guy and an organization that had nothing to do with this guy shooting the cop?

It's the anti-government paranoia stoked by Heston and his ilk over the years.

But yes, the shooter himself is still primarily responsible, by far.

For his hands are indeed cold and dead!

33-year-old Joel Dixon Smith

No wonder gun control advocates are so excitable- they think they're living in a cheesy
horror movie...