Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  He didn't do what a prudent armed person (22+ / 0-)

    would do which is- Call the cops, stay in your house, and wait with your weapon in the event there's a break-in until the cops come, or the people you're afraid of leave. You just don't go out on your porch and shoot people or shoot at them because they frighten you. This guy sounds like a murderer to me.

    "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

    by pengiep on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:21:56 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yet another Responsible Gun Owner (22+ / 0-)

      Yet another Responsible Gun Owner™ whose rights must not be infringed upon.

      Yep, 100% responsible...right up to the moment when he irresponsibly shot someone.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

      by Joe Bob on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:45:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cannot rec this highly enough. (7+ / 0-)

        This murderer is exactly the kind of person we are hearing about amongst the "Responsible Gun Owners of America", who prove over and over again that no such thing exists.

        •  Responsible gun owners (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, high uintas, trillian

          ...are the tens of millions who aren't the handful of people who've shot anyone. Don't paint innocent people with the blood from the crimes of a few.

          "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 03, 2013 at 11:12:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But how do I know which one of them is going (11+ / 0-)

            to cease being a Responsible Gun Owner™ the moment I mistakenly pull into his driveway?

            Because they're nearly always "responsible gun owners" - until they're not. That's the point you seem to have missed.

            Got #Bqhatevwr? There's a mug for that! #Bqhatevwr coffee mug at my BoldyLiberal* store on Zazzle

            by jan4insight on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:17:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Now you're going to hear from all those folks... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            high uintas, DarthMeow504

            ...who (stupidly) believe that the mere act of owning a gun makes you personally responsible for every single gun death in the world.  These are the same people who (stupidly) believe that owning a gun will some day, just you wait and see, turn you into a murderer.  Sort of like the demon in The Exorcist, but without the split pea soup vomit.

            •  Stupid? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan, JayBat, mudfud27

              I hope you can step back and appreciate the irony in your own comment. You accuse other people of painting with too broad a brush…by painting those who disagree with you with too broad a brush. Likewise, calling people stupid has no place here.

              To the topic at hand: I won’t go so far as to say there are no Responsible Gun Owners™ it’s just that there appear to be many, many people who get included in that category who have no business being there. With the case in question: In retrospect, it’s quite apparent that Philip Sailors lacks the good judgment that should be a prerequisite for owning a gun.

              Yet as the law stands today, he’s not a felon or adjudicated mentally ill so he can have any gun that’s legally available. I would like to see a system where people who want guns have to do something to affirmatively demonstrate they are competent to own and use one.

              Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

              by Joe Bob on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:11:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right. All four of them might be dead if he had (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PsychoSavannah, mudfud27

                a semi-automatic weapon.  He fired in the air, then again at the car as they backed up. With a revolver, which generally takes a heavier trigger pull or has a double-action (don't know exactly what he had).

                Just think if that gun was going off click-click-click-click...

                He also may have killed neighbors or people on the street if his shots went astray.  As it is, he's lucky the bullet in the air didn't hit anyone coming down.

                "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                by YucatanMan on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:53:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The rights of citizens (0+ / 0-)

                ...cannot be infringed without due process of law. That's the Constitution. In other words no, you don't get to do anything to someone until they do something to deserve it.

                Sailors HAD the right to own a gun and be left alone about it. He ABUSED his right by committing a crime with that gun. Now he is charged with murder and must face the legal consequences of his actions. If convicted, he will never have the right to own a weapon again even if he lives long enough to finish his sentence which at his age isn't likely.

                That's how it works. Innocent until proven guilty. You have rights until you do something that results in them being taken away. That's how a free society works.

                You don't get to take preemptive action against those you think "might" become a threat. That way lies chaos.

                "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 Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 08:49:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ridicuous (0+ / 0-)

                  You are so far away from what anyone is claiming. No one is asking to have put Sailors in jail before he shot someone. We are saying guns (or-- take your pick-- prescription drugs, atomic bombs, etc) are just not something the average person can be responsible with (obviously) so the "right" to have them is being taken away.

                  •  There are MILLIONS of gun owners (0+ / 0-)

                    ...and only thousands of murders. That's a factor of 1 in 1000 or less. Thus, YES the "average" person CAN be trusted with guns. Those who cannot be are a rare outlier.

                    So you want to take the rights of 99.9% because of 0.1%. Yeah, that sounds fair and reasonable!

                    "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 12:32:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                      There are millions of gun owners and hundreds of thousands of people shot EVERY YEAR, and tens of thousands of deaths by gun EVERY YEAR.

                      Sorry, your numbers are absurd and don't remotely add up.  

                      Given that a single one of these events is entirely unnecessary for any productive reason (save the bloodlust of the gun nuts), it is obvious that the "average person" cannot be trusted with a gun.

                      Yes, I would absolutely like to take away the "rights" of the 99% to fill people with hot lead. Yes that is both fair and reasonable.

                      •  Nobody has the right to fill anybody with anything (0+ / 0-)

                        ...and you know it. Shooting people is illegal. Murder is illegal. These are actions that harm people. Merely owning an object harms no one. Deliberately misusing said object is already against the law.

                        What part of "the rights of citizens shall not be abridged without due process of law" do you not understand? You can't punish people unless they do something. You can't take away their rights until they do something to warrant a court action, aka due process of law.

                        Your use of the term "bloodlust" is insulting and misdirected. Murderers possess and demonstrate bloodlust. The tens of millions of people who own guns all their lives without ever shooting anyone do not qualify for that term.

                        "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 04:15:39 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Then why own the gun (0+ / 0-)

                          If not to fill people with bullets? it is the purpose of the gun after all.

                          It is utterly obtuse and incorrect to argue that "merely owning" a gun hurts no one. It is well proven that the presence of a gun in a home vastly increases the likelihood of a person in that household being shot.

                          What part of "well regulated militia" do you not understand? Besides, since when did you have the right to own anything you please? The due process you ask for does not apply here.

                          The term "bloodlust" seems to fit perfectly well for the people who shoot others as well as those, like you, who enable them to do so by supplying them with guns and the "rights" to have them. I do apologize if you're insulted but perhaps you might want to reconsider your behavior if you don't want people to think of you that way. You don't have to personally pull the trigger to have a hand in killing someone.

                          •  What I do with my property (0+ / 0-)

                            ...is none of your damned business so long as I harm no one. I never have, and I don't plan to. Understand?

                            I supply no one with anything, and if you think you can reduce demand via prohibition you're willfully ignorant of the history of prohibition in this country. Yes you can increase the price by making an item contraband, but that does nothing to stop demand and it empowers a black market that enriches criminal traffickers, criminalizes normal citizens, and wastes vast resources playing whack-a-mole with the black marketeers. You cannot win a prohibition war any more than you can a counterinsurgency. It doesn't work. It has never worked. And you've provided no evidence to suggest that it will work if/when you try it again.

                            My law-abiding activities have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with someone else's crime. Never did, never will. You can pretend otherwise all you like, it won't make it true.

                            "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 01:58:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

                            Except that owning that property hurts and threatens all of society. You are basically handing out weapons to people who kill.

                            The rest of your post is self-contradictory. Do you actually not understand how increasing the price of things reduces demand? It may not decrease desire, but it will certainly decrease demand. It has worked in many other countries, contrary to your claim.

                            "Normal citizens" who want human killing devices ought to be criminalized; they are not "normal".

                            Your "law abiding activities" are what make other peoples' crimes possible. You just can't seem to take responsibility for your choices and actions. So typical.

                          •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            No matter how many times you repeat the delusion, it won't make it true. Tens of millions of people manage to own guns while never harming anyone at all. You're trying to kill cockroaches with a flamethrower and the fire you would start would burn us all.

                            You're a fanatic. Your positions are ideologically driven, irrational, and unrelated to logic or fact. You are uniquely ill-equipped to solve problems because you are unable to assess a situation clearly due to your extremist ideological lens.

                            So much for the reality-based community, huh?

                            "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 03:28:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  How do you know (0+ / 0-)

                Who the chosen few are who have the combination of good judgement, impenetrable home/car/personal security (to prevent the guns from being stolen), rock-solid psychological constitution, utter immunity from mind altering substances and diseases, and so on we would need to responsibly own guns?

                Exactly.

                There are no "responsible gun owners". Just lucky ones.

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              You're going to hear from us, yes. But you only find our contention "stupid" because you fail to understand the concept of actual responsibility.

              Owning a gun makes you at least partly responsible for every gun death, yes, absolutely. It is also quite likely to make you the person who shoots someone (whether on purpose or accidentally) yourself. Drop the blinkers and look at the statistics.

              A gun owner needs to grow up and take some responsibility. He needs to own it. Say, "Yes, you're right: my owning a gun increases the gun supply, puts a weapon out there that may fall into the wrong hands, and brings significant danger into my household making it much more likely I or a family member will be shot by this gun than use it for anything like home defense. But that's worth it to me."  Then we can have a fact-based discussion about why that is.

          •  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 ]

      •  Sure was an "innocent American" right up until (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah

        the time he pulled the trigger and murdered a young man for zero reason whatsoever.   Because, "Tyranny!"

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:50:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site