If everyone played chess would there be less gun violence?

All the above are too confusing.  I always play with my '38 in my hand, but never had anything(one) to shoot -- at least yet. 

uhm, are you sure that it's your 38 in your hand?  I'm guessing it might be something else in that hand.  Vis. reuben fine :)

I'm sure there would be less gun violence if there were fewer threads like these.

what?

I think there would be less gun violence if there were less guns sold 

There would also be fewer car deaths if fewer cars are sold.

I would like to point out that the word " murder " is a legal term and it means the illegal taking of a HUMAN life. Ask any attorney. Therefore a human cannot "murder" an animal. FYI  As for the threat to animals their habitat destruction is a far greater threat to them than the ever dwindling number of hunters.

There are few things more annoying than when someone puts forth the proposition of murdering animals out of love of nature. One such statement, is when I voice opposition to such absurdities, somebody rings in with the cliche: 'Keep an open mind.' If you have an argument, state it. I'll be more than happy to elaborate on anything you're confused about in my position. But save your cliches.

Oh, I forgot about 'classic television', from "I love Lucy' to 'Laverne and Shirley'. With that memory road, I revise my statement to; EVERY episode of South Park is genius in comparison. Throw in Monty Python, Yes, Minister, Mr. Show, and Home Movies. Taking into account every other comedy series on television, it's like comparing reading Voltaire, to watching paint dry.

Disclaimer: This is intentional comedy, not the comedy of shows like Meet the Press, and Oprah.

Murder is unnecessarily taking life. But I am going to call my attorney and find out if killing you is considered an environmental necessity or euthanasia.

Cars don't kill people. People kill people. If no cars existed people would still be killed. If no guns existed people would still be killed.

 You are wrong, murder involves human life, not plants, not animals..... grow up

 This is quite true. For example, when the Missouri and Mississippi were channelized for commerce, these rivers were deepened and greatly narrowed. This narrowing eliminated millions of acres of wetland habitat used by water fowl. Ducks Unlimited is an organization comprised of sportsman that is trying to preserve the breeding grounds for ducks and geese by buying land in these areas.  That's right, Ducks Unlimited. Let the righteous indignation begin.

"Murder" is not confined to law, "murder" is the immoral act of killing. If I reduced my scope of understanding expressions to the area of "law", I would be just as confused as you are.

Websters definition...

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

looking further under the hood... murder and killing are similar but different...

With that said... I use to hunt and as a young lad there was a ban on hunting deer in our neck of the woods for close to ten years... by the end of ban the antlers on near all deer taken when the season opened where growing inward which is a sign of malnutrition. 

Me personally after being in the army and my little stint in the sand I personally can't look down the end of a barrel at anything living, human or four legged, but break into my home and killing will take place.... not murder...

The deer population in Ohio is out of control. Hunting season is a necessity now. We have way too many deer hit by cars. I don't think people would abide by a ban on cars so we have a hunting season on deer.

Th dictionary is a guide to a rudimentary understanding of words in question regardless of context. If the context is one of an immoral killing, then the word "murder" may be used. If the context is a U.S. court of law, then the word "murder" may only apply as "homocide". The dictionary definition supplied by Webster, Oxford, etc., does not take into account the vileness of the act of killing an animal for pleasure which I believe hunting for sport is. Therefore, "murder" is appropriately used in the context of implying the immorality of the act. 

No doubt the human population is out of control in Ohio.

Yeah but then there's the cranky, self-regarding, we-know-better-than-everyone-else libertarianism inherent to the show, to the extent that occasionally it ruins its comic impact.

Plus, if South Park is Voltaire, then how are we to assess something of true genius, like Nathan Barley?

 No doubt some of the people in this thread are out of control. 

Ok, those absurdities you mention are facts. Populations of wild animals are too large to be sustained naturally in many parts of the country. You admit that fact, ridicule any solution, and do nothing but reiterate your emotional opinion.

Fact: Deer populations are exploding in many areas of the country and many states are trying to reduce their populations. Here's a link to a study done by Cornell University in the Twin Tier area of NY and PA. A notable quote from the study: "As in most areas of the state, hunting is still the most effective manner by which to control deer populations."
http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/Pages/default.aspx

Fact: In Pennsylvania, and possibly in many other states, hunters fund the majority of environmental projects. This means that hunters themselves are doing the most to promote a balanced and sustainable ecology. This link describes how hunters fund up to 75% of federally funded environmental projects. In addition, many state funded projects are also funded by hunters through license fees, taxes on sporting goods, etc.
http://ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2723&q=326164

So hunters are performing a task that most states welcome, fund environmental projects that everyone welcomes, and, in general, have deep reverance for nature and wildlife. You equate them to murderers and yet have probably done nothing yourself to promote a more balanced ecology.