Father of CA Shooting Victim Points Directly at NRA

[kpete]

Father of Shooting Victim Points Directly at NRA
posted by CHARLES MUDEDE on SUN, MAY 25, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Said by a father, Richard Martinez, who lost his son, Christopher Martinez, in the UCSB shooting:

Our son Chris Martinez and six others are dead... Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris's right to live?

MORE:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/05/25/father-of-shooting-victim-points-directly-at-nra
http://gawker.com/father-of-ucsb-shooting-victim-when-will-this-insanit-1581191996

[Xipe Totec]

1. To be clear, we do have a problem with guns in this country

But this guy is not the best poster child to make the case.

After all, his first three victims were stabbed to death.

[Eleanors38]

2. Do you have a link to the "knife" story? Thanks.

[Xipe Totec]

4. It's on LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014811029

[malaise]

10. It's true - the Sheriff said so at the press conference

but the only reason they were stabbed was clearly written in the manifesto and clearly stated on the Youtube rant - had he used any of the number of guns he had accumulated, Part 2 of the slaughter would not have been possible because guns make noise.
He said he would lure them in and kill them and then he would slaughter those blondes at the sorority house.
Had the deputies not responded with fire, he would have killed several more people with the guns.

Let the NRA defenders and the craven irresponsible politicians and the defenders on DU explain how he had so many guns and bullets given his mental health issues.

[Eleanors38]

43. Sounds like the State of California with its anti-gun AG Harris

(who has no qualms going to residences to confiscate guns from those deemed unqualified), and with its bureaucracy feeding adjudicated mental incompetency findings to NICS better than other states, would be the best place to get your answers.

[Hekate]

104. As a Californian, I would appreciate links to "AG Harris...confiscating guns from residences"

Either her own self or by proxy, I don't care, but please help us all out with the sources of your information, and the contexts.

[petronius]

110. California operates an Armed Prohibited Persons System, which attempts

to match reports of persons who have become disqualified from firearms ownership against transaction records (we don't technically have gun registration, but private party sales are illegal and every transfer - which must be done through a licensed dealer - is reported to DOJ). When a match is made, Cal. DOJ is supposed to attempt to remove the firearm from the now-prohibited person.

Here's a link to a somewhat critical report by the State Auditor regarding the APPS and where it could be improved...

(I don't know if this is what Eleanors38 is referring to, but it is something we have here.)

[Hekate]

111. Doesn't sound like a bad start, but am sure it can be improved

Perhaps Eleanors38 can give us some more to go on.

I may be mistaken, but between the lines I kept hearing "jackbooted thugs" and I'd like to know how true that is. My next door neighbor, for instance, keeps firearms legally and I wonder how he feels about tracking illegal and felonious transactions. I like him, but since he's a flaming conservative and I try to avoid certain subjects I won't be actually asking him.

[petronius]

114. It is a good start, but it depends on the information getting into the

system, and that seems to be where a significant hang-up is. We have a long way to go in identifying the people who are legally, formerly, judicially disqualified before getting to the "everybody knows s/he's a problem it's just commonsense" cases - and there are huge privacy and due process/fairness issues when it comes to disqualifying people who have not been through the legal system.

What I've read about the APPS - albeit from the perspective of the agents involved and reporters interviewing them - is that it's pretty non-jackboot-ish. As I recall, they often can't get warrants based on the information they have, and it becomes a process of persuasion (hopefully in the real sense of that word and not the flexible bad-cop version of 'voluntary cooperation')...

[passiveporcupine]

130. agreed, right now it's not working very well, but that doesn't mean it can't

And we have a precedence with the DMV.

DMV receives information from many sources, including law enforcement, physicians and surgeons, judges, family members and acquaintances. Under the law, peace officers have the discretion to request a reexamination of any driver with whom they come in contact, if they observe or discover reasons to believe the person may be unable to drive safely. Court judges have similar discretion.

The law also requires physicians and surgeons to report to the local health officer certain conditions or disorders, and gives them discretion to report other conditions. These reports are forwarded to the DMV. DMV may consider information from any source when deciding whether to investigate or reexamine a person's driving qualifications. This includes information from a person's family members, relatives and acquaintances.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/driversafety/dsmedcontraffic.htm

If we can restrict people from driving, we should also be able to restrict people from shooting guns. Only in this case, it needs to be a restriction of "owning" guns, if medical reasons can be determined to cause them to be "unsafe" to own a gun.

I know people can still "own" a car, but if they can't drive it legally, they are not as likely to use it to harm someone else. With the exception of drunk drivers with no license...but if we catch them doing it, they go to jail (or should). My mom no longer drives her car, but other people drive it for her to get her where she needs to go. We could do the same thing with guns. You can own one, you just can't shoot it...you need someone else to shoot it for you. But I'm afraid that wouldn't work very well with people who intend to harm others with their gun. Guns are much easier to hide in public than a vehicle. And you can't keep a car in your nightstand drawer.

[Eleanors38]

113. Google: Kamala Harris seizes Guns.

My hand-held won't reliably do links.

A number of duplicate stories where guns were seized under the circumstances I described ("not qualified...&quot . How effective or on-going this program is, I couldn't say. Her actions go the willingness of the state to pursue those abusing 2A; I.e. California is not lackadaisical with regard gun-control. It should be apparent she is enforcing basic NICS requirements. Hopefully, she doesn't goof up.

[boston bean]

7. This guys son was shot with a gun in a delicatessen.

He has every right to make his case.

[Xipe Totec]

13. I don't blame the grieving father for feeling that way

He was probably unaware of the stabbings when he went public.

But facts are facts; the guy was hell bent on mayhem and destruction. If he didn't have a gun he would've used some other means of killing people. Even a car to mow down pedestrians.

I'm all for reducing gun violence and if it weren't for the three stabbings he committed first, I might agree that this was a good case to make the point.

[boston bean]

14. My opinion, is I think it would not make a shits bit of difference to him.

His son was shot in the back while going into a delicatessen to get something to eat.

[Xipe Totec]

15. As you said, he has a right to an opinion and so do I

You are not the father's spokesman.

[boston bean]

16. And neither are you. Do you not see that it is you who are

trying to state he probably would feel differently if such and such.

He made a statement. His son was shot. He has not stated anything differently. So, you can stop trying to be his spokesman at any time, ok?

[calimary]

59. Actually, he IS. We ALL are - if we agree about this UBER-excessive gun violence problem.

And I do. So I join him. You have a right to your opinion - BUT SO DO WE!!!!! What about OUR rights to live in peace without being terrorized by our own fellow citizens and their wanton access to any damn guns they want, and as many as they want, and how they seem increasingly hellbent on creating a "Shootout at the OK Corral" scenario on every street corner? What about OUR rights to be free of shit like that? To be free of that kind of ongoing domestic threat to OUR safety and peace of mind? Don't WE have rights, too? What about OUR rights not to have to deal with fucking damn guns being shoved in our faces all the time? I, for one, am sick and tired of it! Have all the murder toys you want. But keep 'em in your own confines - in your own house. Your own camp ground. Your own shooting range. Knock yourselves out. But, dammit, don't keep pushing them on ME, and where I live, and where MY neighborhood is, and where MY grocery store and church and local watering holes are! KEEP THEM AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!

[3catwoman3]

98. Precisely.

Someone else's second amendment rights should not interfere with the right to LIFE, liberty and the the pursuit of happiness the rest of us would like to enjoy.

[dixiegrrrrl]

45. He DID plan to use his car to mow down people.

In the 141 page manifesto, the last section talked about who he wanted to kill and how he wanted to kill them.
He was going to use his (?) SUV to run over students in the streets, because they tended to walk and gather in the main street, and he thought his BMW or whatever it was would be too ineffectual.

He talked about luring his 2 room-mates and some other people into his apt and killing them, he used the expression "flay" a lot.

He also wanted to kill his step mom and the son she had with his father, but wanted to pick a date when his father would be out of the country. Dunno if he managed that part of his plan, they are not releasing names.

[DhhD]

47. In my opinion, stabbing is face to face, personal confrontation and punishment. This is a type of

entertainment/relief that the shooter has been waiting for. The longer the wait, the more vicious he felt he could be. He has been moving into the ambush position for quite a while. The extension of a weapon was the next step in meeting others in the social hours of Nightlife on the streets. Then, the shooting weapon did the talking. NRA says it is ok to stand your ground and extend yourself with a weapon letting the weapon resolve the conflict. NRA says carry a weapon at all times, it is your Constitutional Right.

[passiveporcupine]

131. Yes, it is unless you attack the people you want to kill while they are sleeping

which is what he did. And he used a knife to keep it silent so he wouldn't be apprehended.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

132. What the hell difference does "he also stabbed people" make?

He SHOT people. But you gun nuts pretend that doesn't matter. After all, what is more important to a gun nut: Guns or lives? Clearly, it is guns. A screwed up set of priorities.

BTW, the husband of a close friend of my wife's was shot and killed during a liquor store holdup. But do you gun nuts care?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. We have a fucking racist troll here, ya'll!

[MoonRiver]

9. The guy was armed to the teeth with guns.

I'm sure he was planning on a bigger massacre, but, fortunately was cut down before he could do more damage. The knives were people he had personal grudges against. The father's point was spot on.

[JJChambers]

18. Cut down by people with....?

He was wounded and took his own life. God bless our hero police officers.

[bossy22]

22. we were lucky that he "ran into" a police officer

One of the most dangerous aspects of this incident (though its not that obvious to those who don't have experience in the emergency services) was that he using a motor vehicle as transportation during the commission of the crime. This means that dispatch was probably receiving multiple calls from different locations which would confuse them and slow down response.

[exboyfil]

12. Says more about a willingness to

start a commitment process when terroristic threats are uttered. I would like to know which videos the family and police where aware of prior to the shooting spree. He apparently pulled the videos the first time but uploaded them prior to his spree. He was interviewed by the police. I say take these nuts at their word. If they make threats come down hard on them.

Here is a recent case in which a threat was taken seriously. It does have some legal differences.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Threat-Prompts-Evacuation-East-LA-College-207715541.html

Here is an example of a less immediate threat that was taken very seriously ($1M bond and still being prosecuted as of 2013 for the illegal guns but not for the initial threat it seems).

http://hometownstation.com/santa-clarita-news/udpate-valencia-man-accused-threats-due-back-march-hearing-33347

[dixiegrrrrl]

48. I would like to know which videos the family and police where aware of prior to the shooting spree.

All that info is clearly available to police, press and to us, is in the 141 page manifesto he wrote.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/225936731/Untitled

[exboyfil]

60. I don't know which videos

The last one clearly was a threat but I think was loaded after the conversation with the police.

[mikeysnot]

40. To be clear "we" don't have a problem with guns?

people that have delusions of grandeur think they can solve their problems with guns.

Certain Americans have big ass problems with guns.

Another "law abiding citizen" using his second amendment rights...

He bought them legally. He used them illegally.

We have a problems with guns in this country...

[951-Riverside]

3. The NRA wants you to blame everyone except them

I think this is where this "MRA" distraction bullshit is coming from.

[TBF]

6. I don't think the problem

will go away if we disband the NRA - we still need to deal with restrictions on who can have guns. And we need to look at whether we are taking care of our mentally ill citizens (answer - obviously not as well as we could).

But you do bring up a good point. It is definitely in their interest to distract. So, maybe a little of all 3 things.

[TBF]

5. Funding for mental health and

licensing for gun ownership have to be both seriously looked at. We've had too many of these incidents. But it's got to be both pieces.

I'd love to blame the NRA for this but they are just a lobbying group. They are going to do their thing but the legislatures we elect (especially at the state level) have a lot of power in setting restrictions. I know the dad is just in a really bad place right now and not thinking logically - I wish they'd leave the families alone after something like this happens.

[bossy22]

8. this guy would have gotten a license....thats the issue

There was nothing in his background at the time to prohibit him

[MoonRiver]

11. Perhaps there should be a limit on how many guns and ammo one can own.

I think he had 5 or 6 and none of them were hunting rifles. I also read he had 400 rounds of ammo. Why weren't these fact big ole RED FLAGS???

[bossy22]

19. 5 or 6 isn't necessarily alot

neither is 400 rounds of ammunition. Weekend recreational shooters will go through that amount and more during a weekend range trip. Let me put it in perspective...take 4 "normal sized" bricks and put them next to each other- thats how large 400 rounds of ammunition is. Would could carry that amount on their person without needing a backpack.

No they weren't hunting rifles, but they weren't anything that would arise suspicion either. They were ordinary handguns- some of the most common models out there. They were the same handguns police carry or a normal citizen would have for self-defense or target shooting

IMHO it appears that there were little if any red flags for this asshole until it was too late. This was planned years ago. This isn't a guy who just "snapped". He was a psychopath- plain and simple.

[MoonRiver]

21. On top of the parents' and therapist's concern, plus the disturbing youtube videos, the

fact that he was armed to the teeth should have been big fat red flags. He was a loose cannon and, once again, nobody cared to step up.

[bossy22]

24. yes he was

and in california something could have been done. California DOJ keeps a record of all handgun sales in the state so it is theoretically possible that they could have cross checked his name with that list, found out he had weapons, then start the proceedings to "secure them".

The problem is that the major red flags came too late. This is also a mental health privacy issue as well.

This guy wasn't "crazy". He was rationale- he was. He had a goal, he set up a plan, and he took action. this type of person is the most dangerous person in society. They can function perfectly, they can blend in and many times they know how to take advantage of the system.

[MoonRiver]

27. The thing is, he didn't blend in.

When parents and therapists both express concerns, and an individual is posting his anger and rage on public videos, that should be enough to investigate his threat to himself and society. Police dropped the ball. Also, the parents could have taken their case to the court and gotten guardianship over him. Isn't this what Lyndsey Lohan's father did?

[bossy22]

42. not "blending in" is still not a crime

or worthy of instituionalization. If that was the case I'd have been locked away.

IIRC the videos and his rants were only noticed by his parents 2 months ago.

Could the parents have gone to court- maybe. I don't know if there would have been enough evidence for the court to really do anything more than order a psych evaluation (which people have been known to fake their way through). Also, i don't know of many families that are quick to run to the court system for these types of problems- especially wealthy families. To many people, this would seem like a "personal/family matter" that would be handled behind closed doors. Again, I'm not saying this is correct, I'm just saying that's what i believe many people would think

[MoonRiver]

44. Yes, it would have been hard to take their son to court

and strip him of his rights. And they might not have been successful. But they might have been, and all these deaths could possibly have been prevented. I'm not blaming his parents, but taking that route would have been better than the alternative.

[Hekate]

108. "The parents could have..."Once a child is 18, parental rights are pretty much terminated regardless

...of how much money you have or don't have.

I have two friends (who don't know each other) who each had a child who had a psychotic break in adolescence. The first one was poor, and I thought that if she'd only had money she'd have been able to do more. (Fortunately her daughter, while she'll never be normal, retained sufficient self-awareness to seek help on her own and has done well.) The second friend was rich, trust-fund rich. His son spiraled out of reality while my friend and his wife desperately sought help here, there, and everywhere. While my friend was gone on yet another quest, his son knifed his stepmom to death.

The lesson I learned is this: not that "they're all violent," because actually the mentally ill are not necessarily violent and are often victims. But this: Parents and families can do little without the consent of the over-18 mentally ill family member.

It seems Elliot Rodger's family did try to help him throughout his life, did warn the police, did try to get the police to pay attention. I don't know what else they could have done, short of tying him up the basement.

It was society (in the form of our political system in particular) that failed them, and the families of the murdered, and all the rest of us -- by shredding the laughable safety net, by kowtowing to the gun lobby, by having a one-size-fits-all criminal justice system, by enshrining personal liberties for the mentally ill (to refuse meds, to sleep under bridges) without an overarching policy of help, by enshrining freedom of speech to the point that the violent ravings found so abundantly online are shrugged off, by not connecting the dots to see what kind of sociopathic narcissistic murderer was plotting action....

I'm not letting this guy off the hook, by any means. There was no apparent psychotic break, just a lifelong personality disorder, coupled with a sense of entitlement and simmering anger, and marinated in online echo-chambers. He was perfectly rational in a way, and at this moment in time I'm only sorry that when he tried to shove a girl or two off a ledge (or the cliff) in Isla Vista that he didn't fall off it himself.

I'm probably going to get in trouble for half of what I've just written here, but IV and UCSB are part of my community and I am just so heartsick at this moment it's inexpressible.

[Duckhunter935]

20. so he should only be allowed to own hunting rifles?

and what limit?
How many rifles?
How many pistols?
per type of weapon? per caliber?
How many rounds should be allowed?

I have several that are different calibers and sizes. Under 10 total. Went to the range Friday and went through a couple of hundred rounds plinking paper plates and some long range rifle targets. 400 rounds is really not that much if you go to the range. Bulk is also much cheaper.

The police should have removed his weapons after the call for a period of time. It seems the warning signs were there and once again were missed. The weapons all appeared to be legally purchased in one of the most strict states of regulations. I guess he could of just built a bomb, not very hard really.

[Sancho]

106. Here (again) is the answer to your ?'s.

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[Duckhunter935]

107. I have read you post before

I can agree with most of it.
my question was to another individual who so far has not answered any of my questions.

[Mad-in-Mo]

135. I like these!

Great people control ideas. We can hope at least some of these can be implemented.

[TBF]

34. Instead of licensing the gun

We need to license the person. With drivers license you must pass eye test (duh). Licensing for operating guns should include written test, practical to show you understand usage and safety, and psych eval.

[Eleanors38]

46. I can't agree with your license requirements, but using NICS

standards, states can issue Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) cards, or encode such on existing State I.D.s. Of course, this would not have stopped this stabber/shooter/hit & run blowhole: He was not adjudicated mentally incompetent.

What would you test for on some "psych" evaluation? And how would an evaluation protect not only one's 2A rights, but their 5A due process rights? It wouldn't.

[TBF]

64. I don't think we're going to agree on 2A rights either -

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I think the Court got it wrong with Heller. Militia, not individual rights.

So it's all in the interpretation.

[tiredtoo]

17. Do not misunderstand my reply

I am 100 percent for gun control however, after reading Michael Moore's response to this latest case, i feel there is more to the violence in America than just access to guns. Canada has more guns per resident than the U.S. but less violence.
In my opinion all guns should be kept under lock and key in a county lockup and only taken out for hunting or sporting events. (clay pigeons and so on).

[NutmegYankee]

39. No one is going to agree to keep firearms in a county lockup.

Neither Canada nor Norway require such a thing. And the SCOTUS has ruled that you have the right to keep firearms within the home. There are many reasonable things that can be done to prevent gun violence. That isn't one of them.

[DanTex]

115. Canada does not have more guns per resident than the US. Michael Moore is wrong about that.

Also, Canada has much tighter gun laws than the US, comparable to Western Europe.

[aikoaiko]

23. CA gets the worst scores from the NRA and the best from the Brady Bunch.

Its been reported that the firearms and ammo were obtained legally. I'm not sure what NRA lobbying point or law he thinks should have been in place.

I understand his grief, but I'm not sure what he thinks CA legislators should have done differently.

[Historic NY]

25. Suspect had 40 magazines. Who buys that many???

The suspect is believed to have started shooting at 9:27 p.m. PT in the small community of Isla Vista, Brown said. By 9:33 he had been engaged by deputies and shortly thereafter he was found dead in his car "from an apparent gunshot wound to the head."

Brown said police found three semi-automatic handguns in the car along with more than 40 loaded magazines of ammunition. Working with the ATF, Brown said all of the weapons and ammunition were obtained legally and were registered to Rodger.

[Duckhunter935]

28. I guess he did.

They were all California legal standard size I would assume as the police stated they were legal. He passed the background checks as required by Federal and California law. The weapons appeared to be registered with the state per California law. He killed 3 people with a knife and 3 with an handgun.

So what laws would you propose to prevent this?

Just remember there are millions of magazines out there and they do not get used up or expire. And remember these were al legal under California's very strict gun control laws.

[aikoaiko]

91. When I buy a semi-auto, I routinely buy 10 mags with each new gun

I use five for range days, and five for future replacements.

[hack89]

134. People that shoot a lot

You want to spend your time at the range shooting not reloading.

[Slip_n_Slide]

26. How about we blame the person who actually killed people...?

Just a thought...

[TBF]

37. Nope - this is not a Republican

Message board. Democrats look at the entire society to evaluate an issue. That is the difference between the two parties. Or at least it used to be before the "third way" came on the scene.

[Eleanors38]

49. This is a Democratic site, and the dead suspect IS at fault.

Had he lived, he would have been warehoused for life as is fitting and proper. We can look at other factors, but this was a rich kid -- dare I say privileged kid? -- who had high-dollar counseling and the resources to get more help on demand.
He has by far the Greatest onus on him.

I say that as a left-Democrat on (you're right here) an increasingly "third way" site.

[TBF]

65. Individual rights is a republican concept -

Last edited Sun May 25, 2014, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I think you are very confused about what "left" means.

[Eleanors38]

87. Can't speak for the GOP. But individual rights are

Built In to the Constitution. There is not even the mention of "states' rights," only powers.

Your take on individual rights is a distinct outlier. I am not concerned about what "left" means, but thanks for your sensitivity.

[TBF]

90. That was supposed to say "confused" -

so I apologize for the error. I don't feel my take on individual rights is fringe - but perhaps it is in this country.

I just found a great article that addresses the connection between misogyny and societal violence. I've posted it in Socialist Progressives where I am a host. Taking into account your comment that perhaps this is a fringe view, I have specifically posted it there in order to discuss with other leftists. I don't know if others will be particularly interest but if so it is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10244812

[Abq_Sarah]

120. Individual rights

Is the bedrock of American society. It's not a "republican concept", it's an American concept. It goes hand in hand with individual responsibility. You don't punish society as a whole for the actions of one.

This is pretty basic stuff.

[TBF]

122. But it hasn't been one has it -

it has been how many incidents now of angry young men shooting the hell out of society?

When something like this is happening I think you need to look at your culture and rethink all of it.

Maybe the entire premise is a bad one. I'm talking about capitalism, individualism, and a misogynist culture of violence.

I think we need to own all of it and figure out how we are going to fix it.

It is not working for us.

[Agschmid]

41. Yes he pretty clearly is guilty, but what made him think this was okay?

There have to be societal reasons this happened as well.

[Eleanors38]

50. I agree with this approach.

[Slip_n_Slide]

94. The reason I'm dismissive of that ...

... is because it is so rare.

99.999999% of the population can make it through life without slaughtering those we think have wronged us.

When you have a system with that kind of success rate you examine the rare failure itself and don't classify the system as a whole as the problem.

He was the problem. I'd go so far to look at his immediate family and friends but society is chugging along a-ok.

$.02

[bossy22]

102. agree 100%

Not all mass shooters are the same. They have different motives, different thought processes. Some are actually insane (like the vtech guy) and others are rational but psychotic (columbine). This guy seems to have fallen into the "psychotic" group.

I question whether there was anything society could have done for him other than long term institutionalization. There are just some people you can't "fix".

[maced666]

52. first post-really?

[Slip_n_Slide]

89. Is there a bit of social etiquette that I missed?

Hi, my name is slip and I like to slide...
Better?

[Skittles]

119. because we actually have CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS HERE

we realize there is a problem in America that extends far beyond that miserable piece of shit

[Slip_n_Slide]

121. You seem very sensitive to the idea of blaming the person. .

... Who actually pulled the trigger.

What is your motivation for taking the focus off of him?

You blame society but the other 99.9999999% of us who also live in it manage not to go around shooting up the place.

[Skittles]

125. your lack of critical thinking skills are clealy on display here

[Slip_n_Slide]

126. So nothing to add then?

Too bad...

[hrmjustin]

124. The NRA has blood on its hands.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

127. How about we also blame the people who made it possible for him to do so? N.T.

[Slip_n_Slide]

128. Right after we sue the cutlery manufacturers for the obesity deaths...

[IronLionZion]

29. I think there are multiple system/culture failures in this incident

The NRA and the gun industry does mainpulate insecurities to boost sales.











The gun industry benefits from paranoia and the need to feel tough.

[Duckhunter935]

30. What about the ones he killed with a knife?

just as many as with a gun. Not to mention the use of a car as a weapon.

[MyNameGoesHere]

31. Well this is expected from

Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 219 posts in the last 90 days (26% of total posts)

Stroke it baby, stroke it. You're almost there.

[Duckhunter935]

32. How very nice of you to bring the penis reference in

That did not take long at all, very nice. I guess I know where your mind must be. I am above that childish bull and you should be also.

Yes, I own firearms. I shoot them occasionally at paper targets. I do not worship like some of you all imagine.

So I post less than 25% in a group that is my favorite. You will also find out a lot of those posts are just trying to get a certain host to at least comment on his posts in his favorite group and his stats put mine to shame. It is a shame that a host on DU refuses to abide by the SOP of his favorite group. But that rant is for another time.

Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 393 posts in the last 90 days (70% of total posts)
Last post: Sun May 25, 2014, 08:12 AM

[DhhD]

51. A weapon is an extension of self. Any machine is an extension that does the work of what is in the

mind.

[Eleanors38]

58. And then, there are those cigars.

[MoonRiver]

73. Yes, but, cigars don't kill other people.

[Eleanors38]

74. Guns don't produce auto-induced orgasms, either.

Which was the implication upstream.

Part of the problem with psychology is that its swanky terminology can be used both to slap on a thin veneer of intellectualism, and to morally condemn at the same time.

[MoonRiver]

77. "swanky terminology?"

[Eleanors38]

81. Well, I was trying to be complimentary to a barren landscape.

[MoonRiver]

82. Barren only to the uneducated and uninformed.

Just saying.

[Eleanors38]

88. Well, off to a Tex-Mex. Have a good day.

[MoonRiver]

92. ...

[Eleanors38]

54. What do you normally "stroke?" How long does it take you?

Perhaps you never "get there?"

[IronLionZion]

35. The desire to hurt others is a serious problem in this country

guns make it more efficient.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

97. You're right on both accounts.

Why not address the root of the problem instead of blaming the tool used or lawful owners of like tools? Law enforcement uses guns for their own protection. Most police officers never fire their weapons in the line of duty. I've never fired mine at other than inanimate targets at the range. I hope it stays that way. However, the desire to hurt others being a serious problem in this country is why I carry. Once that problem is corrected, I'll no longer feel the need to be armed. Until then, disarming the victim is not the answer.

[maced666]

53. Good question.

I guess the victims killed by knife have only the killer himself to blame? But using the same logic the maker of the knife is liable.

[Eleanors38]

57. Let's see if noted politicians will propose measures to thwart the "industry"...

That worked so well the last time.

Drive-by shootings occur in some cities fairly regularly, but those not "privileged" can barely get a hearing from the ban/control crowd on DU.

[DallasNE]

38. The NRA Sets The Table For These Horrific Events

Making it past time to declare the NRA a terrorist organization. But let's not overlook the fact that the NRA is the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers. Time to impose an excise tax on guns, ammunition and gun powder. But I've been saying this for years.

[backwoodsbob]

72. so you want to imprison anyone you disagree with on guns

Nice set of progressive values you have there

[DallasNE]

83. Excise Tax Equals Imprisonment?

What planet do you live on. This is no different than a cigarette/tobacco tax.

[blueridge3210]

105. No, I beieve it's "time to declare the NRA a terrorist organization".

And everything that statement implies. But you knew that.

[DallasNE]

116. Oh, I Stepped On Those Toes

The messaging the NRA does is inciting and dangerous. It is also a false message much like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Indeed, what they do is to set the table for these horrendous, terrifying rampages. Think not, then why is this the only country with this specific problem. Canadians are a guns loving people but they don't have this problem (and I hope we don't export it).

[blueridge3210]

117. Which "messaging" would that be?

Any more of your political or ideological opponents you would like to have declared as terrorists?

[bossy22]

75. I thought that was the NSSF?

National Shooting Sports Foundation

and there already is an excise tax on those items

[Duckhunter935]

84. There already is a tax on them

[liberal N proud]

55. When is the right to live going to be more important than the right to take one?

[randys1]

56. We need MORE and BIGGER guns

gotta kill him before he kills you, even if he wasnt going to kill you, kill him anyway

and we SURELY NEED TO ARGUE ABOUT IT AS IF IT ISNT PERFECTLY CLEAR

guns
are
the
problem

so he also stabbed people, DEAR GOD SO WHAT!!!!!

[Eleanors38]

61. We need MORE and BIGGER knives. And cars

Yeah. We got you: He killed 3 people with knives, "so what."

What really bothers you is the knives disrupted The Narrative™.

[Duckhunter935]

70. It makes it a little harder for them

I saw where the one guest on MHP had to correct the other a couple of times and he grudgingly agreed knives were also used. He initially only mentioned only guns. MHP sad a small bit toward the end about knives also being involved.

Blows their preferred narrative that no scary black "assault rifles" were used with "large magazines" in a state that is "loose" on gun regulations.

So what laws will they push for now?

[randys1]

76. I misread it then, sorry, thought he shot a bunch of people

Eventually america will grow up and give up her guns, until then people will die for no reason in MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger numbers than if people had to stab people to death

this is NOT debatable

[Duckhunter935]

85. so how do you confiscate the 300 odd million

guns out in the US?

[randys1]

112. very patiently and over many years same way you create jobs with protectionism

[smallcat88]

62. I'll bet

the NRA is ripping their hair out right now trying to figure out a way to demonize this poor man without sounding like total jackasses.

There is a BIG difference between the right to bear arms and the right to indiscriminately murder people. Wish I had an answer for that one. I don't. And that's the main problem. Our society can't seem to find a common ground that preserves the rights of law abiding gun owners and keeps them out of the hands of criminals and serial killers. Especially when it's a first time killer with no record to indicate that he's a danger to society. His family tried to warn authorities. But he put on such a good show, they dismissed him as a danger.

With all the money that Washington wastes on useless studies you'd think they could spare a little to study this problem. Not likely to come up with an instant, easy-to-implement solution, but it would be a start. But I'm sure the NRA would object even to that.

[exboyfil]

66. Already started

Gay suppressed liberal, a product of the violent Hollywood culture. Guns had nothing to do with it.

[smallcat88]

69. That figures

And of course, the right will buy that.

[Eleanors38]

78. Not a member of NRA, nor do I desire to be. One thing is sure:

When gun controllers/prohibitionists force-fit this or any massmurder incident into their predictable narrative, the NRA WILL respond, dig in, and double down. And any constructive dialogue WILL be swept away, here and in public discourse. These folks are well trained.

[bossy22]

86. there is one problem with this and you actually mentioned it

Especially when it's a first time killer with no record to indicate that he's a danger to society

Until "pre-crime" is developed or something similar we cannot predict with absolute confidence that said person won't go out and kill someone. Someone that "puts on a good show" will always fool authorities. We can't change that

Our society can't seem to find a common ground that preserves the rights of law abiding gun owners and keeps them out of the hands of criminals and serial killers

I have a problem when people say this because in fact we do have a system in place- the background check or National Criminal Instant Check. Especially in California this "compromise" is even more present. California requires you to pass a safety test before you can purchase any weapon. You must submit to a background check that checks for criminal and MENTAL Disqualifications. You must wait 10 days before you can actually pick up your weapon. Every sale is recorded and a record is sent to the State for their database. I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a pretty reasonable system.

You can make the background checks more effective theoretically by allowing them to check your medical records as well. But this is contrary to our medical privacy laws and would set off a whole different set of issues. In NYS, the recent SAFE act has a similar problem under its mental health provisions. Many health professionals objected to them because of privacy issues and I believe they haven't gone into effect yet for these reasons.

[Dems to Win]

63. If you love your kids, move to Australia or UK

If you cannot abide the thought of your beloved child being shot in the back while entering a deli, move far far away from the NRA and the 2nd Amendment. Now.

There's no hope at all that there will be an end to the massacres, so good people need to abandon this country and leave it to the gun nuts.

No, I'm not moving, I don't have kids, I'm too old to immigrate. But I recommend others do so.

[smallcat88]

67. I wish

I don't have kids either but if I could afford to move, I would. If only because I no longer recognize this country. It's not the 'land of liberty' I was taught about in school.

[bossy22]

80. you do realize that gun deaths have been steadily decreasing in this country

and are at the lowest levels in 4 decades

[Dems to Win]

99. You do realize there are about 50 gun murders in UK, 8500+ in US every year.

People who don't want to bury their 20 year old son who was shot in the back as he went into a deli should not be living in the US.

[bossy22]

100. what about those in the UK that die from other weapons

Or do those not matter? Do you know what the chances are of you child dying in a mass shooting are?

[marew]

123. And I am sure-

that is a comforting thought when someone's loved one is slaughtered by a looney NRA advocate with a gun!?!

And, you are wrong! There was decrease in the death rate in the 80s and 90s, when taking population growth into account. Since 1999, firearm death rates have remained stable. (From the CDC's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, WISQARS.)

[locks]

68. Guns are made to kill

You can go on and on about how much we need to have guns, how much you know about types of guns, magazines and ammo, how you need them for protection, target practice etc etc. and all the other crap the NRA, gun-sellers and gun manufacturers tell us. Nothing changes the fact that guns are made to kill and that is what they do. They kill our children, our families, our friends, the animals that we should be caring for, and the mentally ill who need help. When will we ever learn? Owning guns is not a moral or human right.

[Duckhunter935]

71. Mine must have problems

because they never have killed anything except paper and cans. I will ahve to take them in to get checked out as it must be some kind of defect.

[bossy22]

79. advice- be careful of using that argument

because it can be applied to many other things

For Example: Alcohol

What is alcohol's purpose- it's purpose is to depress higher brain functions, impair judgement, and reduce motor function. according to the CDC 88,0000 Americans die every year due to excessive alcohol consumption. That's just the tip of the problem, there are millions of people who are negatively affected by loved one's chronic alcohol abuse. Alcoholic parent is more likely to abuse their child.

So what is societies benefit from alcohol?- well, besides a treatment for methanol poisoning, pretty much just "having a good time". Is that "good time" worth all the millions of people that suffer?

[ileus]

93. Unless they're like those I own...

And were made to protect/save lives.

Mine are for protection of my children, my family, my friends, our pets.

Of course I do have several that are for Hunting, and many for target/competition.

[locks]

118. There are at least 350 million guns in the US

more than one for every man, woman, and child. We do not need more guns. We need to teach our children that they do not protect themselves or others by using violence. We have learned the saddest way possible that the gun makers, the NRA, and the warmakers are lying.

[napkinz]

95. ...

[napkinz]

96. he was a good guy with a gun until ...

[bossy22]

101. that is the dumbest political soundbite

"He was a safe driver before he got drunk and drove into a house"

It's silly. Not only that it also is derogatory to gun owners by saying all are just one inch away from becoming homicidal maniacs

[mwrguy]

103. It's time to join the civilized world and repeal the 2nd

Enough is enough.

[Dems to Win]

109. +1

[LAGC]

133. Which 38 states do you think would ratify such a repeal?

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 11:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Constitutional amendments require 3/4 of the states to sign on.

How many red fly-over states do you think would jump on-board?

[OnlinePoker]

129. This was on Reddit...Post title is below

I'm tired of seeing and hearing about Rodgers. This is Christopher Martinez. His top song on itunes was 'My Heart Will Go On', his favorite author was Bernard Cornwell, he was ridiculously good at Just Dance, could never win at Cards Against Humanity, and is missed.

?1?8545
_______________________-

Sometimes you need to put a face to the name or they just become a statistic.

[napkinz]

136. NRA the enabler ...