Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 27, 2014

"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? When will this insanity stop? When will enough people say, 'Stop this madness; we don't have to live like this?' Too many have died. We should say to ourselves: not one more." -- Richard Martinez, the father of Isla Vista victim Christopher Michael-Martinez. Adam Gopnik of the New Yorker writes, "Why did Christopher Michael-Martinez die? Because the NRA and the politicians they intimidate enable people to get their hands on weapons and ammunition whose only purpose is to kill other people as quickly and as lethally as possible. How do we know that they are the 'because' in this? Because every other modern country has suffered from the same kinds of killings, from the same kinds of sick kids, and every other country has changed its laws to stop them from happening again, and in every other country it hasn't happened again. (Australia is the clearest case -- a horrific gun massacre, new laws, no more gun massacres -- but the same is true of Canada, Great Britain, you name it.)

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I guess there's no mention of the 3 people that were stabbed to death. That doesn't fit your agenda. So let's politicize the other people that died.

#1 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-05-26 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#1

"... weapons and ammunition whose only purpose is to kill other people as quickly and as lethally as possible."

Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-26 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

He did this in a "gun free zone" and in a gun control state. Let's blame the NRA, George Bush, and the GOP obstructionists. Oh, and white men too.

#3 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2014-05-26 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

".... every other country has changed its laws to stop them from happening again, and in every other country it hasn't happened again."

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-26 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Just don't bring up the video game connection. Because there is none. If you do, be prepared to take a walloping from objective data showing the link between video game violence and real world violence as being negligible.

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-26 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#4

Did that change require a constitutional amendment?

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-26 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gotta blame someone I guess.

If he'd raised his son right, he would have had his kevlar on.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-26 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#4.

Except that it did happen again.

And you seem to be excluding tSwitzerland, which provides it's citizens with automatic rifles. And Mexico, which has banned gunes, but has infinitely moer gun violence then the US.

But if you're really concerned, you need to look at banning cars before anything else. Misuse of cars kills far more people than guns. Far more. And, as Et Al indicated, you wouldn't need a constitutional amendment to ban cars.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-27 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#8

Yes, because cars are designed to kill.

It's just a good thing this killer didn't have a stick or some second-hand smoke on him.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Unless and until we repeal the 2nd Amendment, which imo is never going to happen, all discussion about serious gun control in American ultimately leads nowhere.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-05-27 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"Just don't bring up the video game connection. Because there is none." - Rstsy

none? Really? Most every study on video gaming suggests

"A burst of new research has begun to clarify what can and cannot be said about the effects of violent gaming. Playing the games can and does stir hostile urges and mildly aggressive behavior in the short term. Moreover, youngsters who develop a gaming habit can become slightly more aggressive -- as measured by clashes with peers, for instance -- at least over a period of a year or two."
www.nytimes.com

That at some level violent shooting games, create a dehumanization in the minds of some.

It wouldn't surprise me if at a statistically insignificant number, there are people that can't tell the difference, that even less actually go through with their plots. Its not the total causation, but it is a mental enabler, much like the weapons they use.

But to suggest there is "none" is quite a bit of speculation.

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-05-27 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Yes, because cars are designed to kill."

And?

So it rat poison, but it's only through itnention that rat poison will ever kill someone.

My guns have never killed anyone...

"Unless and until we repeal the 2nd Amendment, which imo is never going to happen, all discussion about serious gun control in American ultimately leads nowhere."

Yep.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-27 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

-until we repeal the 2nd Amendment

Lame excuses to do nothing.

-And?

And the guns this kid used are designed to kill people.... the mostest and the fastest.

-So is rat poison

No, that's lame. It is designed to kill rats, not people.

Guns like these are designed to kill people.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

You mean except for the fact that he was actually quoting a bad guy named Hellscream from WOW that he played constantly in his last video right? "mountains of skulls and rivers of blood" ... yeah we won't count that.

#14 | Posted by LouisS at 2014-05-27 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just don't bring up the video game connection. Because there is none. If you do, be prepared to take a walloping from objective data showing the link between video game violence and real world violence as being negligible.

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 201

and yet I read constantly from libs that corporal punishment in particular but spanking as well TEACHES the child that violence is okay and a problem solver...if that's true, then HOURS and HOURS of exposure to some of the video games I've seen has to also have some effect...

as to this issue....."we should say to ourselves......"....how did he GET to this position that he did these things...

but of course getting there might make him "FEEL BAD".....

#15 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"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?

Posted by Corky at 12:

The man will get death threats over this. If you can see the irony of this, you may not be a gun-nut.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Unless and until we repeal the 2nd Amendment, which imo is never going to happen, all discussion about serious gun control in American ultimately leads nowhere."

Not at all. There are solutions available. Each would mean a cultural shift and the expenditure of money.

That both are required is why discussions will lead to nothing.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Chris had to die because American values and culture glorify guns and violence. Chris had to die because he was unlucky enough to be born in America.

#18 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-05-27 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ignoring the second amendment issue for a moment, how does he propose to do this?

Are we going to ban guns outright? If so what happens with all the guns already available? Are we going to make it illegal to own a gun, what about all the existing guns, what about guns which are already illegally owned?

I understand how after the loss of a child blame must be distributed. However I don't see blaming the NRA actually solves the problem.

My wife and I were discussing this last night and the only solution we see is getting rid of all guns however neither of us saw any feasible way to accomplish this. Especially given that those most likely to mis-use guns are the most to try and hide their guns should they ever try.

#19 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-05-27 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

if that's true, then HOURS and HOURS of exposure to some of the video games I've seen has to also have some effect...
-- AFK

That's speculation. I'm talking about objective data. Crime, especially violent crime amongst youth, has dropped dramatically over the past decade during the same time that violent videos games peaked in popularity. There is no correlation between the use of violent video games and violence in real life.

Unless you can provide support for your assertion, your assertion is nothing more than speculation. Let's discuss this in an objective context, considering objective data and research is available for a detailed discussion.

as to this issue....."we should say to ourselves......"....how did he GET to this position that he did these things...

Agreed. Which is why simply focusing on the notion that "the shooter is at fault" is not sufficient (note: not asserting that's your point in any way).

but of course getting there might make him "FEEL BAD".....

Like I give a $h¡†? I'm not some pansy liberal afraid of offending someone who has the potential mindset of a killer.

#20 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

The man is very upset at the NRA and rightly so but it is more than just a rampant gun problem and lack of regulation.

When will men learn to take responsibility for their own manhood?

Instead of blaming women and "society" for not liking them they need do something with their lives to be liked and respected for.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-27 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

But to suggest there is "none" is quite a bit of speculation.
#11 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Pardon my absolute language. But if you followed my entire line of thought, you would noticed I qualified that statement by acknowledging any link between the two is in fact negligible.

The question being addressed is whether video game makers should consider altering their products in hopes of avoiding future incidences like this. Because these incidences are so rare despite extreme popularity of violent video games, calling on a change to video games is nearly as silly as calling for a repeal of the second amendment, IMO.

Take this into consideration:

In December 2012 research published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology shed light on the long-term effects of playing violent video games. In the research study, an individual who played a violent video game for three consecutive days was found to exhibit escalations in aggressive behavior and hostile expectations.
www.newsmax.com

Despite these findings, violent crime amongst juveniles is consistently on the decline while popularity amongst violent video games (and MEDIA!) continues to rise. The numbers speak for themselves. Despite heightened popularity of violent video games and a (perceived) increase in mass shootings, violent crime amongst youth is dropping. There's also research suggesting the violence in the video games acts as an outlet for frustrated youth who would otherwise act out in real life. As a final thought, please take the following into consideration:

Quite simply, the research just hasn't panned out. For one thing, even while video game sales have skyrocketed, youth violence plummeted to its lowest levels in 40 years according to government statistics. Secondly, it has been increasingly recognized that much of the early research on VVG [violent video games] linking them to increased aggression was problematic: most studies used outcome measures that had nothing to do with real-life aggression and failed to control carefully for other important variables, such as family violence, mental health issues or even gender in many studies (boys both play more VVG and are more aggressive.) This was something the U.S. Supreme Court recognized when, after considering California's attempt to ban the sale of VVG to minors in Brown v. EMA, it stated on June 27, 2011, "These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason."
techland.time.com

#22 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless and until we repeal the 2nd Amendment, which imo is never going to happen, all discussion about serious gun control in American ultimately leads nowhere. #10 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-05-27 11:28 AM

Four out of five Supreme Court justices would probably beg to differ but until one of the five partisan hacks decides to retire, you are probably correct.

Just another lesson for the "both parties are the same" progressives, for when election time comes around and they decide to cast their protest vote against the Dem candidate.

#23 | Posted by censored at 2014-05-27 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm no gun enthusiast.

But guns aren't made to kill people.

They are made to spit out metal at high velocity.

The problem isn't the gun. The problem is with the people that use them to kill people.

Using Australia as an example is great. But what about Canada? They have guns available for the general public and they aren't abusive with them.

No. It's not the gun. It's people that are overwhelmingly messed up in our society.

I blame our media, our politicians, and our religious organizations for keeping the average American so overwhelmed that they snap.

I'm placing blame on irresponsible people having children, then not raising their kids right or even paying them any attention.

Fix your families and we fix more than just gun violence.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

#24

Exactly.

#25 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

This guy has serious problems and wanted to hurt people in any way he could (and he did use knives and his car as a weapon). He tried to push people off a 10 foot high balcony as well a month or so prior to his "Day of Retribution".

While I feel terrible for the dad here, he's completely missing the point. This is NOT a gun issue.

#26 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

-guns aren't made to kill people.

What were they made for? To hammer in nails?

The types of guns used in this mass murder were designed for one purpose only.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The types of guns used in this mass murder were designed for one purpose only."

Was the knife design only to kill also?
Are all inanimate objects endowed with s mind of their own as to what the purpose is?
Do you not find it a bit odd that something that you claim is designed for one purpose will only see that purpose in a tiny fraction of one percent of them?
What other kinds of metal is magically crafted to contain intent?

#28 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

The types of guns used in this mass murder were designed for one purpose only.
#27 | POSTED BY CORKY

You mean like any regular gun that's bought at Big 5?

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

-guns aren't made to kill people.

What were they made for? To hammer in nails?

I'd like you to find any proof that guns were specifically made to kill people.

You're so sure of yourself you must have that information available.

The types of guns used in this mass murder were designed for one purpose only.
#27 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-05-27 02:19 PM

Let me tell you something about consumers, they want faster, better, bigger! If yours can do "X" then next year all competitors are going to double "X".

Again, fixing people is the solution.

Treating the root issue of problems is more effective than treating its side effects.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

-guns aren't made to kill people.

What were they made for? To hammer in nails?

#27 | Posted by Corky at

Give it up, CORKY. Your question taps directly into too much craziness. As any gun-nut will tell you:

Toasters are made to toast and cars are made to travel, but guns are made to plant ferns in.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd like you to find any proof that guns were specifically made to kill people.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014

See what I mean?

Maybe the conversation is advanced if we say that guns are meant to kill "things". Maybe the people part is bridge too far.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#30

Um, what were they designed for other than killing people?

Not for hunting. And there are such things as target pistols. These ain't them.

Perhaps you've seen these before.

caswellranch.com

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Toasters are made to toast and cars are made to travel, but guns are made to plant ferns in.

Toasters are made to plug in, turn on, and throw into a tub of water while you're fully submerged. It was clearly made to be the perfect tool for suicide.

And cars? do you know how many car fatalities occur every day? It's obvious cars were made to kill people.

And my fern is growing great in my Gun planter, thanks for asking.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Um, what were they designed for other than killing people?"

He stated that earlier.
To accelerate bits of lead or other metals to a high velocity.
No intent, an inanimate object cannot have intent.

Claiming that they are only designed to kill is like claiming that cars are only designed to pick up your dry cleaning on the corner of 37th and b street. It is absurd.

#35 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Toasters are made to toast and cars are made to travel, but guns are made to plant ferns in."

Check out this one that is obviously designed only to kill.

www.cnet.com

#36 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

-To accelerate bits of lead or other metals to a high velocity.

For the purpose of killing people.

To pretend that that is not their original and abiding purpose is delusional.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#36 | Posted by salamandagator at

Guns are weapons. That is their origination and their history. A few side uses have been developed along the way. I've even listed a few of them myself.

Disingenuousness is not helping your cause.

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That's right, guns are also really expensive and inefficient paper hole punches. Designed to put holes in paper, animals (including humans), and other stuff.

What's the number one justification for the second amendment though? Self-defense, right? Well, safe to say gun owners are not looking to protect themselves from pieces of paper or old beer cans. But what do I know? I'm the guy that enjoys eating breadsticks with a chocolate milkshake.

#39 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And there are such things as target pistols. These ain't them."

Really?
While there are designated target pistols the vast majority are regular hundguns that have been modified.
That includes glocks and many sig saurs. Doe the magical intent just go away with a little slide lightening, a bull barrel, trigger work, different sights or a scope, and a bit of polishing ?

#40 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Claiming that they are only designed to kill is like claiming that cars are only designed to pick up your dry cleaning on the corner of 37th and b street. It is absurd.

#35 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014

Guns derive most of their value from the ability to kill or maim. That's why a whole lot of people want them.

You're arguing this?

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

See what I mean?
#32 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-05-27 02:32 PM

Yea, I see you have nothing to back (Corky's) your assertion.

Again, guns are made to spit out metal, what people choose to do with guns is what should be up for discussion.

and the reason why people decide to take other people's lives should be whats being analyzed.

Your claim is that people see guns and just start shooting them at other people. They don't, theres usually months and years of negative stimulus that promotes a person to go kill other people.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#36 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

That's awesome! But is it practical? Or is it mainly meant as a gimmick?

Regardless, I'm gonna push my roommate to get some for his Mom.

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40

To pretend that that is not their original and abiding purpose is still delusional.

Or perhaps just a pathetic sort of rationalizing.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

They don't, theres usually months and years of negative stimulus that promotes a person to go kill other people.
#42 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Crucially Newsworthy.

#45 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've got one for you: Why is it that no one (or almost no one) wants to own a spear?

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#42

Hilarious.

Let's redefine the long history and purpose of firearms as weapons designed to kill people... they could just be fancy hole-punchers.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, guns are made to spit out metal, what people choose to do with guns is what should be up for discussion.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack

I'm more than willing to talk the social side of this. But no one's going to think you're serious about going there with such a reductio ad absurdam.

#48 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | POSTED BY ZED

Far less capable of stopping an attacker than that of a gun. Am I right?

#49 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

For the purpose of killing people.
To pretend that that is not their original and abiding purpose is delusional."

Yes they are designed for that purpose that is why less then one in a million handguns will ever see it's intended use. Yup that makes a whole lot of sense, good thinking there sport.

#50 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

and the reason why people decide to take other people's lives should be whats being analyzed.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 20

Would one factor be the feeling of power one gets from owning a lot of weapons?

#51 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Far less capable of stopping an attacker than that of a gun. Am I right?

#49 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 02:46 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Not as an efficient killer and maimer of other people, yes. That plus it takes a lot more skill to use a spear than a gun.

Interestingly, no one debates that spears aren't made for killing things.

#52 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's right. These really expensive and inefficient paper hole punchers just so happen to be incredibly capable of harming humans and other animals.

Just a coincidence, right? HAHAHAHAHA!

#53 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've got one for you...
#46 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-05-27 02:44 PM

I've got a better one for you.

Why is it you're unwilling to address the point that the people committing these killings aren't doing so because they stumbled upon a gun?

Why is it difficult for you and Corky and other to see that the gun isn't the issue, society is.

Fixing our society is a more difficult task, but its the only solution.

Simply banning guns, or drugs, or sex, or what ever, is ineffective.

#54 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Guns derive most of their value from the ability to kill or maim. That's why a whole lot of people want them.
You're arguing this?"

No, they have the ability to be used that way but there is no inherent intent as corky wishes there was.
A strong man has the ability to strangle the life out of someone but his muscles do no have the intent or design to do so.

It is a very important distinction.
Because one way, you actually believe that metal has a mind of it's own(absolute insanity) and the other lets you see the actual problem.
By refusing to look further then the tool there can be no progress made. Its symptom vs disease. Those who want the symptom to be considered the disease in and of itself are allowing the disease to spread and worsen.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50

AH, because gun divas have raised sales by buying multiple guns while the population in general has bought less per household.... and neither actually has to use them hardly at all.... why, that in itself changes the original design purpose for firearms, which is to kill people more quickly and efficiently than ever before.

Makes perfect sense... to a gun diva.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#54 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Only you, TAO, and MADBOMBER have used the term "ban" on this thread. Who is it that's advocating for the ban of guns?

With that said, I agree with your latter statement.

#57 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why is it you're unwilling to address the point that the people committing these killings aren't doing so because they stumbled upon a gun?

#54 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014

The dead Santa Barbara Freak stumbled upon nothing. He collected guns.

#58 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

- no inherent intent

The first primitive firearms were invented in 13th century China when the man portable fire lance (a bamboo or metal tube that could shoot ignited gunpowder) was combined with projectiles such as scrap metal, broken porcelain, or darts/arrows.[4]

en.wikipedia.org

Hint: They were not designed to shoot at rusted out Plymouths.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's redefine the long history and purpose of firearms as weapons designed to kill people... they could just be fancy hole-punchers.
Yeah, that's the ticket!
#47 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-05-27 02:46 PM

-guns aren't made to kill people.

What were they made for? To hammer in nails?
The types of guns used in this mass murder were designed for one purpose only.
#27 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-05-27 02:19 PM

I'd like you to find any proof that guns were specifically made to kill people.
You're so sure of yourself you must have that information available.
#30 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2014-05-27 02:29 PM

Still waiting on your proof that guns are made to kill people.

As you said, "they were only made for one purpose only", therefore, you know what that purpose is and can back up that knowledge with proof.

#60 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

The dead Santa Barbara Freak stumbled upon nothing. He collected guns.

----

He also killed 3 people by stabbing them to death before he fired a shot.

#61 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, they have the ability to be used that way but there is no inherent intent as corky wishes there was.

#55 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:51 PM |

Jeez Louise. Just like no one intends for a watch to tell time. After all, some other uses can be found for them.

#62 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who is it that's advocating for the ban of guns?

Off the top of my head?

Corky and Zed.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#60

see #59.

As if we don't all know exactly what the design purpose for firearms has always been.

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

He also killed 3 people by stabbing them to death before he fired a shot.

#61 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 02:54 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

He did. But he didn't take a knife to that sorority house, did he? Know why? He didn't want anyone to get away.

#65 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

He also killed 3 people by stabbing them to death before he fired a shot.

That doesn't count.

Apparently you can only kill people with guns, cause that what they're made for.

#66 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Off the top of my head?

Bound to be a scary clown sorta place. No one here has mentioned anything about banning guns.

#67 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

He did. But he didn't take a knife to that sorority house, did he? Know why? He didn't want anyone to get away.
#65 | POSTED BY ZED

Zed the telepath strikes again!

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"AH, because gun divas have raised sales by buying multiple guns while the population in general has bought less per household.... and neither actually has to use them hardly at all.... why, that in itself changes the original design purpose for firearms, which is to kill people more quickly and efficiently than ever before."

So your contention is this.

Something is designed for something that is has an incredibly small chance of ever doing. It is used for a lot of other reasons but the one thing that it has virtually no chance of ever doing is what it was made to do, that about sum up what you are saying?

I suppose all kia's are designed for only rally driving.

The absurdity of your argument is staggering.

#69 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who is it that's advocating for the ban of guns?

Corky and Zed.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014

ZED's not. He's mostly saying that some of you need to get real. Hauling your AR-15s into restaurants is going to make most people hate you. You have to know that.

#70 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"As if we don't all know exactly what the design purpose for firearms has always been."

No we do, you just choose to fabricate some fictional scenario so it justifies your fear of them.

#71 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Zed the telepath strikes again!

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at

My telepathy plus knowledge of what guns are designed to do.

Come on, where's your common sense. Find it or someone who truly hates guns may well come for yours someday.

#72 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's staggering is your delusional denial of the long history of the original intent and purpose of firearms as weapons designed to kill.

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one here has mentioned anything about banning guns.
#67 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-05-27 02:56 PM

So you don't want to ban guns?

You just want them reclassified as "human killers"?

#74 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The first primitive firearms were invented in 13th century China when the man portable fire lance (a bamboo or metal tube that could shoot ignited gunpowder) was combined with projectiles such as scrap metal, broken porcelain, or darts/arrows.[4] "

You realize of course that they were far less lethal then traditional bows and were used primarily for show and intimidation right?

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

- fabricate some fictional scenario

Ah so, the Chinese and every firearm maker after them were fictional.

Nice to know.

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

He did. But he didn't take a knife to that sorority house, did he? Know why? He didn't want anyone to get away.

----

He also ran over people with his car during his rampage. He also planned to lure people to his apartment after he killed his roommates, hit them with a hammer and strip the flesh off their bodies.

The guy wanted to harm people so many different ways besides just a gun (and did so). Why aren't people focusing on that?

#77 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#75

They, and their following designs were to kill people better and faster.

You might want to call for your Momma now. You've gotten into Denial Land.

#78 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#73

Stagger thyself.

Have guns been used to kill people? Yes.

Are guns responsible for killing people? No. A gun is an inanimate object not capable of being responsible for anything. Stop placing blame on the tool and place blame on the human.

#79 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

show and intimidation right?

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:00 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Are firearms used for show and intimidation today? Or just in ancient China?

#80 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#74

I want the same kind of societal action that has stopped these kind of mass murders in other countries, as per the article.

Is that too much to ask?

#81 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interestingly, no one debates that spears aren't made for killing things.
#52 | POSTED BY ZED

Allow me to be the first. Remember that movie "King Ralph" with John Goodman? There's a scene where he challenges a king from Africa to a game of darts. The king from Africa then challenges Ralph to "his version" of darts, which amounted to hurling spears javelin style at a large billboard.

Let the debate begin.....

#82 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What's staggering is your delusional denial of the long history of the original intent and purpose of firearms as weapons designed to kill."

Repeating the same insane drivel does not make it any more true.

But you never answered my question.
For you to be correct a bit of metal must have a way to contain intent.
What other things have that magical ability?

And what other things are designed primarily for a purpose that for all intensive purposes it has virtually no chance of of being used?

#83 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are guns designed primarily to kill people? Yes.

How about cars, knives, sticks, hammers, and second-hand smoke? No

Which is why these divas want to rewrite the history of firearms.

#84 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"societal action"

be more specific please. don't be coy. you know what those other countries have done. just say it.

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-27 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are firearms used for show and intimidation today? Or just in ancient China?"

Well yes sometimes they are. But you know the difference. In ancient China their uses were often seen as magic because they were unknown at the time.
It does not work as well because most people know what a firearm is and most people(corky excluded) don't believe in magic.

#86 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

On the day before the Day of Retribution, I will start the First Phase of my vengeance: Silently killing as many people as I can around Isla Vista by luring them into my apartment through some form of trickery. The first people I would have to kill are my two housemates, to secure the entire apartment for myself as my personal torture and killing chamber. After that, I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and ---- their throats. I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering, and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it. I will cut them, flay them, strip all the skin off their flesh, and pour boiling water all over them while they are still alive, as well as any other form of torture I could possibly think of. When they are dead, I will behead them and keep their heads in a bag, for their heads will play a major role in the final phase.

----

That's from his manifesto. That was part of his plan. Where does gun control prevent him from doing that?

#87 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You realize of course that they were far less lethal then traditional bows and were used primarily for show and intimidation right?
#75 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

And then the thought came to them: "Imagine how effective this would be if we could make them more efficient at killing. Distractions would not be needed."

I'm sure this thought crossed someone's mind along the way.

#88 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The guy wanted to harm people so many different ways besides just a gun (and did so). Why aren't people focusing on that?

Its like werwolves, you can hit them with a car, throw them off a building, stab them, strip their flesh... But only shooting them with a silver bullet from a gun will kill them.

We humans (like werwolves) must be killed with guns, no other way works.

"Guns: We Kill Humans"
~Guns.

#89 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Edit: "...Show and intimidation would not be needed."

#90 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

-has virtually no chance of of being used?

lol, the revisionists add this because they know their argument that guns are not designed to kill is asinine.

Nuclear weapons have, "virtually no chance of of being used", either.

But when they are, it is devastating. Ask the families of these murdered kids.

Tell them all about how the odds are it wouldn't happen to their children.

That ought to make them feel better.

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

no other way works as efficiently as a firearm.

FTFY!

#92 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are guns designed primarily to kill people? Yes."

You of course realize that far, far, far more guns have been designed for sporting then military right?

No?

Well if you knew what you were talking about then you would.

#93 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Theres a bigger problem in this country. One that will never be able to be addressed. Because people are too busy being provoked by wedge issues thrown at them by our media. its sad.

#94 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Tell them all about how the odds are it wouldn't happen to their children."

Ohh, throw in "because the children" that will make no one notice how ridiculous your contention is.

#95 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

-You of course realize that far, far, far more guns have been designed for sporting then military right?

Wow, another stat that should make these parents feel better.

Killing animals rather than killing humans is still a weapon designed to kill.

A distinction without a difference in this case.... unless you hunt deer with pistol such as this kid had.

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

most people(corky excluded) don't believe in magic.
#86 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Depends on your definition of magic, especially considering CORKY.

#97 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I will sneak into their house at around 9:00 p.m. on the Day of Retribution, just before all of the partying starts, and slaughter every single one of them with my guns and knives. If I have time, I will set their whole house on fire.

...

Once I've taken care of my brother and stepmother, I will switch over to the Mercedes SUV, and drive it back up to Isla Vista. I will use it as one of my killing machines against my enemies. An SUV will cause a lot more damage than my BMW coupe.

After I have killed all of the sorority girls at the Alpha Phi House, I will quickly get into the the SUV before the police arrive, assuming they would arrive within 3 minutes. I will then make my way to Del Playa, splattering as many of my enemies as I can with the SUV, and shooting anyone I don't splatter. I can only imagine how sweet it will be to ram the SUV into all of those groups of popular young people
who I've always witnessed walking right in the middle of the road as if they are better than everyoneelse. When they are writhing in pain, their bodies broken and dying after I splatter them, they will fully realize their crimes.

#98 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Nuclear weapons have, "virtually no chance of of being used", either."

Well historically they have a much higher chance of being used then a gun.

#99 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

-how ridiculous your contention

The most ridiculous contention made here is yours; that guns are not designed to kill.

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are guns designed primarily to kill people? Yes.
How about cars, knives, sticks, hammers, and second-hand smoke? No

This is were we don't agree, any of the objects above, cars, knives, hammers, sticks... can be used to kill people just as easily as with a gun.

What was a knife made for other than to kill? Kill animals and eat them, kill humans to defend yourself. What do you think a sword is? or a spear? or an Axe? its all bladed weapons that can be used to kill.

Does a knife provoke one to kill? no. Does a gun? no.

Both can be used to kill. But its not the reason you did the killing.

#101 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A distinction without a difference in this case"

Goalpost getting heavy?

#102 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

After these horrific mass shooting, why is it the kneejerk first reaction of so many gun-nuts to immediately proclaim that guns are in no way to blame for what occurred?

#103 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-05-27 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

- historically they have a much higher chance of being used then a gun.

Someone is bleeding out.... mentally.

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let me ask this. Would Elliot have not gone on a rampage if he didn't have guns?

#105 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#101

One is designed to kill, the rest are not.

Let me get a 5 year old to explain that to you...

#106 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#105

Elliot would have been nowhere near as successful.

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"why is it the kneejerk first reaction of so many gun-nuts to immediately proclaim that guns are in no way to blame for what occurred"

Because that's what they do. However, the article seems to blame the NRA and politicians more than the shooter himself, which is absurd as well.

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-27 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Let me get a 5 year old to explain that to you."

That might help, the 5 year old's reasoning would be a big step up from yours.

#109 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well historically they have a much higher chance of being used then a gun.
#99 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Nuclear weapons? Really? Well to be fair to your argument, nuclear weapons are being considered highly as one of the most practical means of protecting the Earth from an asteroid. Yes, similar to Deep Impact, but more in line with the movie's initial means of use as a ballistic missile than a manned mission, I think.

So, nuclear weapon (most devastating device ever produced that could ultimately wipe out the human civilization if used inappropriately) could very well be the human race's saving grace.

Sorry if that undermines the significance of your example used in this context, CORKY.

#110 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#109

Has no argument. Cars, knives, hammers... are designed for purposes other than to kill.

Guns are primarily designed to kill.

#111 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"why is it the kneejerk first reaction of so many gun-nuts to immediately proclaim that guns are in no way to blame for what occurred?"

Because if the kneejerk and insane outcry that the tool used was the problem. And because there are far to many worms willing to dance on the graves of the dead hoping to use it to get their way.

#112 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

After these horrific mass shooting, why is it the kneejerk first reaction of so many gun-nuts to immediately proclaim that guns are in no way to blame for what occurred?

#103 | POSTED BY MODER8

Probably because the knee jerk first reaction of so many gun-control-nuts is to exploit these tragedies as a means of attempting to draft legislation that moves closer toward outright gun bans.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-27 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

- undermines the significance of your example

hahahaha!!

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many people have been murdered by the police this year?

How many by the army?

People who want to take away the guns for the masses usually don't advocate taking them away from the officials.

Never again.... TO US!

#115 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-27 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

from. pardon.

#116 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-27 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Guns are primarily designed to kill."

A lie repeated is still a lie.

#117 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

After these horrific mass shooting, why is it the kneejerk first reaction of so many gun-nuts to immediately proclaim that guns are in no way to blame for what occurred?

You're blaming the gun? you gonna put the gun in time out? did the gun have a bad day? was the gun mentally abused by classmates for years? did the gun's parents take the time to talk to the gun about school and friends and adolescent stresses? did the gun's parents make time to spend with the gun so that it has healthy self esteem? were there any signs that were ignored by the family and society that could of prevented the gun from killing people?

Its amazing that you'd rather blame the tool rather than the culprit.

#118 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Elliot would have been nowhere near as successful.

----

He still would have wanted to kill people. That's the root issue...not the weapon he decides to kill somebody with.

#119 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How many people have been murdered by the police this year?"

A lot. The cops are more of a threat to the average American than terrorists.

#120 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-27 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

attempting to draft legislation that moves closer toward outright gun bans.

Slippery slope arguments are not that strong.

#121 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

-that moves closer toward outright gun bans

That moves closer to stopping these kinds of mass killings as other countries have.

Slippery-slope arguments aside.

#122 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

A lot. The cops are more of a threat to the average American than terrorists.
#120 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Disgustingly Newsworthy.

#123 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

He still would have wanted to kill people. That's the root issue...not the weapon he decides to kill somebody with.
#119 | POSTED BY PIRATE

Maybe not the root issue, but an issue nonetheless, right?

#124 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

- That's the root issue...not the weapon he decides to kill somebody with.

Easy access to weapons designed to kill only aids the murderer.

Other countries have, as per the article, solved this problem.

#125 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"He still would have wanted to kill people. That's the root issue...not the weapon he decides to kill somebody with."

He still would have killed.
Remember he killed 3 with a knife first. The walked out of his apartment to kill some more.

3 With guns 3 without.

#126 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

After these horrific mass shooting, why is it the kneejerk first reaction of so many gun-nuts to immediately proclaim that guns are in no way to blame for what occurred?

----

This wasn't just a mass shooting. That's the point that's getting lost. He used three weapons. Guns, knives, vehicle. He killed and injured people with using guns.

#127 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless you can provide support for your assertion, your assertion is nothing more than speculation. Let's discuss this in an objective context, considering objective data and research is available for a detailed discussion.

as to this issue....."we should say to ourselves......"....how did he GET to this position that he did these things...

Agreed. Which is why simply focusing on the notion that "the shooter is at fault" is not sufficient (note: not asserting that's your point in any way).

but of course getting there might make him "FEEL BAD".....

Like I give a $h¡†? I'm not some pansy liberal afraid of offending someone who has the potential mindset of a killer.

#20 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-0

it's an easy to see comparison and typically liberal double standard of doing things....whether you are liberal or not...you make the original statement.........
libs say spanking teaches violence but hours of slaughtering people has no effect.....

my'feel bad' point was directed toward the perp in this case..I have no doubt some lib somewhere wanted to protect this monsters' FEELINGS rather than protect the public from him.....I think perhaps you have misunderstood the point of that statement.

#128 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course, it was the cops who stopped this kid from killing a lot more people with the 41 magazines he had left over.

#129 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Easy access to weapons designed to kill only aids the murderer.
Other countries have, as per the article, solved this problem.

----

He still would be a murderer. So are you ok with murderers as long as they don't use guns?

#130 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let me ask this. Would Elliot have not gone on a rampage if he didn't have guns?
#105 | POSTED BY PIRATE AT 2014-05-27 03:16 PM

Elliot would have been nowhere near as successful.
#107 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-05-27 03:17 PM

the answer to Pirate's question is, "No. He would still carry out his rampage even if he didn't have a gun. He would of done it differently."

Again, treating the cause is a better solution than limiting the ways he could express his desire to kill.

#131 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

(Guns)Weapons are made for defense. It just so happens some humans use them offensively.

Your problem is with the human. The killer could have used anything he wanted to kill his son. If he had used a bat, would we still be having this conversation?

#132 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-27 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

(Guns)Weapons are made for defense. It just so happens some humans use them offensively.

Your problem is with the human. The killer could have used anything he wanted to kill his son. If he had used a bat, would we still be having this conversation?

#133 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-27 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry about the double posts..

#134 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-27 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

OOPS/.//should read "HOURS OF SLAUGHTERING PEOPLE even if through a monitor or screen..

#135 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

-He still would be a murderer

He would be a less successful one without easy access to weapons whose purpose is to kill the most people the fastest.

#136 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

.I think perhaps you have misunderstood the point of that statement.
#128 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

You're probably right. Just as you have probably misunderstood my point as being solely based in liberal ideology.

#137 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Of course, it was the cops who stopped this kid from killing a lot more people with the 41 magazines he had left over."

This is another instance where the concept that magazine size was a factor has been disproved. Not that it won;t stop people from still wanting to limit the size.

#138 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, with Boaz and AFLAC on your side, I don't see how the gun divas can lose.... roflmao!

Just keep telling us that these pistols he had were not designed to kill people, and that he could have done as much damage with a knife... or second-hand smoke.

#139 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#138 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

I disagree.

Loughner was only stopped during his rampage (by a 70 year-old woman at that) because he had to reload. The pause to reload was a crucial factor that possibly saved many lives that day.

Loughner's actions prove that forcing a shooter to reload could be the difference between life and death for many involved.

#140 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

ALL anyone needs to know about this issue is listed RIGHT HERE.....blame everyone else but this person all you want. We know the truth and the real answer to terrible events like this.

fbcdn-sphotos-d-
a.akamaihd.net

couldn't get laid
posts about suicide and murder
blames all women
seen by multiple therapists
visited by police who call him 'polite and charming'
he was an over indulged child of hollywood liberals
a kid driving a bmw
own family calls police

and even more....so democrats conclusion....
USE HIM and the DEAD for gun control

blame it on the NRA....

once again, your rage and your attacks are misguided and will only be met with GLEE by people of the same idea that the constitution is at fault. so typical..one of these days it might even be refreshing for "you people' to get one of these events right...FINALLY !!!

#141 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its funny that a knife is being considered less deadly than a gun.

the only difference is range.

Matter of fact, for a novice, its easier to walk up to a person and stab them than trying to shoot them from a distance. I know guns are only made to kill people. But bullets will miss their mark.

#142 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

He would be a less successful one without easy access to weapons whose purpose is to kill the most people the fastest.

----

The point is he still would be a murderer. Saying gun control will reduce mass murderers is stupid. Will it reduce the number of dead when somebody loses it? Sure. Will it reduce the number of people who lose it? No. Personally, I would rather people talk about reducing the number of people who lose it.

The 3 people who Elliot killed with a knife can't be blamed on the NRA or gun control. What he wanted and planned to do others can't either:

I will cut them, flay them, strip all the skin off their flesh, and pour boiling water all over them while they are still alive, as well as any other form of torture I could possibly think of.

#143 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

He still would be a murderer. So are you ok with murderers as long as they don't use guns?

#130 | Posted by Pirate at

of course.

IM NOT GOING to say that dems don't CARE about the dead,
but I Will say they use this NOT because of some wonderful cause but because the NRA is so effective in DESTROYING THEIR candidates....so its' not about guns or knifes..it's ABOUT POLITICS....

#144 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The cops are more of a threat to the average American than terrorists."

True.

#145 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-27 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

How come everyone loves to blame Smith & Wesson but are fine with giving a pass to knife-producing companies like J. A. Henckels and Victornox. Don't blame the weapon, blame the one holding it.

#146 | Posted by CalifChris at 2014-05-27 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Will it reduce the number of dead when somebody loses it? Sure.

Some find this as good enough justification to bring up the discussion for debate.

#147 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

But bullets will miss their mark.
#142 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

And that's partially the fear hoplophics have: even trained, responsible gun owners do not have full control over the direction in which their bullets travel. Stray bullets, though rare, scare many.

#148 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, with Boaz and AFLAC on your side, I don't see how the gun divas can lose.... roflmao!

Just keep telling us that these pistols he had were not designed to kill people, and that he could have done as much damage with a knife... or second-hand smoke.

#139 | Posted by Corky at 201

really ? what a joke.

I'm not going to say libs don't care about the dead people even though those same people NEVER have a problem insulting me and us of far worse, but thats just more liberal hypocrisy...BUT WHEN IT COMES to the NRA.....

the liberal outrage is about the effectiveness of the NRA pure and simple. AND if a lib can appear to care about people while they remove one of the biggest blocks against electing and reelecting more liberal toilet dwellers....well more the better..

#149 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

that guns are not designed to kill.

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

So is abortion. And that has killed multiple times more humans than personally owned non-military firearms. Where is your outrage over that?

If it wasn't a gun, it would have been something else. Arguing about inanimate objects being "at fault" is idiocy.

"If guns were not invented (illegal, banned, whatever), these children would still be alive" = "If these children had not been born, they could not have been murdered" = idiocy.

#150 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-05-27 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#140

The gun jammed giving thew opportunity. It was not the second or so it took to reload he had already done that and no one had the time to do anything.

#151 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're probably right. Just as you have probably misunderstood my point as being solely based in liberal ideology.

#137 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 20

that would be a yes...

#152 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some find this as good enough justification to bring up the discussion for debate.

#153 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some people will argue that violent video gaming has no negative effect on children. Those same people will also say an actor smoking a cigarette in a movie will cause children to want to smoke. Go figure.

#154 | Posted by FEARTHEKOOLAID at 2014-05-27 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Will it reduce the number of dead when somebody loses it? Sure. "

The largest mass murders have taken place without guns involved. It would be just as likely that more effective methods would be used resulting in more deaths.

#155 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#149 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

Considering the context of the article, you're convincing me quickly of the political interests tied tied to the NRA criticisms. Although, I question whether this is what the father has on his mind. The pain he feels is most likely exacerbating the already solidified political stance on this issue. Less politics on his part, but part of it nonetheless.

#156 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

ome people will argue that violent video gaming has no negative effect on children. Those same people will also say an actor smoking a cigarette in a movie will cause children to want to smoke. Go figure.

#154 | Posted by FEARTHEKOOLAID at 20

THANK YOU>...that's the point I was making about corporal punishment and spanking.....if these two things severely affect a child, then how could most cases total emmersion into murdering people even on a screen NOT do something...

but EVEN then ..even if it doesn't..as the poster says..the same people say yes to one and no to the other.

#157 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

It would be just as likely that more effective methods would be used resulting in more deaths.
#155 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Like a bomb, right? I agree with you to an extent. But it's far more difficult to obtain the ingredients and knowledge to assemble a bomb than it is to acquire a hand gun. Plus, the shock and awe factor would be far more significant when using a bomb as well, so you would think Rodger would have at least considered doing so (I have not fully read the manifesto, so maybe he did consider it). Hypothetically, if he did consider it, makes one wonder why he didn't go through with it. Too much work? Maybe not personal enough?

Maybe if he had closer access to a farm, he would have been more capable of using a bomb. Thinking of McVey.

#158 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Considering the context of the article, you're convincing me quickly of the political interests tied tied to the NRA criticisms. Although, I question whether this is what the father has on his mind. The pain he feels is most likely exacerbating the already solidified political stance on this issue. Less politics on his part, but part of it nonetheless.

#156 | Posted by rstybeach11

as far as I"M concerned the father has every right to say whatever he wants....it doesn't mean I agree or thing he's right....but I will not speak against him at this point. I understand how his life has just been changed and as far as Im concerned...he and his comments are off limits....

#159 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Guns are weapons. Weapons are designed to kill people. To think otherwise is just plain foolish.

The issue as always is that why disarm the masses who kill far less than the 'authorities'. The answer is that fascists want to control people.

#160 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-05-27 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

So is abortion.
#150 | POSTED BY E_PLURIBUS_UNUM

You can always count on E Plur to somehow shove abortion into any conversation.

He must still regret getting that one all those many years ago.

Now if we get gays and religion involved in this discussion we will have all present day wedge issues shoved into one thread about a grieving dad blaming guns for killing his kid.

#161 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

and HERE"S Another little consequence gun haters never seem to think of

LET"S get guns away from EVERYONE like they would like.....there will still be guns...everyone knows that and I"M not now going to say
"only criminals will have guns'....we all know that..

BUT WHAT SIDE goes on and on and on about the EVIL ONE PER CENTERS....

any of you think the ONE PER CENTERS are not going to have ARMED security ????? while you have none ??

pullease

#162 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#158

It's not more difficult, even a sparkler bomb can be made big enough to kill many. Chemicals can be easily aerosolized or even arson could kill far more. I don;t know why they are less commonly used except that maybe the people doing it wanted the experience firsthand but the point is that taking away a tool and thinking that that will fix anything is completely irrational.

#163 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently you can only kill people with guns, cause that what they're made for.

#66 | Posted by ClownShack

People can be killed by many things, the gun is just easier and one of the most efficient means.

#164 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-27 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Too much work? Maybe not personal enough?

----

The vibe I got from his manifesto was not personal enough. He wanted to see the people suffer and know while they were suffering that he was superior to them.

#165 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-27 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

ome people will argue that violent video gaming has no negative effect on children. Those same people will also say an actor smoking a cigarette in a movie will cause children to want to smoke. Go figure.
#154 | Posted by FEARTHEKOOLAID at 20
THANK YOU>...that's the point I was making about corporal punishment and spanking.....if these two things severely affect a child, then how could most cases total emmersion into murdering people even on a screen NOT do something...
but EVEN then ..even if it doesn't..as the poster says..the same people say yes to one and no to the other.

#157 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

The data shows what the data shows. If the data shows more teens smoke when smoking is more prevalent in TV and movies, than that's what's happening. And apparently, that's what the research shows. There's at least a significant correlation with the movie industry using less images of adults smoking and a lowering of the teen smoking rate. Data shows this. Data also shows that the correlation between popularity of violent video games and violent crime is negligible at best.

That's what the data shows. It's not "the same people" or some liberal psycho-babble. That's what the data shows. There's an inverse correlation between popularity of violent video games (higher than ever in history) and violent crime (lowest in almost 40 years).

That's the problem I have with your argument. You're simply arguing based upon speculation. Look at the data. Address this objectively.

#166 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

one thread about a grieving dad blaming guns for killing his kid.

#161 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

incomplete and not the entire subject at all.......

please review all of the negative references towards the NRA.....and not the ones from the father but the ones from the leftists who, as I said, are desperate to get rid of the nra and it's influence on elections EVERY SINGLE TIME...

#167 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don;t know why they are less commonly used except that maybe the people doing it wanted the experience firsthand...
#163 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

That's what I'm thinking partially had to do with it. A bomb would not have been personal enough for him. He was a true psychopath - he wanted to see pain on his victim's faces.

#168 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's the problem I have with your argument. You're simply arguing based upon speculation. Look at the data. Address this objectively.

#166 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-0

regardless I find what I consider to be a double standard to be repugnant......we might be much better served to make sure we take those people who mistreat animals....isn't that a group very likely to commit some act like this than others ??

#169 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-05-27 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Guns are primarily designed to kill."

A lie repeated is still a lie.

#117 | Posted by salamandagator at

Guns are designed to destroy things, if you object so much to the word kill. Like those little clay pigeons that get tossed in the air. That's where the "sport" comes from, from exactly the same place that killed poor little Bambi during deer season.

#170 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The vibe I got from his manifesto was not personal enough. He wanted to see the people suffer and know while they were suffering that he was superior to them.
#165 | POSTED BY PIRATE

Sorry, didn't see this before posting #168.

I agree entirely.

#171 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

#164

I was being snarky with that comment.

But I think the in the notion that, "its easy to kill people with guns", "guns" could be substituted with any weapon.

Humans are easy to kill, we're soft and fleshy. Our body's are very delicate.

a bullet in the arm wont kill you. just like being stabbed in the arm wont kill you. But a hammer crack to the head will kill you.

My overall point is theres more to these tragedies than people having guns. It has to do with people being messed up internally.

#172 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-05-27 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's see, Perp using psycho-active drugs? yes
Crime committed in a gun free zone? yes
Heavily gun control environment? yes
Victims unarmed? yes
Prep reported to law enforcement before crime? yes
Conservative gun nut? No
Perp is responsible alone. Those with criminal intent will always be able to acquire and use firearms. What those who want to outlaw firearms never bring up is where it has been bone recently, the crime rate mushrooms. See crime stats for Great Britain and Australia. Muggings and burglaries first followed by rape and assault. Murder rate does not go down after the first three years. Go ahead, disarm the law abiding. I say we start in California, New York and Chicago. You first, we will see how it goes. Also disarm the hired guns the elite use, no guns means no guns.

#173 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-05-27 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#169 | POSTED BY AFKABL2

There are many double standards in scientific research. That's why such outcomes (ones that lead to alternative predictions than the outcomes provide) are so interesting and important. A lot is to be learned studying outcomes, which his why such differences in outcomes are studied. Reality does not always fit common sense/logic/reasoning...etc.

I agree with you, though. One would (and should) think heightened exposure to violence amongst youth would probably lead to heightened violent crime rates. But that's not what has panned out in the real world.

Call it what you will. To social scientists and legislatures who prefer to rely on Evidence Based Practice, it's called reality.

#174 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

You realize of course that they (guns) were far less lethal then traditional bows

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 03

One-on-one, a good bowman was arguably more lethal than a man with a gun into the 19th Century.

If Freakazoid had been a good bowman, he might have carried his arrows to that sorority house.

But he was not. Takes years and years of training to get so good with a bow and arrow that you can slaughter even unsuspecting girls in their home.

With guns.....What, maybe a few hours practice?

#175 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

EDIT: A lot is to be learned studying such outcomes as these within the context of one another.

#176 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Chris had to die because American values and culture glorify guns and violence. Chris had to die because he was unlucky enough to be born in America.

First part, yes, we do have a culture that glorifies guns and violence.

Second part, c'mon, really? I know you have some drama queen tendencies but that's taking it a bit far even for a drama queen.

#177 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-27 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, fixing people is the solution.

Treating the root issue of problems is more effective than treating its side effects.

Don't bother trying to be rational, clownshack.

The discussion over our poor abilities to identify and treat mentally ill individuals was brought up immediately after the Newtown shooting. Since then there has been tons of information out there regarding the systems we have in place that are meant to prevent mentally ill individuals from obtaining weapons, but also regarding the poor/lack of funding or lack of participation by states.

But, you still have the pseudointellectual tool bags who like to wave their little pinkies around and act as if what they're saying is profound or original.

Take the king of pompous BS Zed as an example. The very next post after your own (#31):

Give it up, CORKY. Your question taps directly into too much craziness. As any gun-nut will tell you:

Toasters are made to toast and cars are made to travel, but guns are made to plant ferns in.

I don't think there are many people interested in having a discussion with someone who more than anything likes to hear the sound of his own voice.

#178 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-27 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

For the purpose of killing people.

To pretend that that is not their original and abiding purpose is delusional.

Yes, they are indeed weapons.

However, all weapons can be used offensively as well as defensively.

You only seem interested in one side of that coin.

#179 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-27 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Take the king of pompous BS Zed

#178 | Posted by jpw at 2014

Its good to be king.

#180 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Toasters are made to toast and cars are made to travel, but guns are made to plant ferns in".

KING ZED

I don't think there are many people interested in having a discussion with someone who more than anything likes to hear the sound of his own voice.

#178 | Posted by jpw at 2014

Or interested in having discussion with anyone who points out how weirdly disconnected from the real current gun culture can be.

As long as we are discussing mental health issues.

#181 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Takes years and years of training to get so good with a bow and arrow that you can slaughter even unsuspecting girls in their home.
With guns.....What, maybe a few hours practice?"

Just like a bow it is range dependent.
The closer the range the easier. But further away and a bow becomes easier as using the arrow you have a larger sight, just like a rifle it is easier to aim.
However to the rest of the post arrows were more lethal until the repeating firearm. Even the breach loading cartridge took far longer to load and were less accurate hence the sidearm growing in popularity. The revolver was preferred at short distance because it did not take nearly as long between shots. The Henry rifle changed the game(not the first but the first major) and finally set the gun as a better weapon in the mid 1800's.

#182 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its good to be king.

#180 | Posted by Zed

Not always.

#183 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-27 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"who points out how weirdly disconnected from the real current gun culture can be."

I think you have that backwards. It is not the gun culture or gun guys who think legality is based of cosmetics. You want to talk about a disconnect look at the gun control freaks and their complete dismissal of reason logic and reality then look at the gun guys. One side is far more informed then the other that side cares about real solutions the other only cares about whatever eases their fear of inanimate objects and is doing whatever they can to remove all reason from the issue.

#184 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 05:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

""Takes years and years of training to get so good with a bow and arrow that you can slaughter even unsuspecting girls in their home.
With guns.....What, maybe a few hours practice?""

Further on this,
Last summer i went camping with family and there were three little girls. I fashioned a bow out of a stick and some string. Within a few minuets they were able to hit cans and such with he reeds we were using as arrows. So again a bow does not take much to learn, no more then a gun and just like a gun there is a big difference between being able to use it and using it well.

#185 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe we need to revisit Connor v. Donaldson

en.wikipedia.org

#187 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-27 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

A lot more people can be killed with the right combination of fertilizer and accelerant than one person armed with legal firearms, particularly if the would-be victims were in a geographic area where they were allowed to be armed should they so choose.

#188 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-27 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

SAL and I discussed the murderer's choice in weaponry a little bit above. We were thinking he went away from using a bomb possibly because it was not personal enough.

#189 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

We were thinking he went away from using a bomb possibly because it was not personal enough.

#189 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

No doubt. He very much wanted his victims to know who their assailant was.

#190 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-27 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Yes, they are indeed weapons.
However, all weapons can be used offensively as well as defensively.

Though they can be used in various ways, they are, in this case, weapons designed with one possible use in mind; to kill people quickly and efficiently, whether that be offense or defense.

Which was the argument, what with some people saying they are benign in their purpose; that they are not designed to kill.

Obviously these hand guns that this killer used are not designed specifically for hunting or target shooting, they have a specific design purpose; to kill or maim people.

Of course, the point of the article is that other countries changed their laws after mass killings, and have not had repeats.

The argument that these guns were not designed for a specific purpose being an obviously inane red herring designed to Deflect from that argument.

#191 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obviously these hand guns that this killer used are not designed specifically for hunting or target shooting, they have a specific design purpose; to kill or maim people."

Yes yes we all know that things that are used for many purposes are designed for the least used purpose. Yup that makes sense, sure.

And cars are meant to jump and planes are meant to crash, and pools are meant to skate in.

Do you have any idea how ludicrous that sounds?

You add intent to an inanimate object, that in and of itself is insanity.
Then you continue to say that the least used possibility is what they were made for. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

#192 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#192

Now you are just blathering.

Cars are designed to drive, planes to fly, and these guns he had are designed to kill or main people.

They are not designed to be good for anything else.

The fact that they are not often used does not detract from what they are designed to do when they are used.

And using the argument as a Deflection from what other countries have accomplished is just, well... what would get moderated.

#193 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Of course, the point of the article is that other countries changed their laws after mass killings, and have not had repeats.
The argument that these guns were not designed for a specific purpose being an obviously inane red herring designed to Deflect from that argument."

It's not an argument. It is misleading from the get go. Mass killings are very rare. Australia is an often given example. They have not had a mass killing, oh wait they had one 3 years ago 21 people killed and the weapon used oh it was fire.

2 years that another fire 10 killed.

A few years before that gun used 2 dead 7 injured.

A few years before that another fire killing 15

Then you get back to the port Aurther killings which was what changed the laws there.

And before that there were 9 in the last hundred years so the amount actually went up after stricter laws.

Note that they have less then one tenth our population and yet manage to have more mass killing per person then we do on average. Wonder how their very strict gun laws helped them out?

Is that the argument you think is trying to be avoided?
Because it is just as groundless as your contention that metal has inherent intent.

#194 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They are not designed to be good for anything else."

They are tested and engineered for those situations even though most will never see them.

But of course you do not have an irrational fear of those so you will not hold them to the same standard.

Guns on the other hand are not deadly on their own anyway, unless used as a club. But somehow you think that evil is placed into the alloy to make them want to kill.

But it amazes me the lengths you will go to to defend your fantasy.

Are cars designed to break the speed limit?

#195 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

-your contention that metal has inherent intent.

Did I say blathering? I musta meant blithering.

-They are tested and engineered for those situations

lol, his way of admitting he is wrong... by only doing it in so many words.

Yes, that is what they are designed for, killing people.

#196 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#196

Dude, now you are just getting pathetic. Seriously, if you have nothing to say just shut up. Pretending like mindless insults in lieu of real argument is a good way to go just betrays you lack of reason.

Sometimes it's just better to stop digging, i would suggest you do so.

#197 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

lol, now you want to pettifog the difference between, "designed for" and "tested and engineered for"??

Talk about pathetic....

#198 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 06:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

" now you want to pettifog the difference between, "designed for" and "tested and engineered for"?"

Designed and engineered in the context used are interchangeable and you know it.

Well i would think you know it. but then again you think that the primary purpose something is designed for is the least used function so maybe that is over your head as well.

But do continue, it is fun to see you avoid exactly what you claimed we were avoiding.

#199 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-27 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

King Zed couldn't find his butt with both hands.

#186 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014

I seldom have to look for it. It seems to follow me at a fixed distance.

#200 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-27 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The shootings will continue. There's no "until." The shootings will simply... continue.

Freedom marches on.

#201 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"...and these guns he had are designed to kill or main people. They are not designed to be good for anything else."

Umm, they're really good for Grizzly Bears. I carry a .454 when out in Montana and Wyoming. Also works for other mountain animals that man may occasionally wander across and require defense against.

I'm not aware of a weapon whose design is specific to killing humans. Even if there were, I'm not sure that a weapons designed specifically to kill coyotes would be any less effective on a human. Or vice versa.

#202 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-27 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The shootings will continue. There's no "until." The shootings will simply... continue."

But hopefully the declining trend in these sorts of events will continue.

#203 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-27 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

This just shows the majority of people doing mass killings are mentally messed up.

This is more of an indictment on our mental health system other than our weapons policy..

#204 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-27 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was not the second or so it took to reload he had already done that and no one had the time to do anything.
#151 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Except the 70 year-old woman that grabbed his hand while he attempted to reload. No, that didn't happen at all and you are the one who knows because you've read about exactly what happened and how, right?

Riiiiiiiiiight. *eye roll*

#205 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-05-27 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is more of an indictment on our mental health system other than our weapons policy..
#204 | Posted by boaz

And I'm going to guess you're still opposed to Obamacare, even though it requires insurers to provide mental health coverage.

Ain't that something.

#206 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

But hopefully the declining trend in these sorts of events will continue.
#203 | Posted by madbomber

In that case I suggest you wish in one hand... and see which fills up first.

#207 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes my guns are for self-defense. They are also for hunting food when the winters are hard. I don't hunt for sport and I sit in humble reverence every time an animal gives its life by my gun to feed my family. Which is not very often.

The second amendment also gives me the right bear arms to protect my family, myself, and my countrymen from a tyrannical government. Of which we are probably getting close by definition. Gun control is already in place. Enforce the current laws. Guns by the way, are what helped give you and me and helped us keep the RIGHT to free speak our opinions, agreed with or not.

I have deep, deep sympathy for all the families involved. Who does a person blame for something like this? The parents? Did they fail? School? Maybe that was the failure. Video games? Violent movies? This child had delusions of grandeur and was more than likely a clinical sociopath for sometime. Maybe it's our medical health care... Whatever the reason, guns and the NRA are not at fault.

People make choices, not guns. People make choices, not knives. People make choices, not cars. People make choices.... and there are rewards or consequences.... THAT is the gist of it.

#208 | Posted by drscott at 2014-05-27 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which was the argument, what with some people saying they are benign in their purpose; that they are not designed to kill.

You're misrepresenting one idea in order to conflate the two. Double points for dishonesty.

In actuality, what's being argued by you they are weapons and as such designed to inflict bodily harm or death and what's being argued by them is that it takes a human being with intent to utilize the gun for it's purpose.

It's true true and not related, so stop acting like they're related.

#209 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-27 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

This did not even fit the description of a mass shooting because it had less than 4 people shot. Only 3 were shot.

To make it worse the first 3 killed were stabbed and even if guns did not exist the guy would have stabbed his son so I dont really see how it has anything to do with guns.

None of the guns used were the ones that gun control nuts want to ban. All the clips were the small type they want us to own so whats the point what gun control could stop this.

This guy was a rich kid liberal spoiled brat if guns did not exist here he could have sailed a boat to Mexico and bought some illegal ones.

Its not my fault that his state is anti gun and that his son did not have a gun,

#210 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-05-27 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

And I'm going to guess you're still opposed to Obamacare, even though it requires insurers to provide mental health coverage.

I am opposed to Obamacare. Mandating that insurers have a preexisting clause and mental health coverage could have been done without upending the entire medical system for a small population who couldn't pay their bills..

#211 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-27 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mandating that insurers have a preexisting clause and mental health coverage could have been done without upending the entire medical system for a small population who couldn't pay their bills..
#211 | Posted by boaz

But Obamacare didn't upend the entire medical system. If anything it entrenched it further. It added a few coverage requirements such as mental health and birth control, and made it harder to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. And it created a new market for people to buy health care, which is something any fan of free markets should support.

All of these changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary.

#212 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Whatever the reason, guns and the NRA are not at fault.

Of course the NRA isn't complicit in making sure that guns and ammo designed to kill people ever faster and ever more efficiently are easily available to just about anyone, stable or not, criminal or not.

Nu-uh. no way.

#213 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

- utilize the gun for it's purpose.

Yes, thank you. That is purpose of type of guns this kid used, to kill people.

Motivation, offence, defense... not the question that was being discussed with Sally. The purpose of the gun design is what was being discussed.

But the easier they are to get, the more likely they are to be used offensively.

#214 | Posted by Corky at 2014-05-27 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Motivation, offence, defense... not the question that was being discussed with Sally. The purpose of the gun design is what was being discussed.

You mean not the lame, marginally relevant point you were trying to hammer with sally.

The bigger issue is still how this kid snapped to this degree. The quoted excerpts from his "manifesto" show a truly sick individual who in no way needed guns to inflict bodily harm or death on those around him. Stop missing the forest for the particular tree you're particularly biased against.

But the easier they are to get, the more likely they are to be used offensively.

Wow. Given your statements you'd think the majority of guns bought/owned in this country were used for nefarious means. Who knew!?!?!??!

#215 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-27 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

And it created a new market for people to buy health care

That "market" already existed. People are getting cancelations on policies they bought. It's no longer a free market anymore. Don't worry, November is coming and a lot of Dems and liberals are going to be kicked out of office and then we can kick Obamacare to the curb!

#216 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-27 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't worry, November is coming and a lot of Dems and liberals are going to be kicked out of office and then we can kick Obamacare to the curb!

LOL

#217 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-27 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

:)

Seriously,

Obama botched Obamacare. I actually would like for it to stay, but it has to have some serious tweaks. People losing their policies they bought is wrong and then the price increases are wrong as well..

A lot of work to do..

#218 | Posted by boaz at 2014-05-27 10:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

That "market" already existed.

That market barely exists even with the exchanges.

Name another product that you can only choose who to buy it from once a year during "open enrollment." The need for Christmas trees is seasonal; the need for health care is not.

#219 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Name another product that you can only choose who to buy it from once a year during "open enrollment." The need for Christmas trees is seasonal; the need for health care is not.

#219 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Premium pricing is based upon many controlled knowns and many more actuarial estimations.

Open enrollment periods are critical to the insurance model.

#220 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-27 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

The bigger issue is still how this kid snapped to this degree.

"To this degree" meaning a gun-empowered murder spree, right? The bigger issue is that even in librul paradise California, which has tried plenty of things to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, guns still make their way into the hands of crazies.

The bigger issue is that I've yet to hear any gun lover stand in support of any legislation to stop it from happening.

The bigger issue is Joe the Plumber saying "Your Dead Kids Don't Trump My Rights" and not a single gun lover takes exception; instead they pat him on the back.

#221 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Open enrollment periods are critical to the insurance model.
#220 | Posted by JeffJ

The fact that I can change car insurance providers at any time tells me you're wrong.

#222 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Open enrollment periods are critical to the insurance model.

Indeed it is. In 35 years, I've never been part of a health insurance plan that didn't have open enrollment periods. The only way to get around them is if there is a life-changing event like a birth, death, marriage, or divorce. If you don't change your plan during open enrollment, tough -----.

#223 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-27 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is you start with the assumption that we need legislation when it's been well documented in the recent past that we have the infrastructure in place. What's lacking is funding and the will to use it properly.

Okay then, propose the funding mechanism. How about a tax on firearms or firearms related purchases?

Or is it somebody else's problem to actually figure out how to clean up the messes the guns you love so much create?

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 11:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Joe the Douchebag is an attention seeking loser.

But do you disagree with him? Do somebody else's dead kids trump your Second Amendment rights... or do they not?

I'm guessing "not." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

#226 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-27 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Open enrollment periods are critical to the insurance model.
#220 | Posted by JeffJ

The fact that I can change car insurance providers at any time tells me you're wrong.

#222 | POSTED BY SNOOFY


Well, what it should tell you is that if you honestly believe that the various insurance markets all operate under 100% identical models you are rather ignorant as to how insurance works.

#228 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-28 12:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

But do you disagree with him? Do somebody else's dead kids trump your Second Amendment rights... or do they not?
I'm guessing "not." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

#226 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's not an either/or scenario.

You might has well just asked him: Do you still beat your wife?

That's not even remotely clever, BTW.

#229 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-28 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

#227 | Posted by jpw

U mad bro? I must have touched a nerve by simply pointing out what you believe: That your second amendment rights supersede the rights of some random kids to not die at the hands of a maniac.

#230 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, I mean Joe the Douchebag in the nicest way possible.
#227 | Posted by jpw

There's lots of people who are douchebags that I agree with.
Your shooting the messenger doesn't change anything, gun lover.

#231 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

U mad bro? I must have touched a nerve by simply pointing out what you believe: That your second amendment rights supersede the rights of some random kids to not die at the hands of a maniac.

#230 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That is so profoundly illogical....I don't know if I have the energy at this late hour to dissect that.

#232 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-28 12:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is so profoundly illogical....I don't know if I have the energy at this late hour to dissect that.
#232 | Posted by JeffJ

I'm not suggesting Joe the Plumber is known for copious displays of logical reasoning.

Simply that the dichotomy he's presented is: His right to have guns outweighs some dead kids right to life.

Faced with that choice, illogical as it may be, you'd pick guns too.

#234 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 12:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

There's lots of people who are douchebags that I agree with.

This says more about your [lack of] standards than anything else.

Your shooting the messenger doesn't change anything, gun lover.

LOL

So my insinuating Joe the Plumber is a worthless pile of scum is me shooting the messenger...but agreeing with him... [...]

#236 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 12:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Faced with that choice, illogical as it may be, you'd pick guns too.

You mean "faced with that false choice, which I only present because I'm a retardely biased moron, you'd do what I say you'd do."

#237 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 12:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Goat,

I would be inclined to agree with you were it not for his exceptional arguments in opposition to the NSA program.

It wasn't that I necessarily agreed with him 100%. It was the strength of the argument and the way in which it was articulated. I was taken aback and I don't say that lightly.

It was one of those situations where a person presents an argument and causes you to view an issue in a way that you had never even considered before.

Maybe he was hammered at the time. Maybe on Peyote, or Khat. I don't know. But it was a couple of posts' worth of seriously good points on an important topic (IMO).

The Snoot purchased a degree of patience from me based upon the strength of those couple of posts. And believe me, it's painful for me to give the Snoop these kind of props. But credits is where credit is due.

#238 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-28 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Snoot purchased a degree of patience from me based upon the strength of those couple of posts.

You're a saint, then. It's not worth my time to dig through mounds of bull ------ to find that one little diamond. Even if only 5% of his posts were gems and 95% BS, I could do it. But when his percentage of good v crap became so profoundly lopsided, I had to say enough is enough. You're pain tolerance levels exceed mine, Jeff. LOL

#239 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-28 12:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Simply that the dichotomy he's presented is: His right to have guns outweighs some dead kids right to life.
Faced with that choice, illogical as it may be, you'd pick guns too.

#234 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's a false-dichotomy.

Therein lies the problem.

Personally, I abhor guns. They frighten me.

But, at the end of the day, I defer to the rule of law. In this country the 2nd protects our right to keep and bear arms. When the 2nd is repealed (just like the 18th was) then this conversation will be meaningful.

#240 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-28 12:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

There's lots of people who are douchebags that I agree with.
This says more about your [lack of] standards than anything else.
#236 | Posted by jpw

Child please. Right is right. That's my standard. For example, Pat Buchanan is not someone I agree with. But when running for President in 1996 he pointed out that there is no major difference between the parties on issues that really matter to the economy. They were NAFTA, GATT, and I can't remember the third, maybe WIPO.

Pat was right. He's also a rampant douchebag. Surely this isn't an unobserved phenomenon in your reality. Or perhaps it is, which says a lot more about your perceptive capacity than anything else.

#241 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

So my insinuating Joe the Plumber is a worthless pile of scum is me shooting the messenger...but agreeing with him...

That you disagree with the ------ is far from clear. It's very common for people to distance themselves from an unpopular messenger in such a way as to not distance themselves from the message which they support.

You no doubt have heard exculpatory remarks phrased "I don't agree with the way he said it, but..."

#242 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 12:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

As an aside, JeffJ I'm glad you liked what I had to say on the NSA thing.

#243 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 01:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Child please. Right is right.

Right is right? You agreed with RiR?

Pat was right.

He also wasn't being original.

Anyone can spew a bunch of platitudes or ideas.

Surely this isn't an unobserved phenomenon in your reality. Or perhaps it is, which says a lot more about your perceptive capacity than anything else.

No, I just perceive an ulterior motive in the parroting of ideas that are popular or convenient.

Do you honestly think Pat agreed with that then or now? Or was he playing to the gullible members of the center?

#244 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

That you disagree with the ------ is far from clear. It's very common for people to distance themselves from an unpopular messenger in such a way as to not distance themselves from the message which they support.

Great, so in the future I will assume you agree with everyone absent an explicit denial, no matter how abhorrent the idea being expressed.

#245 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 01:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

As an aside, JeffJ I'm glad you liked what I had to say on the NSA thing.

#243 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

:-)

#246 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-28 01:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you honestly think Pat agreed with that then or now? Or was he playing to the gullible members of the center?
#244 | Posted by jpw

Were you not following politics in 1996? Pat was not appealing to anyone remotely near the center.

I think Pat Buchanan believes what he says, and says what he believes. It's that latter part which made him unsuccessful as a candidate and much better suited to being a pundit.

#247 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 01:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Great, so in the future I will assume you agree with everyone absent an explicit denial, no matter how abhorrent the idea being expressed.
#245 | Posted by jpw

Only Goatman has the tenacity to pull off a stunt like that. And since he apparently plonked me, you'll excuse me if I don't get too bothered over your idle but well-intentioned threat.

#248 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 01:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

JPW any thoughts as to how we might get funding and participation at the state level to keep guns out of the hands of crazies? Bonus points if you can envision any role for the Federales to play.

You didn't respond to my "tax firearms to pay for it" suggestion so I assume that's a no-go.

#249 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 01:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Were you not following politics in 1996? Pat was not appealing to anyone remotely near the center.

HAHA I was 13 going on 14.

But I'm far to cynical now to believe there was a time candidates or politicians believed what they said.

Only Goatman has the tenacity to pull off a stunt like that. And since he apparently plonked me, you'll excuse me if I don't get too bothered over your idle but well-intentioned threat.

Yeah I'll probably forget in a day or two.

#250 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 01:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

JPW any thoughts as to how we might get funding and participation at the state level to keep guns out of the hands of crazies?

I'm assuming, since it's a government program, that the situation is complicated and not so easy to throw out cavalier "solutions".

From where I sit, the best option is to push those who are familiar with it to make it work or support those who want to make it work.

ands of crazies? Bonus points if you can envision any role for the Federales to play.

Nope, sorry. No go here.

You want something but demand others pay for it (and pay for the exercising of their constitutional right).

If you want it that bad, pitch in to achieve the result you seem to yearn for.

You could, at the very least, begin by losing the ---- attitude and broad brush approach to this discussion.

#251 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 01:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

You didn't respond to my "tax firearms to pay for it" suggestion so I assume that's a no-go.

Paste second part of above post here.

#252 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 01:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

You want something but demand others pay for it (and pay for the exercising of their constitutional right).

Well, seeing as the provisioning of general funds hasn't funded it, what other options are there? If this is a gap that we should bridge, then I don't see a problem with taxing guns to mitigate the damage done by guns. I also don't have a problem taxing vehicles to fix the roads, go figure.

As for paying, we don't have the right to free arms. Though I'm beginning to wonder why we don't, if they're truly as vital to our safety as Wayne LaPierre suggests.

#253 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 01:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well, seeing as the provisioning of general funds hasn't funded it, what other options are there?

I guess you'll have to think outside the lane for that one. (get it? It's a gun range joke)

If this is a gap that we should bridge, then I don't see a problem with taxing guns to mitigate the damage done by guns. I also don't have a problem taxing vehicles to fix the roads, go figure.

You probably drive a vehicle though, no?

In that case it's apples and oranges.

How about a tax on Dr office deductibles to cover the cost of mental health care or the effects of mentally ill folks falling through the cracks?

As for paying, we don't have the right to free arms.

Where did I say that?

Actually, I just figured it out. Since you're keen on people paying taxes in order to exercise their constitution rights, lets just figure out a way to tax speech, religion, assembly ect to pay for whatever anti-gun violence measure you see fit?

#254 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 02:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

As for paying, we don't have the right to free arms.
Where did I say that?

You didn't. I'm saying if you're okay with buying a gun to exercise your right, slapping a tax on that transaction doesn't fundamentally alter the calculus.

#255 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 02:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

You didn't. I'm saying if you're okay with buying a gun to exercise your right, slapping a tax on that transaction doesn't fundamentally alter the calculus.

Sure it does.

It

a. forces me to pay to exercise my right (there's a difference between buying the product and paying the government in order to obtain the product)

b. makes me pay more to assuage the faux anguish of do gooders such as yourself who want the problem solved but don't want skin in the game

If you feel so strongly about it, stop expecting others to fix it.

#256 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 02:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

How about a tax on Dr office deductibles to cover the cost of mental health care or the effects of mentally ill folks falling through the cracks?

Health care taxation is already complicated enough, and mental health coverage is mandated by Obamacare. And the effects of mentally ill folks falling through the cracks are what I'm aiming to prevent. No doubt in this case there will be some civil suits pursuant to those effects; sounds like the shooter had rich parents. But that's reactive and doesn't do anything to stop the next spree.

#257 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 02:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

a. forces me to pay to exercise my right (there's a difference between buying the product and paying the government in order to obtain the product)

Well, it forces you to pay more. You're already content to play. "We both know what you are, we're just haggling."

b. makes me pay more to assuage the faux anguish of do gooders such as yourself who want the problem solved but don't want skin in the game

What do you mean don't have skin in the game? Am I not alive? And what do you mean by do-gooders, are you saying the unfunded mandates you alluded to earlier wouldn't make a difference even if they were funded?

This is your suggestion, I'm just trying to find out how you'd fund it. And you're getting all prickly. I don't want to think that's because your suggestion was merely a canard from the get-go, but I'm willing to change my mind.

#258 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 02:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

and mental health coverage is mandated by Obamacare.

Then maybe in a few years this will be a moot point?

Well, it forces you to pay more. You're already content to play.

I guess you either don't understand or are willing to ignore the part about forcing people to pay to exercise their Constitutional rights. Is there even a precedence for that?

What do you mean don't have skin in the game? Am I not alive?

And just as unlikely as the rest of us (unless there's a larger population of gangbangers posting on the DR than I'm aware of...) to be directly affected by gun violence.

Despite it never being acknowledged, it's a statistically rare event (particularly if you're not a gang member, drug dealer or serial criminal) and yet you seem content in forcing, at the very least, a monetary cost on me for no fault of my own...while expecting to pay nothing to solve the problem you want solved.

It's a simple concept-you're demanding action to "solve" a problem but are unwilling to contribute yourself. Doesn't exactly make you someone worthy of serious consideration.

And what do you mean by do-gooders,

People who think they have to do something, anything, in reaction to whatever crusade they're undergoing. In this case it's worse because none of the proposed fixes seem to have a snow ball's chance in hell of doing anything. But they'll make people like you feel better...

are you saying the unfunded mandates you alluded to earlier wouldn't make a difference even if they were funded?

You have an amazing talent for misconstruing or misrepresenting what people say.

I'd like to think it's unintentional, but I'm afraid I have to assume you're just a POS.

In any case, it's time for me to call it a night. Half day at work tomorrow then off for nearly a week of vacation.

So ---- all you -------! HAHA

#259 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-28 03:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess you either don't understand or are willing to ignore the part about forcing people to pay to exercise their Constitutional rights. Is there even a precedence for that?

The right to buy a gun isn't infringed when, say, you pay sales tax on that purchase.

I don't think your argument holds as much merit as you'd like it to.

In this case it's worse because none of the proposed fixes seem to have a snow ball's chance in hell of doing anything.

I honestly can't figure out if your "fix" is in that list or not.

Enjoy your vacation.

#260 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 03:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

and mental health coverage is mandated by Obamacare.

Then maybe in a few years this will be a moot point?

That would be nice. Though I suspect that if we get to the point where the rubber meets the road on separating guns from crazy people, the NRA will put in a lot of effort to stop it. Publicly on behalf of your freedumbs, privately on behalf of the people who make their living selling guns to, among others, crazy people.

#261 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 03:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Though I suspect that if we get to the point where the rubber meets the road on separating guns from crazy people, the NRA will put in a lot of effort to stop it.

#261 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-05-28 03:59 AM | FLAG:

www.nraila.org

"Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence."

"In January 2008, President George W. Bush signed the bipartisan "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007."[5] The NRA-supported legislation created incentives for states to upgrade their procedures for timely and accurate reporting of records -- including mental health records -- to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. All federal firearm licensees are required to check the system (either directly or through a state point of contact) before proceeding with a sale.[6] To accomplish this task, the legislation authorized federal grants to states that improve their record keeping and supply those records to NICS, while also developing procedures under which people who have recovered from mental illness can get their firearms rights restored."

As always, the devil is in the details. That's where resistance comes from and compromise has to be found. When restricting constitutional rights of people most often the victims of crime, often violent crime, we must tread carefully.

"In recent years, anti-gun lawmakers have introduced legislation to expand the definition of people barred from possessing firearms to include persons who have simply been ordered to receive counseling. This could include a person whose employer or school administrator orders him to receive counseling as a condition of employment or enrollment, regardless of the outcome of such counseling. Similarly onerous legislation has been introduced in some states. At least one attempt has been made to ban gun ownership by anyone with any recognized diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- an outrageously broad standard that would affect the rights of countless Americans."

#262 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-05-28 08:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its good to be king.

#180 | Posted by Zed

Not always.

#183 | Posted by jpw at 2014-

Its weird, not to mention pathetic, that you not only have to insult me, but insist that I have to feel bad about it.

#263 | Posted by Zed at 2014-05-28 08:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

There is only one real way to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns when they have not committed a crime. Considering the guns used in the last several years were either purchased legally or stolen. The way to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns is that every single patient that goes a doctor over depression or other mental issues have to have their medical records turned over with criminal records for background checks.

#264 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-28 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

I would also add that none of these recent killings have been about what most consider "gun nuts". Sure I will grant you the kid in Newtown b/c his mother thought it was something they could do together but, mostly these guys are just nuts that fantasize about killing people. The gun is just the tool they choose b/c it's less confrontational and all of these shooters have shown to be cowards in life.

#265 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-28 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

We need to "NEVER FORGET" how the Nazis, Commies and Bolsheviks (and others) imitating benevolent governments played this same game as a means to neuter their serfs.

Their is a deceptive freedom grabbing tribe that have come to own our consolidated media who will never get their fill of using good tragedies for political advantage. Political operatives like Rahm Emanuel, Feinstein, Bloomberg, Soros and others have all paraphrased that such tragedies are to be used.

Actually the underlying rationale is it will be good for the security of the banksters and oligarchs that want to continue robbing Americans of Social Security and stealing what are public assets.

Taking away global rights such as the right to be armed is a means to politically neuter society and establish a trend that our Constitution is just a piece of paper, and the costly wars for "freedom" were all BS.

#266 | Posted by Robson at 2014-05-28 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

ok what are nuclear bombs for? They have not been used for killing (directly) in quite awhile. Are they designed to though?

#267 | Posted by mutant at 2014-05-28 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

No one sane will ever invade the US because of the amount of personal weapons distributed amoungt us. Not a bad position.

Also BTW what is Norway's stance on gun control? Seems like the Island camp slaughter was a massacre vs. this recent on in Cali.

#268 | Posted by mutant at 2014-05-28 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did you EVER once think that guns are made to defend yourself with?
If just one of the kids that were stabbed at first had a gun and was trained to use it, they could have saved the lives of every other kid that this monster took.

Forget the fact that in his manifesto this idiot only feared the police and bullets. He planned his whole scheme around where he could do the most damage and timed everything so that he could go on without the Police being around and being shot.

If there were more people around that were armed he would NEVER have pulled any of this because he was a coward. READ his manifesto.

Just because you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object or you don't want people to be equal and defend themselves doesn't mean that people should give up their rights to do so. Rapists, burglars and murders look for easy victims hoping that they can find easy prey that won't fight back.

#269 | Posted by LouisS at 2014-05-28 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one sane will ever invade the US because of the amount of personal weapons distributed amoungt us. Not a bad position.

That's not why.
it's because they'd have to cross an ocean to get here.

Also BTW what is Norway's stance on gun control? Seems like the Island camp slaughter was a massacre vs. this recent on in Cali.
#268 | Posted by mutant

Yes, that was a massacre. A fool with a gun could do the same at an island camp here. It's been a while since I went to summer camp but I don't remember any of the "adults" (who must have been no older that 25) being armed.

#270 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

At least one attempt has been made to ban gun ownership by anyone with any recognized diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- an outrageously broad standard that would affect the rights of countless Americans."
#262 | Posted by sitzkrieg

See, this is what I'm getting at. If the NRA thinks this is too broad... then they need to tell us which diagnoses to include and which to exclude. But instead they just shoot down the idea without offering anything constructive.

You know where I think their line of reasoning ends? With an ad campaign warning us some faceless bureaucrat in Washington D.C. is trying to take our guns away. Tie in the mental health provision of Obamacare and the real purpose of Obamacare becomes evident. It's not about health care at all, it's a way to control the citizens, up to and including disarming them. That, I think, is the message that will be best received by the NRA base.

Sigh. I shoulda gone into marketing. This stupid having a soul really holds me back.

#271 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"See, this is what I'm getting at. If the NRA thinks this is too broad... then they need to tell us which diagnoses to include and which to exclude. But instead they just shoot down the idea without offering anything constructive."

Why?

If you were about to stick a knife in a toaster to retrieve your breakfast would you get mad if a buddy said "don't do that" but failed to offer an alternative?

Sometimes you just have to point out that something is a very bad idea

#272 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-28 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

If there were more people around that were armed he would NEVER have pulled any of this because he was a coward. READ his manifesto.
#269 | Posted by LouisS

Well, since we're playing What If:
Let's say the government had found his manifesto before he did anything.
Should that alone have been sufficient to take his guns away?

#273 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you were about to stick a knife in a toaster to retrieve your breakfast would you get mad if a buddy said "don't do that" but failed to offer an alternative?

Sometimes you just have to point out that something is a very bad idea
#272 | Posted by salamandagator

Am I out of line asking for an alternative to what you claim is a very bad idea?

If it's so bad surely you can suggest something better to separate gun from crazy? Or is saying what to do not nearly so simple as saying what not to do?

#274 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Am I out of line asking for an alternative to what you claim is a very bad idea?"

That's not the question. The question is if the has to be a responsibility to provide an alternative before pointing out a bad idea.

"If it's so bad surely you can suggest something better to separate gun from crazy?"

It's not a simple problem. An expectation that you have to solve to worlds problem before pointing them out does not accomplish anything.

Should no one mention that people are starving just because they have no solution?

"Or is saying what to do not nearly so simple as saying what not to do?"
Exactly. Solutions are fare more complicated then identifying the problem. In this case the NRA identified a problem but was not willing nor prepared to offer a solution that would be no better thought out then what the spoke against.

#275 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-28 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

#276 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

But instead they just shoot down the idea without offering anything constructive.

Public comments of NRA to BATF on proposed rule change regarding mental health under GCA. www.regulations.gov!documentDetail;D=ATF-2014- 0002-0187

#277 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-28 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#277 thanks I will read it in a bit.

#278 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

""If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.""

Sounds good, but is BS.

#279 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-28 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do somebody else's dead kids trump your Second Amendment rights... or do they not?"

First amendment, second amendment, whatever. They are there until legally repealed.

So, regardless of which amendment you dislike, there is a legal mechanism in place to allow for it to be removed. And that's the route to take if you want it gone.

"His right to have guns outweighs some dead kids right to life."

I'm not sure how my right to own a gun affected the right to live for any of those killed by Roger? And if it did, wasn't their right to life equally compromised by my right to own a knife?

In 2012 there were more than 10k people who died in drunk driving accidents. Di they die needlessly as a result of my freedom to own a car? And if you want to be completely above board, I don't even have a constitutional right to keep and bear cars. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear guns and knives. Assuming knives count as arms.

#280 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-28 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

But you're doing a good job playing devil's advocate snoof. Asking all the right questions.

Keep it up.

#281 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-28 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, since we're playing What If:
Let's say the government had found his manifesto before he did anything.
Should that alone have been sufficient to take his guns away?

If they had, and he stated that he was afraid that the police would find his manifesto and his plans would be foiled by the way, he should have been immediately placed in a psychiatric ward for his own protection as well as others.
I am not saying that he should have had a gun to begin with. But to say that the gun is at fault is equally if not more wrong. He was a nut job and had planned on killing people in all kinds of ways, a gun was one of MANY. In fact he had murdered prior to using a gun. He feared people having them is what I am saying, he said he did because they could stop him.

Does this not tell you something?

#282 | Posted by LouisS at 2014-05-28 11:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

In 2012 there were more than 10k people who died in drunk driving accidents. Di they die needlessly as a result of my freedom to own a car?

We do all sorts of things to try to prevent drunk driving. Police checkpoints and enforcement, public awareness campaigns, we even raised the drinking age to 21 to keep alcohol out of schools.

This is just my opinion, but I don't think we do as much to prevent gun violence. I suppose some schools have metal detectors to keep weapons out. And NYC had stop-and-frisk, but that's just NYC, and I think they've stopped. A few places had handgun bans but those were overturned.

Anyway, they did die because people are free to own cars, to the extent that if there were no cars there would be no drunk drivers to drive them. Just as people (usually themselves) die because people are free to own guns. I suppose one could blame the alcohol as much as the car.

But the comparison breaks down when you get to intent: Not nearly as many people commit suicide with a car as a gun; nor are drunk driving fatalities intentional. The same cannot be said for people killed by guns.

#283 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-28 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The drunk driving comparisons fall apart when you read stories like this:

www.rawstory.com

Not too many kids are killing each other with cars...

#284 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2014-05-29 12:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#277 document is here: www.regulations.gov

In terms of policy, the NRA can only support keeping weapons out of the hands of two groups of people. The first is those who have marked subnormal intelligence persisting from childhood into adulthood.

The second is those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for a mental health condition or disease. Those who enter voluntarily, or are kept only for observation or evaluation should be free to obtain guns.

They also advocate not using a commitment as a minor as a sufficient reason alone to deny a gun to that same adult; I probably agree with that one.

Probably the most puzzling statement was on page 18, "those who erroneously consider firearm possession a per se risk to public safety." Erroneously? It's clearly demonstrable.

#285 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-29 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Clown - check your facts. Canada requires a Possession and Acquisition License before you can buy a long gun and basically bans handguns.

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca

According to righties here, America, with the most guns per population should have the lowest number of gun killings, yet it is about the worst, and certainly the worst in the First world. Just something to think about...

Like some wise and learned Texan used to say, "an armed society is a polite society".

For those who are trying to make a knife equal a gun, my standard offer: I haven't fired a handgun in over 30 years, but give me one and you take all the knives you want. We'll start at opposite goal lines on a football field and walk towards each other.

Who will leave the field vertically, and who horizontally? should be 50/50 or better odds for you, right?

#286 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-29 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We do all sorts of things to try to prevent drunk driving. Police checkpoints and enforcement, public awareness campaigns, we even raised the drinking age to 21 to keep alcohol out of schools."

Do we prohibit ownership of vehicles? I only ask because there is a large contingent of progressives out there suggesting that we prohibit ownership of weapons.

"Not nearly as many people commit suicide with a car as a gun; nor are drunk driving fatalities intentional."

Are we trying to get people to commit suicide using some other tool?

#287 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-29 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Probably the most puzzling statement was on page 18, "those who erroneously consider firearm possession a per se risk to public safety." Erroneously? It's clearly demonstrable."

A risk to public safety?

Keeping a grown lion in your bank yard is a risk to public safety, because you don't control the actions of the lion. But saying that a gun is a risk to public safety is like saying that a car, or airplane, or lawnmower, or really any item is as well. My arsenal isn't a threat to anyone. Unless it's decided by me. In which case it's not the guns that are the threat, but me.

And that's why, from a logical perspective, most attempts to ban firearms are going to fall flat. It would be like banning spraypaint because it is the favored medium of graffiti artists.

#288 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-05-29 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

My arsenal isn't a threat to anyone. Unless it's decided by me. In which case it's not the guns that are the threat, but me.

What if your arsenal gets stolen?

#289 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-29 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

A risk to public safety?

ajph.aphapublications.org

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

This is the source for the graph #2 in this not-without-its-flaws Mother Jones article here: http://m.motherjones.com/
politics/2013/01/pro-gun-
myths-fact-check

#290 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-29 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are we trying to get people to commit suicide using some other tool?

Are we trying to get people to commit murder using some other tool?

#291 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-29 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort