Guns And The Media Made Mass Murderer Elliot Rodger A God

On Friday evening, a 22 year-old named Elliot Rodger became the latest in a too-long string of mass shooters to shatter lives when he killed six and injured thirteen in a rampage that ended in Isla Vista, California. Thanks to his YouTube account, the world knows that Elliot Rodger wanted to be a God exacting mortal retribution, and thanks to the easily-available guns he purchased legally, he was able to become one.

On Friday evening, Elliot Rodger made good on the threats he had been making on YouTube, first by stabbing his three roommates in his apartment, then driving to the Alpha Phi sorority house on the University of California Santa Barbara campus, where he reportedly knocked on the door for several minutes, then opened fire on women outside the house when no one answered. Two women were killed, and one was critically wounded. He then shot and killed his sixth victim outside a deli, running over bicyclists and pedestrians as he fled. After two shootouts with police, he crashed his car, and apparently shot himself in the head.

In his final YouTube video, the only one that’s no longer available on his channel, Rodger laid out the twisted motivations for his pending actions, and warned the world that displeased him that “I will be a God compared to you, you will be like animals, you are animals, and I will slaughter you like animals.”

It was the three semiautomatic handguns and 41 ten-round magazines he purchased legally which allowed this shooter to make good on one aspect of his claim to godhood, the ability to decide who lives and who dies.

It is the ravenous 24-hour news media, however, which will make this shooter immortal. The reason we already know so much about why this guy did what he did is because he left a toxic waste dump of his own narcissism, in the form of those YouTube videos and a lengthy manifesto. More will surely follow.

I’m not one of those people who objects to news coverage of these murderers on principle, because I believe strongly that knowledge is power, that the mission of journalism is to harness information for the public good, not to hide from it. What I object to is the way in which it is done. For example, the video in which Rodger aspires to godhood is no longer available on his YouTube account, so of course, it is being ripped and uploaded by others. If people want to see it, that’s one thing, but the claim to serving the public interest is undermined by the studious watermarking and unnecessary duplication. This is click-and-credit-whoring, plain and simple, and it permeates the early coverage of this incident, and incidents like it.

In the age of social media, it’s no longer even possible to question whether airing a video like this is the responsible thing to do. What was once accomplished by sending hand-scrawled notes to police or newspapers is now instantly available for the entire world to see. While this would logically indicate handling such things with extra care, our modern media creates incentives that do the opposite. If you don’t play it, someone else will, and they’ll get the eyeballs. Never mind that some of those eyeballs might be other impressionable loners, internalizing the living image of this guy, instead of his lifeless body, and those of his victims.

You can go read about Elliot Rodger’s twisted, self-told backstory, of which there is, and will be, plentiful coverage. I prefer to give voice to those whose lives were shattered by this horror. Richard Martinez, father of 20 year-old Chris Martinez, spoke to reporters on Saturday, and it is his raw, powerful statement that should echo in the ears of Americans, even if it lacks the sensational, exploitable, water-markable sizzle of a killer’s video selfie.

In his brief statement, Mr. Martinez went right to the heart of th matter, asking “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!’ Too many have died. We should say to ourselves, ‘Not one more!’”

It is that message, politically-charged and yet obvious, that will likely get most of the attention, and rightly so. California ranks number one on the latest Brady Campaign scorecard, as the state with the toughest gun laws, yet this person was still able to purchase a portable arsenal. It is tough to imagine how anyone could argue that this guy should have been allowed to buy all those guns and bullets.

But along with that message, there is another moment, earlier in Mr. Martinez’s statement, that deserves attention, as an antidote to the immortality conferred on Christopher’s killer. “My son’s name was Christopher Ross Martinez,” Richard Martinez says, and in the pause between the word “was” and his son’s name exists all of the finality and heartbreak and horror of this act. Let this be what lives forever.

YouTube Preview Image

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

President Obama held his last press conference of the year today, and you'd never know he just got t[Read more...]
This Healthy Dog Will Die If a Dead Woman Gets Her Last Wish
MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

The Huffington Post tried to "redefine beauty" at least a half-dozen times in 2014, but the effort i[Read more...]
North Korea Officially Named in Sony Hack as Hackers Gloat Over Victory (Updated)
Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

USA Today, and now Fox News, are trying to make the case that President Obama pulled a switcheroo, c[Read more...]
  • Joe P.

    Nothing made Elliot Rodger “a God”, because he is not, was not then, and never was “a God”. The fact is that it requires perfectly ordinary human abilities to inflict great suffering and death on each other (we choose life or death for one another whenever we drive down the road with other drivers.) We all hold each others’, and our own, lives in our hands. This fact alone should make us turn toward one another and connect, not disconnect and drop out like this pathetic piece of human excrement.

  • TruDat

    Ban knives Tommy

  • captkurt

    Over the weekend I was wondering what the NRA truthers would have to say about this. Though now I’m a little sad it was so easy to find out.

  • Jeffersonian

    Just like Sandy Hook, LAX and Boston Bombing, they had a drill planned for this same event that “Played Out”. Keep in mind that the Malloy used that term, “Played Out” and that term was used at Boston. Want the proof? Go read page 25 and see how they were planning every detail of this “Active Shooter DRILL” for over a month! Numerous Agencies, including the Santa Barbara College, were involved with staging this drill gone live.

    http://www.sbmtd.gov/download/board/agendas/04-14/20140429%20Board%20Packet.pdf

    • D_C_Wilson

      Just out of curiosity, is it ever possible for a mass shooting to be just that, a mass shooting, and not a “false flag operation” in your diseased mind?

  • don

    Blaming guns, in this case at least, seems to be scapegoating ( a goat sent into the wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it). Let’s not consider the obvious psychological issues, video games, and the internet vulture culture? Nothing is more dangerous than the illusion of security.

  • la bibliotequetress

    I agree that our culture, that cheers gun use as the answer to everything from strangers stepping on one’s yard to shutting up people who talk during a movie, encouraged Elliot Rodgers. However, given all of the revelations about his online activity on PUA/MRA sites, I don’t think we can ignore the impact they had.

    I do not have time this morning to write at length about incidents in the past 10 years of so to speak “Men’s Rights” groups targeting women with threats of rape and violence, but google MRA and you’ll find it easy to find them.

  • tufnoogies

    The guy was a nut case. Slipped through the cracks and did not get any help with his mental condition. He would have found some way to kill as many people as possible using any means. His first 3 victims were stabbed to death, 3 more by a gun and fortunately the ones he tried to run down with his car survived, though injured. This isn’t a weapons issue. What do you want to restrict next, knives and cars? If people want to kill someone, they will find a way. this is a Mental health issue.One of the worst mass murders in history occurred in one of the most peaceful countries with strict gun controls; Norway. They didn’t react by banning guns they redoubled their efforts to maintain their commitment to cultivating honorable young people who value peace and love of their fellow man.
    Australia purchased tens of thousands of guns from citizens after a mass shooting and still have a problem with guns and crime. They are rethinking that policy.
    These mass murderers are deranged individuals who are impossible to predict. This kid was under a microscope and nobody predicted his killer pathology.

  • KarenJ

    “…the video in which Rodger aspires to godhood is no longer available on his YouTube account, so of course, it is being ripped and uploaded by others. If people want to see it, that’s one thing, but the claim to serving the public interest is undermined by the studious watermarking and unnecessary duplication. This is click-and-credit-whoring, plain and simple…”

    If this kind of morbid voyeurism is becoming the norm, I have a suggestion. Show the aftermath of the evil narcissism that overtakes these socially maladjusted youths…namely, his shattered bloody head with brains scattered all over the inside of his car. Maybe these guys (because it’s nearly always guys, not women) will think twice before they plan to kill others then shoot themselves. I’m betting they don’t have the courage to face the consequences of their lethality otherwise.

    • That River Gal

      You know, as revolting as this sounds, I think you’ve got a great point here.

  • BrokeGopher

    So which gun control measure did the NRA-owned corrupt politicians fail to pass that would have saved your son, Rich? Magazine size limits? Nope, he had all ten-rounders. They prevent massacres, don’t you know? Universal background checks? He passed them all. Maybe you can go wish all the guns out of existence (and while you’re at it wish up a universal health care system that works, too). P.S. Then start working on your speech about the evil knife lobby.

    • KarenJ

      You’re a real comfort to a grieving father, aren’t you? I wonder why NRA apologists seem to be soulless b@stards…

      If you bothered to read about this POS’s solution to his social inadequacy — the PUA online forums and in particular the PUAhate community, you’d know that’s where a responsible person could have changed the direction Rodger took.

      Why don’t people like this killer start examining their dark gender paranoia instead of blaming problems on women, people who want some regulations on the profit of the gun culture and proliferation of guns, and Obamacare?

      • AeroAtlas .

        Sorry, but just because your grieving doesn’t mean that you can’t be called out for saying bullshit if you try and get political. Kids die everyday from far worse stuff and their parents don’t get to make political statements on TV.
        Also dark gender paranoia? hahaha

  • D. Alexander

    I have always said the the NRA is a terrorist group. They are making public spaces uninviting for ordinary people and families. Guns, guns, guns.

    • Jeffersonian

      What a moron! Please explain! I can’t wait to hear your explanation and justification! Do you also work for the Southern Poverty Law Center?

      • D. Alexander

        I love the SPLC, it calls out all you white supremacist folks . I am saying that you gun nuts are making publicv spaces unviting for ordinary families because we feel unsafe by your walking around with guns hanging over your shoulders, or we never know who will pull out a concealed weapon and start shooting. For you, you are the only ones that have rights, not the ordinary citizens.

        You should probably re read the second amendment again about a well regulated militia. The US did not have a standing army so this amendment was necessary then.

        • Jeffersonian

          Just because you are scared of a gun makes the NRA “Terrorists”. I’m still grasping here for a connection. Please explain how the NRA TERRORIZES people like Obama’s Al Qaeda terrorists that he’s funding in Syria. Where did the NRA support any killing??? I’ll pay you $1,000,000 if you can show me how the NRA funds Terrorism and supports killing innocent people! I don’t remember seeing a suicide bomber linked to the NRA, much less this kid. They tried to connect Adam Lanza to the NRA but that failed too because the NRA had no record of either Nancy or Adam.

          • D. Alexander

            Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group, the KKK is a terrorist group, Neo Nazis are a terrorists group, these right wing militia groups like the Bundy supporters, are terrorists groups The KKK terrorized African Americans and Jews and so do the Neo Nazis. The Bundy militia group is terrorizing an entire town who wants them gone. The NRA tries to intimidate and terrorize anyone who dares to spake up against them, and we see the comments against the father whose son was just killed in CA. You have absolutely NO CLUE, so wallow in your own ignorance and hatred.

          • Dave Be

            Roughly one in ten police officers killed by a gun are shot with their own gun or the gun of another officer. The NRA lobbies heavily to keep regulations requiring biometric smart gun trigger locks from passing. Your member dues help kill cops! Where’s my million bucks?

        • AeroAtlas .

          “I love the SPLC”
          And there went any ounce of credibility you may have had.

  • joseph2004

    This was a good piece (for once ;)…

    I think, though, that the mental issue side of the story ought to have equal weight with restricting the availability of guns. There’s too much second-guessing in these cases, and much of it can be summed up in the fear that people with this or that mental illness will be stigmatized or scapegoated. Perhaps that’s a distraction all by itself for those who would have guns eliminated altogether (except for, of course, law enforcement). Taking Americans’ guns away from them is a nonstarter. It won’t happen. America’s gun tradition, as it were, runs too deep, and 99.9% of it has absolutely nothing to do with spraying a university campus or local elementary school with bullets.

    Most of the mass murders we’ve witnessed have been at the hands of people who were seriously mentally disturbed. Gabby Gifford was shot not by a Tea Party nut (as much as the left tried hard to make that connection), but by someone crazed and delusional, and he was known to many. James Holmes, the Colorado theater shooter, was well known to many, too, including a psychiatrist, college officials, even law enforcement. Wondering why he was allowed to remain at large given what “everyone” including experts knew, isn’t posited as a mere distraction by “gun nuts”; it’s a serious question about why this country has so much trouble isolating these people and keeping them from harming the public. As it is, many of them, maybe just out acting “crazy” in public in some way, let alone shooting up a theater, end up in a jail cell rather than a psychiatric care facility.
    The reason we’re seeing these mass murder rampages isn’t because there are too many guns; it’s because the laws we have don’t go far enough in identifying people such as Elliot Roger and making sure their names are on a no-gun-purchase-list in every gun shop in the country. But it wouldn’t have stopped Adam Lanza. In that case, the gun owner wasn’t nuts, per se, but she was crazy not to secure her guns from her mentally ill child.
    This is people problem, and since taking everyone’s gun away won’t ever happen, focusing on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill should be the priority.

    • Frau From Fly-Over USA

      blah blah blah gun nut. it sure is a people problem. people with too easy access to weaponry problem. You big ole long diatribe is as fresh and nuanced as a bowl of egg salad left open in the sun for 7 hours.

  • Rockin69

    And for those who say “oh but he killed half of the victims with a knife, not a gun”…if he only had a knife how far would he have gotten huh?

    • joseph2004

      I wouldn’t speculate.

      • Frau From Fly-Over USA

        of course you wont.

    • AeroAtlas .

      Probably just as far if not more so. Guns are loud and the second they start popping off you basically have put a timer on yourself.

  • Rockin69

    From what I understand, many people were concerned for the mental health of the boy and he was seeing more than one therapist.

    So how come a guy like that gets a free pass to buy guns? Washington has to come up with an effective system that prevents people who are undergoing mental health treatment to buy a gun. It shouldn’t be that complicated really, just create a system that links one to the other. It might not be 100% accurate but it’s better than nothing.

  • Carl

    So according to gun control advocates, making guns illegal will take them off the streets?? We should make heroin and meth illegal too!

    • NW10

      Not even a good strawman.

    • Badgerite

      And cars. And knives. And airplanes. Heard it all before. In fact, every time one of these kind of incidents occur. Such and such a number of people are killed in traffic accidents so why don’t we make cars illegal, etc.

      • joseph2004

        Really, it’s not that bad of an argument. Elliot Rodger killed with his car, too. We don’t want the mentally ill driving cars any more than we want them buying and owning guns. But no one is advocating taking everyone’s car away just because someone occasionally uses his or her car as a weapon. That would be ridiculous, because 99.9% of people driving around aren’t out to run anyone over, ever. And, 99.9% of people who own guns aren’t Elliot Rodger, James Holmes, or Adam Lanza. Outlawing guns on that basis, then, would be ridiculous.
        If it’s ridiculous to take everyone’s car away, it’s ridiculous to take everyone’s gun away.

        • Frau From Fly-Over USA

          I am in the market to buy a new car to get to and from work because of the shitty public transport system in MURIKA! what’s the mileage like on an ak-47? I know it must have decent speed but can it break quickly and turn on a dime?
          asshats.

        • Badgerite

          He didn’t kill with his car. He attempted to but did not succeed in doing anything other than injuring. Cars are not meant to kill.
          Guns are meant for only that purpose. It is a crappy argument.
          And no one has ever proposed taking away everyone’s guns.
          However, other countries seem to have had positive results (specifically Australia) with tougher gun regulations. I can’t see any reason in the world why the USA can’t do the same.

        • stacib23

          Please state one use for guns other than killing something.

  • Matthew J

    I noticed a few comments about the kid’s mental health, I won’t point out exactly which ones but there is some disappointing and disturbing information on that particular topic.

    California has laws on the books that allow for the emergency commitment (for observation and evaluation) of someone who might be a danger to himself or others. Rodger’s parents called the police, or rather, the County Sheriff, because they were concerned about their son. They told the deputies of the videos and deputies interviewed the soon to me murderer. However, they never watched the videos! The upshot being, the kid seemed calm when they talked to him and so they left without taking any further action.

    So, there we have people who tried to use existing law to get their of adult son some badly needed help, gave all of the information to law enforcement, but law enforcement did not do a complete follow through — which is not surprising given it was the LA County Sheriff’s office (they have an extremely poor reputation around here, I can tell you).

    This just adds to an already heinous tragedy.

    Here’s a link to the AP story; http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANTA_BARBARA_RAMPAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-25-20-27-27

    • Matthew J

      There’s been an update on this — the mother called his therapist, who called the Sheriff’s office … it’s not clear what, exactly, the therapist told them …

  • leo from chicago

    I can’t say I’ve been listening to the news the whole day but I heard the Martinez clip several times on the BBC and not once on the local CBS station here, WBBM, or on NPR. Local media fear of the NRA?

  • NintendoWii10

    Milt Shook does an excellent rant on why we need to quit making these killers infamous:

    http://sulia.com/miltshook/f/581e73b4-74b9-405c-b6da-c85c48bf3a1a/

  • americanreal

    …So instead of making guns illegal, why don’t we just make murder illegal???

    • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

      OMGWHYDIDNTWETHINKOFTHAT!

  • americanreal

    very clearly scripted…the “father” looks like another of the fake false flag actors I’ve seen
    before…hmm: was it from the Boson Marathon “bombing”? Or the aurora
    movie theater “shooting”? Or could it have been sandy hook? I know I’ve
    seen him before…

    • Lady Willpower

      Are you insane, or just joking?

    • Badgerite

      The father said it was a statement the family had prepared. His son was dead for no reason. He was going to have his say.

    • Peter James

      Wow.

      That’s a really bad attempt at some really really really bad comedy.
      Either that,
      …or…..

      You’re severely and pungently insane.

    • KarenJ

      You came straight here from Alex Jones’ Infowars, didn’t you?

  • Frau From Fly-Over USA

    I have a strong suspicion that there’s a large membership overlap between men’s rights groups and gun fetishers.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    It doesn’t really matter. The NRA and its many supporters will say about this tragedy that if only there were good guys with guns, then Elliott Rodger would have been dealt with immediately. And then, more right to carry firearms and other Stand Your Ground bills would be presented and made into law

    • FSU2013NC

      He killed 3 of his victims with a knife.

      • Victor_the_Crab

        My point flew directly over your pointy head. No surprise.

        • FSU2013NC

          Whats your point Victor_the_CS’er ?

          • Victor_the_Crab

            That it doesn’t matter if you are brandishing a knife or a gun. Many gun rights advocates will use this as an excuse for people to own more and more firearms. And find many ways and excuses to use them.

          • FSU2013NC

            Good. I think all people should have guns. For all we know the dudes he smoked were hooligans.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            It took long enough for it to sink into your head. Of course, I see it from a cynical point of view, while you tend to look at it from a deranged optimistic point of view.

          • Rolf

            Sam Harris once gave a good opinion on that. While gun control is good idea, it’s logical that having a gun in gunfight might help. If somebody had shot Rodger and prevented him from hurting anyone, than pretty much the only people remotely interested in the incident would’ve been gun rights advocates. Everybody is looking for events and precedents to hinge their agenda on.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            The gunman was in a moving car, surprising his targets all along his path. The likelihood of an armed citizen’s bringing him down is tiny–look how many cops it took to clip him and in the end he stopped his own self.

            The righteous citizen gunfighter is a fantasy. There’s never been a mass shooting averted or even shortened by one, ever, and that includes the Gabby Gifford shooting, where the righteous armed citizen nearly killed the man holding the murderer down. He sensibly decided to put his gun away before he was mistaken for the shooter by police.

            You may remember the incident in front of the Empire State building where police shot a number of innocent bystanders before taking out the gunman who was right in front of them. Apparently ricochet was responsible for some injuries, but this was the result with trained officers in a crowded open setting.

            Imagine civilians hauling out their pieces and blazing away at what they THINK is the right vehicle, their bodies full of adrenaline and their fingers almost drained of blood, which is what adrenaline does to you.

            The strong likelihood is a higher body count, not lower.

          • Rolf

            Oh, yes. Citizens gripped by an adrenalin-induced frenzy, spraying random vehicles in hopes of getting the attacker. This is kind of an exaggeration and a few miles away from the point I was trying to make. Let me explain.

            My point is that even if you make guns totally illegal, that won’t stop some random madman from going out on the street with a gun and spraying innocents. It is what it is. You mentioned the police and the Empire Sate Building incident. What are you suggesting, taking guns from cops? Making them cruise around dangerous neighborhoods armed with nothing more than nightsticks and tasers?

            Any discussions regarding gun laws should be rational and not based on random incidents from which you can draw whatever conclusions you want, based on your political affiliations, point of view, etc.

            A gun freak might as well give you a number of examples where a robber/thief/shooter was stopped by another armed gunman. If you base your whole argumentation around precedents, then pretty much any talk of gun control is doomed from the start.

          • Frau From Fly-Over USA

            go back to your Call of Duty video games to get your pent-up rage fueled street battles out of your system. Taking out women, children and innocents probably gives you a chubby too-sick fuck. I hope to jesus we can pass laws in this country before idiots like you get hands on weapons.

          • NintendoWii10

            Ronald Reagan was surrounded by multiple good guys with guns, yet was STILL shot. His assistant, Jim Brady was permanently disabled and started the Brady campaign for gun control. Telling how, despite being surrounded by multiple good guys with guns, both Reagan and Brady were shot and nearly killed.

          • Badgerite

            The Secret Service. Doesn’t get much more ‘good guys with guns’ than that,. Very good point.

          • BrokeGopher

            Shot, but not killed. Good guys with guns saved him.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Actually, he was subdued without the Secret Service firing a shot. “Good guys with guns” had nothing to do with Reagan’s survival.

            Also, they were government agents, doesn’t that make them “jack-booted thugs” instead of “good guys with guns” in Wayne LaPierre’s fevered imagination?

          • BrokeGopher

            Are you suggesting that the Secret Service guys were unarmed?

          • D_C_Wilson

            No, I am stating that they didn’t use their guns, so guns weren’t a factor in subduing Hinkley.

          • BrokeGopher

            They’re still good guys with guns, even if they don’t use them. Unless you’re proposing that the Secret Service should be disarmed.

          • D_C_Wilson

            But the guns were irrelevant in this particular case.

          • Badgerite

            The problem with that argument is that in these kinds of incidents the killer has the element of surprise. People don’t expect a young kid in a BMW to be shooting at them. They are not prepared or expecting it. Unless you expect everyone to carry a gun all the time, the chances that a ‘good guy with a gun’ will be right there and be able to assess the threat before it happens are not good.

          • Badgerite

            No I think we know they were not. Nor were the women he ‘smoked’. Unless you consider getting a degree in art history or planning to go to law school as being a ‘hooligan’.

          • Peter James

            >>>>” For all we know the dudes he smoked were hooligans.”

            No actually we KNOW they were students, you stupid Moron.

            All of them.

            – His three roommates – Students of Chinese ethnicity (quite possibly Chinese)

            – The two sorority girls he killed, outside the Sorority House.

            – Chris Martinez, whose father you see up there, and who was his parents only child, and a straight A student headed to England to study law.

            You’re an imbecile.

          • D_C_Wilson

            When you have nothing else, blame the victims.

          • AeroAtlas .

            Are you literally nuts? Gun rights advocates only say that because times like this all the anti-gunner come out and say we need to have such and such more gun laws. Its like saying firemen try and evaporate water with random fires

          • Victor_the_Crab

            The gun rights advocates are the ones throwing gasoline onto random fires.

            And you’re the one calling me nuts.

          • AeroAtlas .

            But who started the fire?

      • Badgerite

        So what? Instead of 3 victims there are 6 victims. And probably if he were a better shot, more.

    • NintendoWii10

      Get ready for more “Guns Everywhere” laws to go into effect, because that’s clearly the solution here. More guns = less gun murders, makes sense to me.

      • AeroAtlas .

        Chicago. Illinois’ biggest city. Anti-gun. 500 homicides in 2012
        Aurora (not the CO one). Illinois’ 2nd biggest city. Pro-gun. 0 homicides in 2012
        Makes sense to me

    • formerlywhatithink

      The NRA’s fantasy:

      http://i.imgur.com/2zSso5O.gif

      • Peter James

        That GIF is the absolute best thing in the world for today.

  • Dave Be

    This isn’t a good case for the gun control crowd to rally around. He didn’t use an assault rifle, didn’t have high capacity magazines, and he killed half of his murder victims with a knife, not a gun.

    • FSU2013NC

      I don’t even think they are reading the stories, plus the headlines are ignoring the stabbings and focusing on the shootings.

      • Debbie Lass

        He fatally stabbed three men in his residence, shot two women to death in front of a sorority house, shot a man to death inside a deli, exchanged gunfire twice with police and injured 13 people as he drove from block to block, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office said Saturday night. OK so he stabbed three people first? the point is? how many mass stabbings have there been compared to mass shootings in the last year and half? One mass stabbing incident occurred where they got 22 people…unsuspecting caught by surprise people….and most LIVED. Shooting of sandy hook school…26 DEAD. Guns do more and do it quicker, thus why they are chosen. Just because he stabbed someone in his apartment ….he went out publically using a gun NOT the knife…..and harmed more with the guns…..not an equal comparison

    • NintendoWii10

      Yet he was clearly mentally disturbed and shouldn’t have been allowed to own firearms.

      • Dave Be

        Yeah, he talks a fair amount in his manifesto about how great the new Star Wars movies were, and how excited he was to get a Charizard card, when everyone knows Tentacool rules and Charizard drools. The signs were clearly there!

        • Frau From Fly-Over USA

          maybe you lack the reading skills to find that his OWN FAMILY reported him to the police for his disturbing behavior and statements he made in online mens rights groups YET he is able to buy guns and here we are-carnage. can you please fuck off now?

      • AeroAtlas .

        Yet he passed Californian background checks that require a mental evaluation. Oops.

      • Joseph Pickett

        I guess but how would you have stopped him from owning them? Don’t allow anyone seeing a shrink to own a gun?

    • Frau From Fly-Over USA

      his car was found to have 4 HUNDRED ROUNDS of ammunition. And you fucking gun fetishing mouth breather-there are the OTHER HALF that died of gunshots. People died senselessly and all you are worried about is your ‘manhood’ device being taken away.

      • Dave Be

        Take a deep breath brother, I’m not a gun nut. I don’t have any guns and would be absolutely fine with them being outlawed completely. That doesn’t mean that every single tragedy should be an excuse to start beating the gun control drum. This might be a better opportunity to start a dialog about what we can do to help college students get mental health services and to develop better attitudes towards women than to trot out empty anti-gun platitudes. Also, 400 rounds of ammo isn’t that many – it’s routinely sold in 1000 round boxes.

        • Frau From Fly-Over USA

          don’t call me brother. and look at you now, troll, caring about how women are treated. this must be a first for you, am I right? otherwise let’s talk about that ‘empty platitude’ that antisocial/misogynistic/racist/bigoted MEN seem to always get their hands on guns even after being reported by family and associates as displaying dangerous behavior. now pretty please-fuck back off to your gun stroking mens rights group. 400 bullets is a allot of bullets asshat.

          • Dave Be

            I’m so sorry for you.

          • Frau From Fly-Over USA

            sorry that I have to tangle with libertarian chuck knuckes trolling sites with this ‘whatevs’ over the pointless loss of life?

          • Debbie Lass

            Frau im on your side of the gun issue but your rants are ridiculous. Dave was being reasonable and admitted he isn’t for guns and ok with them all be taken from americans…so youre anger is not normal and borders on crazy like the gun extremists your ranting about.The fact that you cant reasonably see he doesn’t worship or like guns but still disagrees with you says your closed minded and just angry and allowing the anger to blind you. That will not help the cause…..

        • tommychristopher

          Listen, “brother,” 41 loaded clips is a lot. As for whether this is reason enough to get activated about guns, the dead kid’s family sure thinks so, and I agree. Without guns, this guy is a much less deadly psycho. The guns gave him the capability, but more than that, the confidence. He stabbed the first three, yes, but likely so he could carry out the rest of his plan before police were alerted. Thank Jeebus no one answered the door at that sorority house.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            Let’s not forget that cars and knives are necessary tools, whereas semiautomatic handguns serve no purpose besides shooting people.

          • AeroAtlas .

            Self-defense.
            We have 500,000 to 3 million of them a year. *CDC study*
            I guess those lives aren’t important to you.

          • Debbie Lass

            You missed the point of the persons comment. The first response gun owners cry when someone wants to DO something to address the epidemic of mass shootings in this country in the last two years is to say things like…its not the gun that’s the problem, knives and cars have killed people too why not ban them. First no one said ban all guns…..second the tool being used…guns is strictly designed, created, and has the purpose to kill, cars and knives may be used as tools to kill but that is not their purpose nor why they are developed. ANYTHING including ones own hands can be used to kill someone if someone really wanted to…so your response is pointless…no one disputes anything can be used as a tool to kill…but only one tool being used to kill in epidemic proportions through mass public killings is the GUN the ONLY tool designed solely for killing. Thus this tool should be looked at differently. cars get people places. its difficult to NOT have a car in the US today much less everyone not have one. Cars are not being used in epidemic proportions to kill. When people use the tool of a gun for mass shootings they choose it over bombs, cars, knives why??? because of its ability to inflict the most harm on the most people. When deaths occur by car its usually accidental NOT deliberate….so you cant compare the deaths by cars to deaths by guns that were deliberate. Those drunk that get behind the wheel don’t do so with intent to kill but it causes death none the less. again though not used as a deliberate tool to kill. for many at all.

          • Joe P.

            Killing is sometimes a good thing and perfectly lawful and righteous, so trying to paint guns as evil because they were ‘designed to kill’ completely misses the mark when it comes to reality.

          • AeroAtlas .

            “when someone wants to Do something to address the epidemic of mass shootings”
            1. Mass shootings only cause 20-100 deaths a year. Its hardly a big issue.
            2. Its only when anti-gunners want to do something about it. You know people directly against their interests. They’d have no issue if someone came out with a pro-gun solution like abolishing gun free zones.
            3. Not everyone will kill someone with a gun, just like not everyone will drunk drive. But if you chose to do either of those actions you will be arrested. Punish the crime rather than ban the object. Just look at how well banning alcohol and weed worked to stop drug violence.

          • Debbie Lass

            yes guns can use to help protect but does that mean one should not look at the issue of increased DEATHS from guns? Deaths of innocents in public who don’t know its coming….we aren’t talking the typical someone gets in an argument to which they can walk away to not let it escalate if possible etc..but of deaths caused suddenly, with surprise, out of nowhere, with no ability to react in time to defend…..before they are killed. That’s a problem. It must be addressed. Does not mean that guns don’t serve a good purpose at times too…but tell me…how many of those in that statistic included gang members? is the data broken down that specific the way people throw out statistics for gun deaths in the country? Show me the break down of your data and how many were gangsters defending themselves, how many were home invasions, how many bodily attacks etc….as that makes a difference when comparing data….but BOTH sides are important…defense as well as the fact they are being used to kill innocents in mass public shootings at epidemic rates.

          • Joe P.

            The vast majority are gang members or suicides… If you’re not a criminal and if you’re not suicidal your odds of death by gun violence are very tiny (though you’d never know it based on the media hype…)

            In a country of hundreds of millions of people there will be innocents killed every day, but that’s pretty much par for the course and not even close to enough reason to start infringing on fundamental liberties such as self-defense and self-governance which is really what the second amendment boils down to…

            Who ultimately holds the power? The people? Or the worst and most ruthless amongst us who rise to positions of power? I know who I choose… Do you?

          • AeroAtlas .

            Our gun deaths have been slowly decreasing for the past 20 years. Stop talking, youre only making it harder on yourself.

          • BlueMoney

            Gun murders are HALF of what they were in 1994, according to US Department of Justice statistics. THAT tells me America is doing something right with regard to gun violence, by allowing more honest citizens be legally armed over the last 20 years!
            There is NO “epidemic” of gun violence. What we have is a highly publicized rash of statistically insignificant but media-hyped, “go out in a blaze of glory” multiple murder-suicide events by young, spoiled males. Maybe we should reconsider feeding our kids ultra-violent video games like “Call of Duty Modern Warfare” (and maybe we should SERIOUSLY reconsider taking classes of 6th graders on “field trips” to see ultra-violent death porn movies like “The Hunger Games”. When you encourage a violent fantasy culture for young people, don’t be surprised when it bleeds over into reality!)

          • Dave Be

            This still isn’t a good candidate for gun control chest thumping, and here’s why. California has the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Getting federal laws passed based on CA law would be an enormous win for the gun control lobby, and yet, even with those laws, this still happened. 41 loaded clips is a lot, and the NRA is going to be like “what would be the difference if he only had 20 clips, but they held 20 rounds instead of 10?”

            California also has some of the most restrictive laws regarding gun ownership and mental health. We have this thing called a “5150 hold,” which is as 72 hour psych hold that ANY cop or county health officer can request for a person; it doesn’t have to be a psychiatrist. If someone is placed on a 5150 hold, they lose the right to purchase or possess firearms for 5 years. So the NRA can be like “CA has section 5150 and that didn’t stop this guy; obviously mental health rules and background checks are meaningless.”

          • Peter James

            >>>>”California has the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Getting federal laws passed based on CA law would be an enormous win for the gun control lobby, and yet, even with those laws, this still happened.”

            How about we try getting Federal laws passed that are,….oh, I don’t know,….TOUGHER than what hey have in California so there are no cracks or loopholes?

            Clearly despite what they have in California, it’s not water-tight as you have a case here where someone who had been recognized and deemed to be mentally disturbed being ablet o legally buy guns.

            That right there should tell you that the exiting law isn’t enough.

            To use the excuse that “California has the toughest laws, and this still happened there, so what’s the point of making them Federal too?” tells me 2 things.
            1) that you’re not serious.

            ….and…..

            2) that if those are the “toughest laws” in the country and it still happened, then it basically means they’re not tough enough.
            Other countries can do it, so what’s the statement on Americans that they ‘re incapable of even taming this gun violence problem that’s way out of wack with how the rest of the human race suffers with it?

          • Dave Be

            You completely miss the point.

          • Debbie Lass

            I get your point, even if others may not, but….so what is your answer to the problem? do you see it even as a problem with an epidemic of mass public shootings? do you agree that even good guys with guns that aren’t law enforcement wont prevent all shootings as the element of surprise wins every time as evident by the man and woman that walked up to two police officers and shot them dead…..so why do people advocate more guns as the solution? you say restrictions don’t stop gun violence of mass shootings, oh but it does, just not all of them…..but if we use that argument that it doesn’t stop them all so they aren’t something that works, then the same can be said for carrying guns by all…shootings will still occur as people will be taken off guard. Even children in school shootings hid in areas where they could shoot people as they walked out doors of a school. No time for one to drop whats in their hands pull out their gun, take safety off and shoot. so GIVING everyone guns isn’t the solution then either according to the argument about why gun restriction wont work… so with all that said…and the fact that they are NOT all mentally ill..we just say they must be because of their actions…most its breaking point of those ousted and bullied and treated badly…..so mental illness isn’t the main issue ….1-2% of mentally ill people might be violent or kill….that’s a VERY small percentage…..so based on all this factual data…and logic, what IS the solution to the epidemic? to me its a many factored problem..many factors must be addressed to help…..

          • Debbie Lass

            that’s because majority of mass shooters…70% got their guns at home…legally obtained….but that doesn’t mean we don’t still have those restrictions in place ….no one said it would stop all shootings at all…ever..please show where anyone stated that ever in the debates people had about it……but if we take a car away from a drunk driver they cant kill with it…if we work out daily and don’t lose weight…so we stop we then gain weight…showing that working out helped…it just didn’t help lose MORE of the weight one had but it worked preventively by not adding more pounds. Gun restrictions in some cases PREVENT some…its not going to stop all future ones from occurring but if it prevents some…then its important….doesn’t mean it wont prevent all….

        • NintendoWii10

          Heard it after Tuscon Arizona. Heard it after Aurora, CO. Heard it after Sandy Hook, “QUIT USING THIS AS AN EXCUSE FOR GUN CONTROL!!!!!” You gun loons just never seem to learn.

          • Rolf

            A supposed “gun loon” just annihilated most of those fatuous arguments raised in this topic. Resorting to petty verbal outrage and raving about “gun fetishism” is going to make the NRA’s job a lot easier.

      • AeroAtlas .

        How the hell you do propose you limit the amount of ammunition people can buy when its a disposable reasorce? Also calling guns “manhood device” is quite ignorant and frankly juvenile.

    • Badgerite

      Background checks is the issue here.

      • Dave Be

        California has no gun show background check loophole. You have to do the same background check as anywhere else, and still have a 3 day waiting period too. Just having seen a shrink is not enough to bar someone from owning a gun, and it shouldn’t be. There’s enough stigmas and disincentives to seek treatment for mental health problems already.

        • Badgerite

          I think the parents should have been notified. They obviously had more information and greater insight into the mental condition of their son than the police seemed to have. Someone else on this thread pointed out that had the police had access to the videos that his parents had, they would have had cause to search his apartment and probably would have found his stash of guns and ammo which probably would have raised some alarm bells, certainly with his parents.
          I wasn’t saying that California has lax background checks. I was saying that that is the issue in this case. There can always be improvements. And really, 3 days sounds like a cursory check, to me. Still, it is better than in some places.

          • Dave Be

            We don’t know the details of what UCSB knew yet, and maybe never will, but they may have known enough to raise an alarm and contact the parents. I haven’t really seen much questioning how the school handled him yet, but presumably that will be looked at in the coming weeks. There were almost certainly opportunities to see a problem and intervene, but he seems to have slipped through the cracks.

          • Peter James

            Remind me again why those cracks exist?

            From all perceptions, the family did everything in their power (including alerting the cops,…AND even driving to see him on day he carried out the killings, to try and prevent him from doing anything stupid) to try and avert this tragedy that they clearly foresaw the possibility of.

            Except “everything in their power” was limited by what the LAW allows (or doesn’t allow) them to do.

            Guess who funds the politcians who make the toxic laws that ties both the medical community and law enforcements’ hands in cases like these where they could possibly intervene or even prevent someone that could likely cause problems who’s been deemed to have mental issues?

            Guess who also lobbies to create laws that prevent Congress from funding the CDC from doing things like studying the links between video game (and movie) violence and real violence (every other independent study finds there’s none)?

            Guess who lobbies state legislatures to create local laws preventing the manufacture and sale of smart guns with biometric safeties citing that it would be a “threat to our 2nd Amendment rights)?

            You wanna talk about cracks?

          • Rolf

            Can anyone just accept that sometimes bad stuff happens no matter what the law? An insane kid killed several people and there is already so much vitriol oozing out it’s getting ridiculous. The funny stuff is that the most vicious comments come from gun control advocates. Let’s say that California outlaws guns COMPLETELY. Several months later some Breivik wannabe goes on a killing spree in a shopping mall with an illegal m4. What would say then? “eliminate the cracks! Make those laws tougher!”?

          • Peter James

            >>>>”What would say then? “OMG, eliminate the cracks!!! Make those laws tougher!!!”?”

            And the problem with that would be what, exactly?

            That’s the nature of LAW, you never get it right the first time,…or the second,…or the third.
            It keeps adapting and evolving.

            My gosh, even that 2nd Amendment you doooshbags like to hang onto like some sacred text is a FUCKING AMENDMENT to an original law.
            It’s in the name itself – AMENDMENT!
            Also known as a CHANGE!

            Which means the original law wasn’t sufficient so they added an AMENDMENT to suit the changing society.

            Now society has changed again since the time that 2nd Amendment was crafted – you don’t for a second believe that our laws should, maybe evolve along with society?

            So if we introduce tough gun laws and there’s gun massacre that happens after that, you know what an INTELLIGENT society, much less species will do?
            They’ll try to find the problem, or the crack, and see if they can figure out a solution to make sure if doesn’t happen again.
            And if necessary, wash, rinse, repeat.

            What they don’t do is go, “well we tried the toughest laws possible and there’s still gun deaths, so clearly this isn’t working. Let’s go back to what we had before.”

            Only a moron reasons like that.
            Or that “Well, it’s clear that human beings are violent by nature, and there’s always going to be killing, so let’s not even try to deal with this problem”

            That’s how a child reasons, for crying out loud.

          • Dave Be

            Irony: calling people children while responding to respectful posts with name-calling. You, sir, have won the internet!

          • Debbie Lass

            there will always be bad things that happen. Just like car accidents. But that doesn’t mean when we see an epidemic we don’t DO something about it. With your logic then we should say oh well terrorism happens, doing stuff to try to prevent it doesn’t matter shouldn’t be done. So lets remove all the checks for people getting on airplanes etc…..with your logic we should say well hey sometimes meat is just tainted, lets not do a recall because things happen…or hey let those cobalts be we shouldn’t hold GM accountable for their shotty part that cost people lives because “shit happens” . So why is it in all these other areas we are willing to say yes we need things in place to try to prevent as many as possible…until it comes to guns…then its….”bad things happen…deal with it.”..why is that?

          • Dave Be

            The law allows the police to place anyone on a 72 hour psych hold in CA. It’s called a 5150, named after the code number. The school administration also has fairly broad powers to mandate treatment. But the cracks I was referring to are the cracks that let a kid feel like such a pariah and an outcast. There are outreach programs that could have helped him, and if you read his manifesto he talks about how meaningful some of the friendships he had as a kid were to him. He talks about how he was too shy to make friends with the neighbor kids, but when his stepmom forced him he ended up having fun with them. He wasn’t a sociopath or something; just a sad and lonely introvert who convinced himself that he was lonely because he was being excluded from things.

            We seem to be in the midst of a public health crisis where people feel so isolated and disconnected from the rest of humanity that they go on a kill crazy rampage. Gun control is a good prophylactic, but maybe there are things we could do to treat the underlying causes. It’s hard to have that conversation when everyone just starts screaming “GUN CONTROL!” and “SECOND AMENDMENT!” at each other every time something like this happens.

            I am a fan of smart guns, if that matters. I’m also a fan of a handgun ban – you don’t hunt with them and any cop will tell you a shotgun is the best home defense weapon in the hands of an amateur. I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about gun control right now because I don’t like gun control; I’m saying it because every time there is a shooting spree that’s ALL we talk about.

          • Debbie Lass

            agreed, it is a multifaceted problem and all issues should be addressed. Die hard gun fanatics and NRA want to make mental health the only discussion. Some want to make GUNS the only topic, and amidst all this you have such anger and hostility and ugliness at one another which is a third factor of the gun mass shooting problem, how we treat one another. This piece is not being addressed enough because people would have to change themselves and admit they are part of the problem, and many just want to say the shooter is the only blame…..yes they are who did the killing, but when we fail to act in areas to prevent it then we are part of the problem. Like slavery….if no one intervened and said it wa sa problem people would just let others have them even if they wouldn’t…..sitting back isn’t the answer….and when we do that we are part of the problem…

          • Debbie Lass

            Dave….police cant act if a law doesn’t exist to allow them to act. The family loves their child, many wont turn them in I guarantee it. I know human behavior and look at the mom that gave guns to her son who ended up doing a school shooting after killing her first…..yeah she really was a LOT of help in stopping their child from doing that atrocious act…don’t kid yourself….LAWS must be passed that allows mental health professionals and allows friends, families, others who see facebook posts or youtube videos of crazy talk like this guy did and be able to report it and action taken by police and to have the person commited for help as well as be on the watch and banned form getting weapons legally, and confiscate guns they already have. BUT gut die hard advocates will say that’s restricting people their second amendment rights and block it from being allowed.

          • Dave Be

            We d have those laws here in California, Debbie. Either this kid was too good at pretending to be normal, or the police sent to question him weren’t sufficiently trained to identify mental illness.

          • Debbie Lass

            police cant act if a law doesn’t exist to allow them to act. The family loves their child, many wont turn them in I guarantee it. I know human behavior and look at the mom that gave guns to her son who ended up doing a school shooting after killing her first…..yeah she really was a LOT of help in stopping their child from doing that atrocious act…don’t kid yourself….LAWS must be passed that allows mental health professionals and allows friends, families, others who see facebook posts or youtube videos of crazy talk like this guy did and be able to report it and action taken by police and to have the person commited for help as well as be on the watch and banned form getting weapons legally, and confiscate guns they already have. BUT gut die hard advocates will say that’s restricting people their second amendment rights and block it from being allowed.

          • Badgerite

            In this case, the parent were not the providers of guns. A gun store was. And I am talking about his case. Not Adam Lanza. Each case carries it own fact pattern. In this one, the parents tried to get the police to intervene. The boy was self possessed enough to talk the police out of it.

        • Frau From Fly-Over USA

          are you fucking serious gun troll. we can’t prevent mentally stable persons from gaining firearms because less people will seek medical help? wow. this is your weakest strawman thus far. keep going. I need to be entertained on this rainy day.

          • Dave Be

            I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond to someone so toxic, but you completely miss the point. California already has the most restrictive mental health and firearm laws. The kid didn’t get tagged, and being treated by a psychiatrist IN AND OF ITSELF is not enough to bar someone from gun ownership.

          • Peter James

            >>>>”The kid didn’t get tagged, and being treated by a psychiatrist IN AND OF ITSELF is not enough to bar someone from gun ownership.”

            Probably because we don’t have the LAWS in place that would enable a Psychiatrist to flag an individual they felt might possibly be a danger to himself or others and place said individual in a database that would prevent him from legally buying a gun,…you… stupid… buffoon.

            And guess who (supported by morons like you) is preventing us from making such laws?

          • Debbie Lass

            ugh while I agree on your point, your way of presenting it is causing the good point to get lost. Why cant you present the point artuclately and intelligently and not resort to name calling? why do you not see Dave is not the one your anger is directed at but your blinded by your anger that you assume because he argues a point that those people you hate argue, you assume he is like them…..you and others on the other side who do that same crap are part of the problem that we as a society cant come together and solve this dilemma.

          • Dave Be

            Thanks for sticking up for me Debbie. Peter’s point is wrong, but I didn’t bother to explain it for the 3rd time in this comments section. California does have a law that allows a psychiatrist (or even a police officer with no psych training) to order a psych hold on a person, after which they are banned from buying or owning a gun for 5 years. That did not happen to this kid. What did happen is deputies without training to properly identify a potentially dangerous mentally unstable person were dispatched to interview him, and apparently not even told about the youtube videos that prompted the visit. He was polite when they spoke to him so they (like any layman probably would) assumed he wasn’t mentally unstable and left him alone. Instead of talking about updating the training that we give to police though, I’ve got Peter here calling me a stupid buffoon over it.

          • Frau From Fly-Over USA

            Feel free to label me toxic because i am a woman standing up to your libertarian nonsense. I know i really should just keep my mouth shut and legs open-that’s all we are good for when the arrested developed and fundie wing-nuts are not busy fetishing their externalized manhood. Oh BTW, 1998 called and they want their goatee back. Otherwise- Here Here to what Peter James wrote below.

          • Debbie Lass

            youre giving women, liberals, and those for gun restriction a bad name. Please learn the art of intelligent debate and come back and help the cause then. Right now youre just harming it with how you handle yourself in such a classless fashion.

          • Frau From Fly-Over USA

            Don’t lecture me. You are not my mother nor can you speak for all women. Go teach a 4th grade class if you need to wag your righteous finger, freeper.

          • Debbie Lass

            and Dave you miss the point that maybe that means what is already the toughest is NOT tough enough or is NOT enough…..that more needs to be done…..I loathe fau and his responses but he has a legitimate point in there being lost by his way of presenting it…..because he is acting like an ass instead of using intellect to present his point. So I get that you miss the point HE is making. Hopefully you get THE point I and others are making.

          • BlueMoney

            Well, that IS what is happening. I personally know an Iraq veteran with some serious PTSD problems who refuses to seek help because he’s sure he’ll lose his Second Amendment rights.
            One-size-fits-all approaches are just plain foolish.

        • Debbie Lass

          True mental illness only has 2 percent of people who would be violent or kill. We attribute mental illness to someone who shoots people becaue we don’t explain it. If what the man that shot the police did was mental illness then clive bundy should be locked in a hospital for HIS same mental illness…..stop attributing this type of behaviors and extremist behavior to true mental illness….they need to stop causing it mentally ill and there wont be stigma for those mentally ill to get help. The problem is the extremists aren’t mentally ill per se…we just say they must to do such horrid acts…..and they will NEVER see their anger and extremness as a mental illness so will never get help.. The Gun owners will support them and claim rights and not to diagnose extremists as mentally ill to force them to get help…..

    • BrokeGopher

      Didn’t exploit the “gun show loophole” and wasn’t “standing his ground”. In fact he did everything the gun-control crowd wants us to do — right up until he killed six people.

  • Gunnut2600

    Clearly a FALSE FLAG action. You can tell by the CRISIS ACTOR something somethimg FEMA CAMPS!

    • dbtheonly

      Benghazi.

  • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

    “Mr. Martinez went right to the heart of th matter, asking “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!’ Too many have died. We should say to ourselves, ‘Not one more!’”
    Do you think the gun maniacs will wait a day before ripping him apart, or has it already started? The post-rampage debate will all center around what a pussy this Dad is. We will say he is brave for making the above statement and the gun maniacs will drive the conversation to center on the victims’ “whining.” Sympathy or common human decency is something gun maniacs are completely lacking, weakness and any show of emotion is to be crushed and mercilessly mocked.

    • Rolf

      What do “gun maniacs” have to do with this? Any time a mentally deranged individual goes on a rampage people are babbling about gun rights, and it is abundantly clear that the arguments on both sides of the barricade are nothing more than panic-induced fear mongering. Why nobody is talking about mental care?
      It seems his deep-rooted frustrations were seething inside him for quite a while, but I guess that’s not important, because treatment of mentally ill people is not a hot enough topic for political junkies.

      • formerlywhatithink

        Bullshit. The only time mental health is raised is when it’s used as a distraction to the easy availability of guns.

        • FSU2013NC

          Bullshit

          • formerlywhatithink

            Yeah, sure. And the first person to suggest mental evaluations for potential gun owners will be burned in effigy amongst howls of government intrusion into ones health. All this chatter about mental health is just a distraction, nothing more.

          • Rolf

            Distraction? So, let me get this clear: Mental health should not be even considered while creating gun control laws, because it will cause too much of an outrage among those obsessed with private liberties? What gun control is supposed to be based on, then? The guy selling the guns should just take a deep look into someones eyes and determine whether they are worthy of wielding a Glock? I’m for gun control, but sometimes the frenzied jabbering that erupts when an incident like this happens isn’t helping the cause. He stabbed three people to death, and all I see in the media is leads about how “guns kill”. The Guardian didn’t wait to unload their trademark postmodern gibberish, eying misogyny as the culprit, because the kid hated women. Still, that angle is more reasonable that the “guns kills” tittle-tattle, because at least they’re considering psychological and social issues, alas in a warped way.

          • formerlywhatithink

            Okay, so what would you propose to use as a screening mechanism of someone’s mental when buying a gun? You’re spouting an awful lot of gibberish about mental health but haven’t offered one way of going about addressing it vis a vis guns.

          • Rolf

            It’s not only about guns. The guy stabbed three people to death. When someones is crazy, they’re gonna find a way, period. As for gun control, I don’t see a problem with showing a document from a physician which states you’re not stable enough to own a gun. It’s a longshot, I know, maybe even wishful thinking or sheer gullibility, but this issue is going to be raised whether people like it or not, because there is absolutely no reason to put the blame on some NRA geezers for a shooting that took place in a state with the most strict gun laws. Piers Morgan is already talking about “Mentally unstable 22-year old buys guns”

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            Where is this “physician document” to come from, and how would it be better than the much hated background check? You’re suggesting teh ebil gubmint require a clean psychiatric bill of health signed by a doctor before rich suburban kids buy arsenals?

          • Rolf

            Well, California supposedly has the most strict gun laws, yet even when the parents called the Sheriffs Office, citing the internet videos and the erratic behaviour, the police didn’t deem necessary to search Rodger’s apartment for guns. Mental health should be an element of a background check, that’s all.

          • Dave Be

            The police were notified about Eliot twice. The first time, his mom called one of his school counselors, who called a mental health service, who then called the police. The police sent some guys to talk to him, but they didn’t know about the existence of the videos that triggered his mother’s concern in the first place, nor obviously did they watch them before going to question him. That is a breakdown in communication somewhere between the school and the police, which is an issue with room for improvement being ignored in favor of complaining about gun laws.

            The police can’t search peoples’ homes without a warrant, as I’m sure you know, so whether they deemed it necessary or not, they didn’t have a warrant to do so. When the deputies went to his apartment and questioned him, they didn’t identify him as a threat. That is a failing of our investigative system, which tasks police officers with assessing the mental health of citizens despite being completely unqualified to do so, which is an issue with room for improvement being ignored in favor of complaining about gun laws.

            The second time she notified the authorities was shortly before the killing spree, and there wasn’t enough time for them to intervene.

            Mental health is already a big part of the background check, especially in California. If you have been institutionalized, including a psych hold that a police officer can order, you are barred from owning guns for a number of years. Elliot’s first major psych incident was this shooting spree, unfortunately. If he’d had an incident before (and seeking private treatment doesn’t count), he would have had his guns taken away. That the school and the doctors that had treated him in the past were unable to identify the risks is a failing of the mental health system and school administration, which are areas that have room for improvement, but are being ignored in favor of complaining about gun laws.

          • Tiki Torch

            I remember how Ronald Reagan was surrounded by men armed to protect him
            and he and 3 others were still shot

            And John Hinkley wasnt stopped by someone shooting him, but when several men jumped on him and pinned him to the ground.

            Guns are useful up to a point, but the lunatics attribute guns with magical, mythical qualities

          • Badgerite

            Easy availability of guns is the difference between 3 dead and 6 dead. That is double the death toll. He tried to use his car as a weapon as well and didn’t manage to kill anyone with it.
            Guns aren’t about finding a way. Guns are about the easiest and fastest way to kill. The girl outside the sorority might have had a chance but for the guns. Likewise Chris Martinez.

          • formerlywhatithink

            So I guess the 13 additional people he wounded with a gun don’t count? Only those that died? Oh, right, but he didn’t wound anyone with a knife so I guess we can’t use the ones he did wound with a gun in the discussion.

          • Dave Be

            2 of those 13 people were wounded with a car. not a gun.

          • Debbie Lass

            he stabbed three people in his home……all public killings were done with the gun…..as has been ALL public mass killing attempts with ONE exception, the man who stabbed 22 people….and what was the difference? pretty much almost all people stabbed in that incident lived……all mass shootings had fatalities…..they choose guns over knives for a reason. You have no factually backed point regarding the knive deaths. That’s a fluke in comparing data of the 74 school and mass shootings in the last 2 years.sorry the three killed by knives is not statistically relevant to your argument….however the persons lives do matter. you just cant state that knives play any statistical role in mass public killings.

          • Joe P.

            There was also the heavy dose of anti white racism involved here…

            This short scrawny half asian guy with zero social skills was *only* attracted to superficial aesthetically perfect blonde white women (cry me a river…) and hated any man who “got to have sex” with such a woman (for free, since he categorically rejected paying such a woman for sex, but was more than happy to murder them for not given him what he was “entitled to”.)

            He was so whacked out he wrote many times in his 141 page rant of wanting to “flay them [the blonds and their lovers] alive” and “ban sex”. He was a total pathetic, self-indulgent, spoiled, narcissistic little piece of crap, and an EPIC… EPIC [liberal] PARENTING FAIL (there are enough dots to connect showing that liberal “blame everyone and everything else” style parenting makes for some messed up kids… Just look at who these shooters tend to be most of the time.)

          • Debbie Lass

            you had me to the point of the liberal parent fail…I know many failed parents who were conservative that their children died by their leaving the gun out accessible…and not all shooters in mass shootings came form liberal families. How about the man and woman that just shot two police men? I suppose that was liberal parenting? no conservative……..I know many liberal parents who raise wonderful children that don’t kill….your argument failed at that point when your personal view and opinion of liberals skewed your ability to use facts and make sense. Prior to your comment I was in agreement with you on the other points…..I have watched many conservative parents not teach their child responsibility, and whose children are bullying other kids making them feel bad to points of suicide and homicide to empower them to the mean hateful ugly kids… so don’t speak to me about liberal parenting bad and conservative parenting good….this mentality of over protection of child and how dare you give my child that grade they earned etc is across political spectrums in parenting. Conservative parents raise selfish unmotivated children also by giving them everything and never having them earn it…..don’t generalize things based on your biased opinion, use facts, you will be more supported …when you make sweeping generalizations in the face of proof to the contrary people then dismiss you as someone with something pertinent to say.

          • Debbie Lass

            I agree some jibberish after these incidents doesn’t help. As I have seen several who I may agree with do a piss poor job in expressing the point articulately and with intelligence and logic and resorting to name calling and insults and jerry springer behavior which causes the point to be lost. A mass shooting cannot happen without three things…..a human, a gun, and the breaking point threshold that caused the human to become a killer. That point that they reach that they cross over in which others don’t cross despite going through similar things…..Focusing on only ONE factor of that equation is wrong and wont solve much…..but that doesn’t mean we ignore one factor of the equation either, which also includes the gun itself…accessibility. We wont stop crime and killing 100%. we haven’t stopped murders with the threat of death penalty so why would anyone think what we do will eliminate things entirely? it wont, but does that mean we do nothing to lessen it? A person without a gun who crosses a threshold can still kill but cant kill in mass quantities…..knives and bombs existed for a long time, knives before guns, bombs not so sure before or after but been around a LONG time, yet the weapon of choice by mass public killers is guns…why? because they kill more than wound like knives and take out much more….that’s the ultimate goal of most mass shooters….they aren’t just targeting the person or persons who hurt them…they are now making infamy so they aren’t forgotten since they were ignored and felt unloved on earth….so the argument about other tools is ridiculous, they choose guns for a reason over the others……so to say we should ban knives is just dumb…..to state the weapon of choice is NOT part of the issue is why we aren’t gonna help lessen this….we cant fix a problem til we address all parts of it….and gun is a BIG part because its a tool created solely for killing and the choice by all mass public shooters over any other weapon……

          • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

            You’ve got to admit it is a beautiful red herring. Even if they claim “no, I would not have a problem with that at all” there is no way to prove otherwise.

          • Debbie Lass

            Bullshit…..not all mass shooters are “mentally ill” people are lumping them into that catgory because surely they must be due to what they have done. NO! and that’s unfair to true mentally ill people who don’t get violent or kill. only 2% of true mentally ill get violent so if it was a mental health issue we would see a MUCH higher statistic with the large number of mentally ill people diagnosed in this country. This is more than mental illness….that’s the deep sededed rooted issue. There was a psychological study done regarding human conformity and behavior where they had people be prisoners and prison guards. As time went on in the study the people started getting more violent in their treatment of the prisoners….human nature has thresholds that we don’t even realize we may get to. repeated proganda enraging people easily susceptible can trigger violence in someone who is NOT mentally ill. Constant bullying and feeling unincluded and outcast when vulnerable and still developing is a cause of violence…the rage reaches its boiling point in that person……THIS is the issue of mass shooters, NOT a mental health issue…two different factors…..just as someone who lives with a mentally ill person but is normal themselves can start behaving like someone mentally ill because they were constantly influenced by someone not well….People need to understand the human psyche and group think and group influence like 12 angry men and how one can be swayed….etc…human factor is part of the major problem here and how we treat each other. are you contending that the US has a significantly greater population of mentally ill people than any other country? if you do, why do we then have such greater numbers? if you don’t then why do other countries not have such an epidemic of public mass shootings?

      • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

        It’s not the guns, it’s the attitude. I would be all for getting Americans all the taxpayer funded mental health care they could ever need, but then the same attitude would kick in about wasting money, “why should I have to pay for their medications and therapy?” and so on. Why should I care about your red herring?

        • Rolf

          The last few shootings like that were carried out by mentally deranged people. If mental health should be ignored when it comes to gun control, than pretty much the only option available is total delegalization of guns. I don’t think that would fare well with the public.

          • BumpIt McCarthy

            The number of mass shootings in Australia after they tightened their gun laws? ZERO.

            This young man was in treatment. He had a couple of run-ins with the law, and his own family called the police.

            He should never have been able to get his hands on semiautomatic weapons. His place should have been searched for weapons, and he should be in a locked ward now, while Chris Martinez gets ready to enjoy the rest of his life.

          • Rolf

            And the number of robberies in Australia rose dramatically. Please, enough with the dumb statistics and the pathetic that-guy would’ve-been-alive-right-now arguments.

          • Peter James

            >>>>”And the number of robberies rose. ”

            What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

            It’s such a stupid rebuttal it almost doesn’t merit a response, but I have to ask, are you seriously, in that thing you call a brain of yours, trying to imply that if Australia hadn’t imposed the strict gun laws, that somehow robberies wouldn’t have risen?

            Seriously?

            Have you stopped to maybe consider the possibility that robberies were already on the rise based on other factors non-related to guns (like say, I don’t know, THE ECONOMY?, Immigration? social habits?) – and that their rising had absolutely no causal relation to the gun laws or lack thereof?

            Jesus, why do you guys persist with that moronic response?

          • Dave Be

            The only “run ins with the law” he had were when deputies came to question him because his mom had called one of his counselors (not the police) about his youtube videos, and 2 minor incidents where he was the victim reporting a crime, not the criminal. He was never arrested or charged with anything.

          • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian
          • Rolf
      • swift_4

        How about both? Why don’t we get health care for the mentally ill, along with awareness that mental illnesses are like other diseases in that a person can’t control whether they catch them.

        And then why don’t we outlaw high powered automatic rifles, along with wait times and real background checks for putchases.

        • Guest

          Well, that is precisely what I’m trying to say. Instead of going berserk over one thing, people should focus on the broader picture.

        • AeroAtlas .

          Yeah outlaw the high powered automatic rifles he didn’t use. Good plan.

          • swift_4

            You are using the arguing strategy of finding one tiny detail that doesn’t match up to distract from the whole argument.

            I was not speaking about this particular wholesale slaughter of human beings with a gun, but about the slaughter in general.

            But let’s stick with this one, and my original argument. Throw out high powered automatic rifles then. Would wait times and an expanded background check have been a good idea, especially since authorities had been told his mental state was questionable?

          • Joe P.

            Wait times wouldn’t have made any difference at all here… He planned it for many many months…

            Nor would banning any specific type of gun (the guns he used weren’t special in any way… Revolvers would’ve been functionally identical.)

            Expanded background checks wouldn’t have made any difference at all here either (he hadn’t done any of the things that would disqualify him.)

            One thing that might help would if the courts and legislature were to add a “adjudicated temporarily unstable but not committably insane” status that doctors or people who closely know the person could file for on such a person, and assuming there are full privacy (for the unjustly accused) and due process protections (including right to demand a jury trial, to a public defender, to present testimony and evidence, to an appeal, etc) then the occasional unusable person could be blocked from weapons ownership until they dealt with their issues.

            Unfortunately though the politicians have already let the cat out of the bag that their actual goal is total banning of private gun ownership, and every new law is another gradual step toward that end. They are therefore very unlikely to protect anyones rights as would be required for such a process.

            What the NRA could and I think should do is support such an adjudication process in exchange for full and robust protections of due process in the law AND the repeal of the anti-concealed-weapons laws that prevent law abiding gun owners from effectively protecting themselves outside of their homes (from the people that will fall through the cracks no matter what.)

          • AeroAtlas .

            Considering California has those and he got through them, no.

        • Joseph Pickett

          ‘automatic rifles’? Someone doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      • dbtheonly

        Remember Creigh Deeds in Virginia.

        Anyone see how Fox “News” ran Martinez’s quote but stopped before the “guns” part?

        How extensive & how mandatory do you want the mental health/gun screening? Would such a thing be possible either practically or politically?

        ftw,

        It’s the ultimate fallacy in the “good guy with a gun” argument. Everyone is a “good guy”. Until he isn’t.

        • Rolf

          California is already a state with the most strict gun laws, but apparently it didn’t help. It seems there are loopholes or some inherent lack of awareness. Calling for total delegalization of guns would be politically impractical, but shifting focus onto mental health might open up some new possibilities when it comes to gun control.

          • dbtheonly

            Yeah, but how extensive do we want “mental health” tests to be part of the every-day living? How “normal” is “normal”? And what are the penalties for not being “normal”?

            It’s as I pointed out to ftw, I assert that everyone has a breaking point. Everyone can be pushed too far & lose his temper. Guys who are normally the nicest, mildest, guys around can be pushed too far. When that happens & there are guns available, tragedy ensues. Mix alcohol in & you’ve got a tragedy waiting to happen.

            I’m not sure that any amount of mental health awareness can compensate.

            That said, I’m for anything that might prevent even one killing.

        • AeroAtlas .

          Yeah. Luckily police armed with nothing but tasers and pepper spray were able to stop him and make him resort to shooting himself…

          • dbtheonly

            What’s your point?

        • Joseph Pickett

          and the ultimate fallacy in ‘gun control’ is the guns that are controlled are usually the ones that are not a risk – the ones in the hands of people who obey the law.

          • dbtheonly

            Incorrect.

            More gun crimes are committed; but how many accidental kids shooting kids stories have you seen? How many domestic arguments escalate? How many accidental killings?

            How do you define crime? Unless you’ve got some way of telling who will be pushed too far on any given day, unless you can tell who will get drunk and belligerent, you’re either defining yourself out of an argument or sloganeering.

      • Debbie Lass

        not all mass shooters are “mentally ill” people are lumping them into that catgory because surely they must be due to what they have done. NO! and that’s unfair to true mentally ill people who don’t get violent or kill. only 2% of true mentally ill get violent so if it was a mental health issue we would see a MUCH higher statistic with the large number of mentally ill people diagnosed in this country. This is more than mental illness….that’s the deep sededed rooted issue. There was a psychological study done regarding human conformity and behavior where they had people be prisoners and prison guards. As time went on in the study the people started getting more violent in their treatment of the prisoners….human nature has thresholds that we don’t even realize we may get to. repeated proganda enraging people easily susceptible can trigger violence in someone who is NOT mentally ill. Constant bullying and feeling unincluded and outcast when vulnerable and still developing is a cause of violence…the rage reaches its boiling point in that person……THIS is the issue of mass shooters, NOT a mental health issue…two different factors…..just as someone who lives with a mentally ill person but is normal themselves can start behaving like someone mentally ill because they were constantly influenced by someone not well….People need to understand the human psyche and group think and group influence like 12 angry men and how one can be swayed….etc…human factor is part of the major problem here and how we treat each other. are you contending that the US has a significantly greater population of mentally ill people than any other country? if you do, why do we then have such greater numbers? if you don’t then why do other countries not have such an epidemic of public mass shootings?

    • NintendoWii10

      It’s already started. The gun loons on Mediaite and elsewhere are sniveling because “Well, what about cars and knives and swimming pools?” SSDD.

      • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

        A local blogger in my neck of the woods said that if people who like guns are a problem then he would proudly bear the name of “gun maniac” using the same, tired language of “it’s my right, end of discussion” so I have taken to using that label in the appropriate way. It is the maniacs who jump in just like rolf here and piss all over the victims.

        http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/2012/12/its-not-guns-its-attitude.html

      • AeroAtlas .

        You do know he stabbed 3-4 people and ran over 2 others, right?

        • dbtheonly

          Just in case it’s escaped you.

          The purpose of a car is to get you from point A to point B.
          The purpose of a knife is to cut things.
          The purpose of a gun is to put a small piece of lead into something.

          One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong.

          • AeroAtlas .

            Just in case it’s escaped you.
            This happened in a gun free zone in the most anti-gun state in America.
            Also guns primary purpose is as an equalizer. It can make a small woman as strong as a big man, 1 man as strong as many, and a man as strong as a bear

          • dbtheonly

            “It can make a small woman as strong as a big man”

            No.

            Can she lift greater weights?

            It enables her to kill with equal ease.

          • AeroAtlas .

            When I say as strong as, I’m implying that they’re as they as much of a threat. Gun’s don’t have magical powers of strength, though that would be pretty neat.

          • dbtheonly

            You use the word strength to mean ability to kill or threat. To threaten is to be strong?

            There is a tool that gives magical powers of strength. It’s called a fork-lift. And it has the added advantage of not easily killing people. With one a small woman can lift what it would take 10 strong men to do.

          • AeroAtlas .

            To not be victimized and be able to protect oneself and that which they hold dear and not be entirely dependent on the help of police or others in a horrible situation is an empowering thing.

          • dbtheonly

            But the very source of your “not be victimized” is a facilitator of victimizing others. It is hardly empowering to know that anyone has the ability to kill you almost every minute of your life.

          • AeroAtlas .

            I think how in your mind guns are “facilitators of victimization” and think only via guns do people have the ability to kill you almost every minute of your life. The attacker of any given crime will always have a natural advantage may it be numbers, strength, location, etc, but you as the attackee can only react, and the only tool that can not only stop the attack, but scare them away and later deter further crime is a firearm.

            Also just look at the knockout game. They don’t need a gun to victimize others, but you best believe the hope you don’t have one.

          • dbtheonly

            Do you really fail to see that you are not the only one with a gun?

            “The attacker of any given crime will always have a natural advantage may
            it be numbers, strength, location, etc, but you as the attackee can
            only react, and the only tool that can not only stop the attack, but
            scare them away and later deter further crime is a firearm.”

            But the attackers have firearms too & you’re dead before you can respond. Specifically because an attacker cannot risk you having a firearm & must use overwhelming force from the beginning.

            “Also just look at the knockout game. They don’t need a gun to victimize
            others, but you best believe the hope you don’t have one.”

            Ditto. You’re dead instead on knocked down. It just became the kill game for the same reason I already asserted.

            You replace strength in an attack with speed in “getting the drop” on the bad guy. But who’s the “bad guy”? The guy carrying an AK-47 into the bank or the Guard seeing him? Faced with an AK, how much time do you want to give the Bank Guard to wait to shoot?

            I’m frightened by seeing a guy with an assault weapon walking down the street. Does “Stand Your Ground” allow me to shoot him before he can massacre people? (The argument is not original to me, I ripped it off from Ol Froth)

          • AeroAtlas .

            I know its a month late (I don’t check my email very often), but I just wanna give some advice. If you want to argue about gun politics it would be a good idea if you looked into how it would actually work rather than theorising. I used to be anti-gun, but once I really started being around guns I realized how alot of my pre-conceptions were unrealistic and misinformed. When I started owning and carrying one even more so.

          • dbtheonly

            Please to look in mirror re:misconceptions.

            But if you wish to assert I am mis-apprehending something; specificity is required. What and how must be answered. Or answering my questions would be a start.

            I assert that in the American West of the second half of the 19th Century, you had an armed society of your fantasies. Look to that as your sample.

          • AeroAtlas .

            Well the “Wild West” wasn’t actually that wild. It actually was so not wild that many anti-gun people try and say that the Wild West was more anti-gun because a few towns had signs saying no guns allowed.

            Either way I find a better example is look at the US now. We have 500,000 to 3 million gun related cases of self-defence every year (CDC study ordered by the anti-gun Obama administration). The largest city in Illinois, Chicago, is very anti-gun and is our murder capital at 500 murders in 2012, while the 2nd largest city Aurora (not the Colorado theatre shooting one. the US loves re-using city names) is very pro-gun and had 0 homicides in 2012. Vermont, a state in New England, not only lets 16 year olds own handguns they let them carry them conceal without a permit, yet they have one of the lowest rates of homicide in the US. The “assault rifles” people want to ban only account for barely 1% of gun crime, and lowering capacity of handguns and rifles has shone to do little to nothing. Registration does nothing. Even places that have them like Canada are starting to get rid of them because all it does is eat tax dollars with no reward. Hell Full-Auto when they were fully legal were RARELY used. People like to say that Al Capone and other Mafia liked them, but in reality it was mostly police and firearm collectors that had them. What the mafia really liked were mail order pistols. That and flip knives. Short barrel rifle and shotgun legislation is ridiculous because its just a footnote of a handgun ban (that went HORRIBLY) that politicians managed to keep on for really no reason. There are so many work arounds and disadvantages to short barrelled rifles and shotguns that they really shouldn’t even be considered iffy via the law. Almost every idea of gun control I’ve seen spawns from the “well we need to do something…” and they’ll do something that sounds good on paper, but actually does nothing or makes things worse.

            I know I won’t change your mind on this debate because it takes alot more than just one random comment to make you switch sides completely on a debate, but I do hope that you can now understand that it isn’t some guns vs lives or US vs the rest of the world debate. I personally would love to see more European countries become more pro-gun especially since it’ll probably save quite a few lives and prevent many rapes.

            Also this
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html
            and
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GPPxGX8pdA

          • dbtheonly

            “I used to be anti-gun, but once I really started being around guns I
            realized how alot of my pre-conceptions were unrealistic and
            misinformed.”

            You know, that sounds very similar to a religious conversion. Substitute “Jesus” for “guns” and see what I mean.

            “If you want to argue about gun politics it would be a good idea” for you to respond to my questions/assertions rather than a blanket assertion of authority.

    • AFreeAmerican

      Chris died because No One at GunFree UCSB had a GUN to Stop Elliot Rodger. The sooner everyone becomes are of that FACT the more lives will be saved at the next shooting.

      • NW10

        Explain how Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady were BOTH shot, even though there were multiple people with guns around.

        • AFreeAmerican

          Yeaaa, Logic & Liberals R always strangers. The Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady Criminal Liberal shooters were QUICKLY limited to 1 victim by GOOD men w/GUNs. Must hurt NW10 2B so DUMB!

      • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

        You have the term “fact” confused with “wishful thinking”.

        • AeroAtlas .

          Besides the fact that there is alot of real evidence supporting his claim.

          • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

            Good thing you did not provide any.

          • AeroAtlas .

            Q: How many mass shootings have happened in gun free zones (for civilians).
            A: All, but 1.

          • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

            It took you two weeks to come up with another fact-free assertion?

          • AeroAtlas .

            I’d hope if I would have spent 2 weeks on a comment it would had been at the very least long.
            I’m trying to find a good source to link, but most are either people talking about it or trying their best to “debunk it,” so I’ll just use some examples. Columbine, Aurora Theatre, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, and this one all had gun bans for civilians.

    • TruDat

      Sounds like you don’t care about those who died of knife wounds

    • inwordsdrowni

      Suggesting to law abiding gun owners that they shouldn’t have the right to bare arms after every shooting spree is no different than telling women they shouldn’t dress provocatively to avoid being raped. This behavior IS an example of victim blame. The victims of shooting sprees have the same constitutional right to bare arms that the criminals committing these crimes did. Victim blaming does nothing to solve the problem.

      • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

        It’s bear arms, moron.

        • dbtheonly

          He was talking about women dressing provocatively. Bare arms.

          • http://thegloomyhistorian.blogspot.com/ The Gloomy Historian

            Oh, now I see. High heels and miniskirts are exactly like semi-automatic weapons.
            Seriously though, why did he switch from “law abiding gun owners” to “victims of shooting sprees?” If inwordsdrowni is arguing that the victims should have taken advantage of their “constitutional right” in order to not become victims, then is that not exactly the same as blaming them for not being armed and expecting to be fired upon? And therefore exactly like blaming women for “allowing” themselves to be raped? He seems to be taking the Salonista position of “don’t tell me how to dress, tell them not to rape” but getting it exactly backwards.

          • dbtheonly

            He was making a bad joke on the words bare & bear. Toss in furry animals & you can have a real go of it.