View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Violence in America

Posted: May 27, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: May 27, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Historically we are a violent people and mankind’s history throughout the world demonstrates that we are violent. Laws passed protect us all from violence. But laws alone can’t eliminate violence.

We have seen time and time again that violence can be committed with a firearm. We have seen swords, knives, bombs and vehicles used to kill people. People kill people; it’s something that can happen out of anger, greed or even a political agenda.

Recently in Isla Vista, Calif., a young man used a gun and his vehicle to strike down innocent people. He posted video on the Internet and his family saw it and reported him. Unfortunately he still was not apprehended in time.

I suspect we will see an outpouring of anger about gun ownership in California. California has the strictest laws in the country about gun or firearm ownership. Some firearm manufacturers don’t try to sell firearms in California anymore. That’s not the answer either.

Muzzle loading and black powder firearms not controlled or regulated number in the millions. They can be old and originally used hundreds of years ago and still work. They vary from shotgun pellets to fifty-four caliber weapons that are very deadly.

I believe that a substantial number of incidents where firearms were used by those that had mental illness or having issues dealing with life could have been prevented by them not obtaining firearms. I believe that mandated reporters must report at the first indication of a problem.

I am a believer in the second amendment. Nothing will deter me in that thinking. Recently the governor of Georgia signed the guns everywhere law. If the victims in Isla Vista had the ability to defend themselves they may have stopped yet another terrible incident. And lastly I believe that teachers and school administrators should be allowed to carry firearms for self protection.

People kill people; it’s a terrible ugly fact. Disarming the people and taking away a means of self defense is a poor choice.

Comments

OldReliable: Posted: May 27, 2014 5:25 a.m.

Dear Dana Stern, Sr., I concur with your thoughts 100%. This troubled young man used knives, guns and his vehicle in cowardly acts to kill and injure innocent people. Political correctness regarding mental issues is the true root of these tragedies.


Socalguy: Posted: May 27, 2014 5:54 a.m.

How dare you, these dead young people are not even cold and you have the nerve to post this crap about your precious guns. Instead of trying to protect your precious guns why not have compassion for those that were slaughtered and their families. Were you there? My daughter was in IV during the shooting, she told me that it was so chaotic no one even knew who was shooting at who, who was the good guys and the bad guys were. Imagine the carnage if others had guns besides the police, how many other innocent victims we would have. I cry for those parents that have lost their kids, you obviously only cry about your guns.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 6:38 a.m.

Excellent LTE, and comment by OldReliable.

The usual leftist drivel and sanctimonious nonsense by Socalguy.

Hey, bud, as OR said, the whackjob in Isla Vista used a car in his rampage.

You all for banning cars, too?
.
.
. --edited.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 27, 2014 6:49 a.m.

I disagree that the second amendment entitles all Americans the right to bare arms. Rather, it allows the militia the right to defend our country as the case may be! Armaments are meant to be used; that is, they are offensive weapons, not defensive ones, especially so when small children are in the family! A man, or a woman, with a gun means that that gun shall be used in the near future--and that almost always means innocent people will suffer. That just represents the nature of human beings with guns in their families.


ricketzz: Posted: May 27, 2014 6:53 a.m.

"Whackjob" is not a helpful term. Some people are made defective. There are ways to fix most of them. This guy had therapists and a social worker and they somehow missed his acute sociopathy. The closest to empathy he got was wondering what the women see in other guys. Probably the first time he ever heard "no". These things are getting better press these days, they've always been happening.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 7:07 a.m.

Who are the "militia", RobertBurton?

Let me answer that for you:

"10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

"(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."


In other words, the militia is made up of all law-abiding Americans of military age.

This statement was interesting: "A man, or a woman, with a gun means that that gun shall be used in the near future--and that almost always means innocent people will suffer."

Where did you get that idea?

There are about 250 million legally and privately owned guns in this country. If they're all going to "be used in the near future--and that almost always means innocent people will suffer", we're WAAAAAY behind schedule, and I guess we'd better get cracking, huh?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 7:14 a.m.

Sorry if my term "whackjob" offends your sensibilities, rickettz. But I think I'll stick with it.

The guy was a whiny self-pitying loser who couldn't get laid, and refused to accept it was because he acted like a jerk around other people.

The only thing he did right was ending up DRT (Dead Right There), saving the state untold thousands of bucks prosecuting his sorry butt.


projalice11: Posted: May 27, 2014 8:25 a.m.


"I to cry for those parents that have lost their kids, most of you obviously only cry about your guns."

What is wrong with this picture?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 8:34 a.m.

"What is wrong with this picture?"

It's a silly statement?


Did I win a prize?


17trillion: Posted: May 27, 2014 9:28 a.m.

Good luck Robert prying 300 million guns from our hands. Aint happening pal! And if "wackjob" isn't appropriate, what is the definition of wackjob if it's not this guy?

He killed 3 people with knives, should be ban those too?

Socalguy gets the Sanctimonious Rant of the Year award. Well done!


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 9:40 a.m.

"How dare you, these dead young people are not even cold and you have the nerve to post this crap about your precious guns." - Socalguy

It's indeed unfortunate that responsible firearm owners are forced to respond to specious assertions by those who seek to politicize tragedies.

From 5/25/14:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/richard-blumenthal-revive-gun-control-debate

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/207203-feinstein-shame-on-us-for-allowing-this-to-continue


dnstern2: Posted: May 27, 2014 9:56 a.m.

Dana L. Stern Sr.
In Switzerland men of military age have compulsory military service. They are issued guns which they keep where they live. After they are no longer of military age they are allowed to buy these same guns.

I believe strongly that Americans have the right to defend themselves, their family, and their home. I may not be able defend myself physically because of my age. However, I still am entitled to "self defense."

Lastly the United States of America is strong because of our heritage with firearms. No country could successfully invade America. Let no politician take away America's ability to defend itself! God Bless America!


Baddog1: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:06 a.m.

Yet again, the focus is directed towards controlling firearms, and controlling the mentally unstable, never seems to be the priority. Generally "sane" people do not commit these type of horrific scenes.


Socalguy: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:15 a.m.

Wow, Brian, do you even have a heart? Let’s grieve for those families. Please listen to Mr Martinez, the father of one of the victims.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/25/us/santa-barbara-shooting-victims/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Mr Martinez is a veteran. He deserved to be heard. He put his life on the line for us, and we repaid him by taking his son with lax gun laws and horrible mental health system we have. Shame on us

Brian, you must be quite lucky that you have had no one in your family with any mental illness; you must have no idea about the problems parents face every single day trying to get help for their kids and their adult children. The mental health system in this country is unfortunately so inadequate. Do you even know what Asperger’s Syndrome is? How it destroys families, how there is no help from State and Federal Agencies. I know families with children with Asperger’s and other mental illnesses, I know the pain they go through, and they have nowhere to turn for help.

I am in no way condoning anything that young man did, he was a vey sick individual and what he did was horrendous. I cry for the victims, their parents and for his parents. In no way do I want to take anyone’s gun away, I own guns myself. Our system failed, we need to make sure it works or this will just keep happening again and again.


RobertBurton: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:20 a.m.

Brian says that almost all of the American citizenry forms a large portion of the American populace. That may have been the case at one time, but is no longer true! Instead, we have an all-voluntary service to our country, which means that the balance of the American populace is not a member of our armed services. Yes, I am writing about the America of today! Hence, today, the average American is not protected from the second-amendment right to bear arms, as I have addressed in a prior comment.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:31 a.m.

Well, socalguy, let's see...

You just wrote: "In no way do I want to take anyone’s gun away, I own guns myself. Our system failed, we need to make sure it works or this will just keep happening again and again."

Yet in your opening comment you wrote: "... you have the nerve to post this crap about your precious guns... Imagine the carnage if others had guns besides the police, how many other innocent victims we would have... you obviously only cry about your guns."

So, which is it? Which "socalguy" am I talking to?

And this: "Brian, you must be quite lucky that you have had no one in your family with any mental illness..."

From what do you draw that assumption? Which, BTW, is completely inaccurate.


Socalguy: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:36 a.m.

Brian you said "The guy was a whiny self-pitying loser who couldn't get laid, and refused to accept it was because he acted like a jerk around other people" the guy was sick, he had a mental illness, anyone that knows people with mental illnesses would not say those things.


CaptGene: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:38 a.m.

How interesting that Socalguy was not equally offended by the people that didn't wait for the victims to be cold to use this tragedy to forward their anti-gun agenda. I wonder why that is?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:40 a.m.

RobertBurton: "Brian says that almost all of the American citizenry forms a large portion of the American populace. That may have been the case at one time, but is no longer true! Instead, we have an all-voluntary service to our country, which means that the balance of the American populace is not a member of our armed services. Yes, I am writing about the America of today! Hence, today, the average American is not protected from the second-amendment right to bear arms, as I have addressed in a prior comment."

Actually I'M not saying anything. I let the actual US Code, which I quoted right here in black and white, do the talking for me. All you're trying to do is deny reality. It's the LAW, bubba, whether you like it or agree with it or not.

I'll also refer you to SCOTUS in their decisions in the Heller and McDonald case; the Ninth Circuit in their Peruta decision; and a definitive article by Con Law Professor Sanford Levinson (a lefty and no supporter of gun rights) entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment". Look it up.

So you can sit there and wave your arms around and shout at the ceiling all you want, but it is what it is.



tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:42 a.m.

Mr. Burton:

Your militia opinion doesn't comport with recent court historical research and rulings. I encourage you to read the opinion and more importantly the cites to bring yourself current on 2nd Amendment rights and history.

I'm providing specific language and the link to the ruling.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal- ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms- bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 10:45 a.m.

Socalguy, I couldn't care less if the guy was "sick". That doesn't excuse anything. A LOT of people are "sick" and don't go around shooting innocent strangers.

The guy was a whackjob and a dirtbag who ended up DRT. Dead Right There.

Good riddance. Call the trash pickup.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 27, 2014 11:06 a.m.

I completely and totally agree with Old Reliable and Brian.

Charlie Manson is nuts but you don't see him running around in society with people making excuses for what he and his ilk did do you? Nobody is saying they were mentally ill and you would have to be jacked up somehow to hack up a pregnant woman and her fetus.


dnstern2: Posted: May 27, 2014 11:30 a.m.

Dana L. Stern Sr.
I wish to express my deepest condolences to those that lost family members in the Isla vista rampage. I also wish to express my sympathy and hope for those injured for a speedy recovery.

As a people we need to show compassion for others and not single out members of society and isolate them. The young man that committed the rampage may not of done any of this had he been shown a little compassion and direction from the right people.


17trillion: Posted: May 27, 2014 12:12 p.m.

Dnstern, what utter crap! He went on a rampage because he couldn't get laid by the right kind of woman. He didn't want a cow in woman's clothing, he wanted the hot sorority girls that wouldn't give him the time of day and so he killed a bunch of people. Well, boo freakin hoo for him. From all accounts this freak was shown compassion throughout his worthless existence. How many of us didn't get the hot sorority girls? MOST OF US that's who!

I find it funny how people tell me to have compassion. I reject this totally and completely. I have compassion for those that deserve it, not because I'm made to give it. Liberal bed wetters constantly ask what the difference is between today and years gone by when there were less of these mass killings. Assuming that's true, which I don't, how many of us were shown compassion 30 or 40 or 50 years ago? How many of us had guns in the house, unlocked, and we knew where they were? How many of us were given a backhand if we mouthed off or started feeling sorry for ourselves? Did we reach for guns and start shooting? No, the real problem today isn't lack of compassion, it's too much damned compassion. We cancel honors night because it honors the honorable, we give participation trophies so the losers can feel good about themselves, we have graduations for 6th graders where nobody DOESN'T graduate. We raise our little monsters to understand that they are special and entitled to having their needs met at will.

This POS was the son of a director, driving a BMW, and going to college on daddies dime. He had compassion all his life and look what happened?

I mock my kids participation trophies and I point to real ones I earned in competition. Two years ago I mocked my kids 6th grade graduation when I asked him how many didn't graduate and he said zero. He had no answer when I asked him what was so friggin special then. I tell my kids they aren't special to anyone but their family and that they should prepare themselves for such. The kid that had the best GPA in their class is special. The kid that runs faster than anyone their school is special. The rest are average or below average. I believe at some point in their life they will appreciate this honesty from me instead of being coddled and told how special they are. If everyone is special, then nobody is special.

Compassion my butt! How about a little honesty and making the little darlings wake up and smell the coffee.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 12:38 p.m.

My compassion is for the victims.

17tril, you nailed it. Kids nowadays grow up with this unearned sense of entitlement because everyone's always telling them what great people they are, and how -- even if what they do stinks on ice and is a huge failure -- it's all okay because "we understand", and they shouldn't feel bad.

In NO way does THAT lunacy prepare anyone for the reality of life as a grown-up.

Then, when real life smacks them in the face, they're completely unprepared for the wake-up call.

Hell, when I was in high school I didn't get to go to either my junior or senior proms because I was too shy to ask anyone out. Well, whose problem was that? Society's? No, it was mine, and I recognized it and corrected it, with the result that I had a helluva good time in college.

See how shy I am now?

LOL


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 12:46 p.m.

If some yoyo's attacking me or my loved ones, I'm not going to waste time asking about his mental health or if he's misunderstood or if he feels bad about himself.

I'm going to blow him out of his socks. DRT.


dnstern2: Posted: May 27, 2014 1:58 p.m.

Dana L. Stern Sr.
I have to concur with Brian Baker and Old Reliable also. Thanks for your comments. they are appreciated.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:05 p.m.

Thanks, Dana.

As I said right at the top, terrific LTE. And it's also great you joined into the discussion.


stevehw: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:22 p.m.

Well, at least we're seeing the real personalities of quite a few people show themselves here.

Vicious, nasty, lacking in empathy, overbearing, and mean.

Impressive display, gentlemen.


stevehw: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:24 p.m.

"Actually I'M not saying anything. I let the actual US Code, which I quoted right here in black and white, do the talking for me. ...It's the LAW, bubba, whether you like it or agree with it or not.

I'll also refer you to SCOTUS in their decisions ...

So you can sit there and wave your arms around and shout at the ceiling all you want, but it is what it is."

Can we use these quotes next time a debate on abortion, or same-sex marriage, or pretty much anything you don't like but which has been decided against your wishes by the courts, comes up?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:25 p.m.

Oh, boo hoo, steve.

As if anyone cares about your opinion.


17trillion: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:38 p.m.

Yea, we all know Steve could never by vicious or nasty or overbearing (that's a good one), or mean.

Ok, I'm mean and I lack empathy for some idiot who lived like a king who couldn't get the hot chick so he killed a bunch of people. Yep, that's me all right! Not only do I not deny it, I embrace it. You see Steve, not everyone can be so in touch with their feelings like you. Clearly you've been "awarded" many participation trophies and have had compassion bestowed upon you for all your life. Clearly you were told you were special. Does the irony of you accusing me of lacking empathy while you display a lack of empathy for me strike you as weird and hypocritical? I laugh at your phoniness.

Want more empathy? I'm glad he shot himself and saved us money.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:47 p.m.

There are people who are mentally ill and then there are idiots like this guy who just couldn't hang with his overindulged life. He loved his Gucci sunglasses, BMW, and super expensive name brand clothing and accessories. I read that he had a lot of Gucci and similarly pricey things and they were important to him, he felt that it gave him status.

He was a spoiled misogynistic, entitled, violent jerk who went haywire because he couldn't get laid and hated anyone who could. He had plenty of money, why didn't he just hire a hooker? He knew the difference between right and wrong because he was worried the cops would find out his evil plan and lock him up when they did a welfare check on him a few months back. He might have had some wires crossed, but he wasn't insane, he KNEW what he was doing and knew it was evil and wrong. He's like the Christopher Dorner of scorned college kids or something, just a tweaked little jackass. He KNEW it was wrong to murder all of these people, and yet he thought that would be the greatest thing he could do. If he was insane he wouldn't have tried to hide it. I'm not saying he wasn't sick in the head, but there is a tremendous difference between insanity and being a whackjob in general but knowing the difference between right and wrong and what you are SUPPOSED to do in situations. I have zero empathy for this creep. He had all of the help anyone could ask for right there in front of him all of the time, he led a very privaleged life and had access to any resources money could buy. He could have gotten more help because he knew he was thinking bad things, and he could have bought himself a night with a hooker. He wanted to hate and hurt people and do horrific things, he made a conscious choice to want to do those things. He planned it methodically for months.

17Trillion, you did nail it. Our society rewards mediocrity constantly and the kids nowadays have no concept about real accomplishments. If you are rewarded for everything, then it takes away from the moment when they actually have a real achievement. You can only truly appreciate success after you've had failures and fallen down a few times.


stevehw: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:48 p.m.

I think I see a pattern here...


stevehw: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:51 p.m.

BTW, none of this matters at all. You guys, the pro-gun guys, have won. Yeah, so California has somewhat more restrictive gun laws. Doesn't seem to stop anybody from getting them, as you all are proud to point out when you let everybody know how many of them you have.

No new laws are going to come along and take them, either. And we won't change anything about mental health or whatever.

This is *just another one of those incidents* that we have to accept. There'll be another one soon. And another. And another after that.

Endlessly.

And *nothing will change*.


stevehw: Posted: May 27, 2014 2:54 p.m.

"Our society rewards mediocrity constantly and the kids nowadays have no concept about real accomplishments. If you are rewarded for everything, then it takes away from the moment when they actually have a real achievement. You can only truly appreciate success after you've had failures and fallen down a few times."

BTW, I *completely* agree with this sentiment, as expressed by many people here.

I just don't see it as necessarily the cause of what happened. If it was, then we'd have *millions* of young people shooting each other, and we don't, so there's something other than just over-indulgence going on.

Believe me, I see so much of these over-indulgent parents here in SCV...I wonder what sort of people these spoiled brat kids are going to grow up to be, but I highly doubt that merely treating every kid as "special" is the cause of these violent episodes that keep happening.


17trillion: Posted: May 27, 2014 3:02 p.m.

"Yeah, so California has somewhat more restrictive gun laws"

"Somewhat"? You surely can't be that ignorant can you? Have you ever purchased a gun in CA? Do you know anything about the process? Have you ever been to another state and are you familiar with their processes? Do you have a clue about anything or do you just pretend?

Let me clue you in Steve since you're in need of one. In CA you need to take a test. You must pass it or you cannot buy a gun. In CA you must wait 10 business days to take possession of your gun. You need to fill out paperwork that goes to the state and to the feds so they can run a background check on you. You are limited as to what kinds of guns you may own or purchase. You are limited in the size of the magazines. You are limited in the type of ammunition you may buy or own. In short, if CA doesn't have the toughest gun laws in the country, it's in the top 5.

Why don't you answer one simple question so we know exactly where you stand. You're King for the day in CA or the country. What do you do about guns? Come on, lay it out there.


stevehw: Posted: May 27, 2014 3:17 p.m.

Nothing. I'd do exactly nothing. In fact, I'd remove ALL restrictions, and let anyone own anything they wanted, up to and including military-grade weaponry (maybe just short of nuclear bombs).

Because the only way things will change is when the carnage gets SO bad that people have had enough and change it.

Right now, this level of death is acceptable to society, so it won't change. I don't know how much higher it needs to go before it does. 10 times higher, maybe? 300,000 homicides a year? Maybe. Maybe not. 100X? 3,000,000 people a year murdered by guns? That ought to do it.


17trillion: Posted: May 27, 2014 3:43 p.m.

So in other words you have no serious solutions to this problem, correct? Do you not have the sack to just simply say you would ban all private gun ownership because your solution isn't a solution, but just another cheap shot directed at people that think they have a right to own a gun. I ask you a serious question and your response is to allow me to own a tank.


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 3:43 p.m.

Try not to be so glum, Steve. None should advocate worsening a situation nor does any sane person think convicted felons or the mentally ill should have access to firearms.

Crime statistics are markedly down since the early '90s, including homicides by firearms. Given the correlation between mass shootings and mental health issues, reviewing policy in that area should provide further improvement.

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

FBI Releases Preliminary Semiannual Crime Statistics for 2013

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-semiannual-crime-statistics-for-2013


stevehw: Posted: May 27, 2014 4:15 p.m.

The 'sack'? What are you, a teenage boy? LOL!

Seriously...I don't think the law will ever change to significantly reduce gun ownership; the cops will never allow the war on drugs to end (not to mention no politician will ever come out for ending it and get hammered for being "soft on crime"); the NRA owns too many politicians...the NIH is not even *allowed to study* gun crime, so any idea that we'll somehow overturn the current mental health care system is a fantasy.

Why not try the NRA's perpetual hypothesis...that the only cure for gun violence is more guns? Loosen pretty much every restriction save convicted felons (and mentally ill, as determined by a judge), and let's see what happens.

According to Baker, we'll end up just like Switzerland. Right?

RIGHT?


17trillion: Posted: May 27, 2014 4:22 p.m.

The Brady Campaign for Gun Violence gave CA an A- on gun control laws. Short of CA electing an entire slate of Communists or Fascists, what more do you want done Steve? CA is run by all the right people doing all the right things supported by all the cool people, so what more do you want? You can whine and cry about the NRA, but they are worthless here in the land of fruits and nuts. What more do you want? People like me are a minority here and our voices do not count against the voices of you and your ilk so what more do you want? If it's more that you want, THEN DO IT! Rick Perry doesn't run the state and Wayne LaPierre doesn't run the legislature so quit sniveling at me and DO WHAT YOU WANT! You are in charge, just like you were from 2009 to 2011 federally but you still can't help yourself to b1tch about the us. You own this state and you owned the feds for 2 years so DO IT!

I swear, liberals could win the lottery and still b1tch about it. Is there anything you people wont cry and moan about?


17trillion: Posted: May 27, 2014 4:28 p.m.

"The 'sack'? What are you, a teenage boy? LOL!"

I wish.....

To me Steve there is either the way we have it or a total ban. How many more laws can be passed short of a ban? Guns holding just one bullet that take an hour to reload?


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 4:31 p.m.

"Why not try the NRA's perpetual hypothesis...that the only cure for gun violence is more guns?" -stevehw

That's voluntary access to guns for the law abiding citizen.

Seems to be the case according to my previously posted links and the majority of states are now "shall issue" on CCW permits. CA based on Peruta vs. San Diego County will be as well soon. Do you have data to the contrary?


timothymyers02: Posted: May 27, 2014 4:40 p.m.

People are quick to forget the local case of Eric Yee, a Yale "dropout" and Valencia resident who in 2012 posted threats on an ESPN website against Santa Clarita Elementary and Arroyo Seco Junior High Schools. Law enforcement in Bristol, CN and Santa Clarita reacted swiftly and decisively in searching his parent's home that indeed had a back yard facing the two schools in question AND contained an assault rifle. People forget because a potential tragedy WAS averted because LE reacted forcefully.

In the case of Elliot Rodgers, when six Santa Barbara deputies showed up at his apartment because of concerns expressed by his mother and a therapist that he was suicidal why didn't they ask him to voluntarily search his room for weapons so that they could assure his mother than he didn't have any in his possession? If he refused, that, along with the Youtube videos, could have provided probable cause for a search warrant and detention. He mocked in his manifesto the fact that the deputies did not ask to search his room which would have ended his plan.

I am sure that manifesto passage will be read at the 19 successful negligence claims against Santa Barbara County. And if LE apologists think the Santa Barbara sheriff's were hamstrung by "political correctness" consider the case of Eric Yee and the (very) effective work of the Bristol police and LA County sheriffs.


Indy: Posted: May 27, 2014 4:52 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: BTW, none of this matters at all. You guys, the pro-gun guys, have won. Yeah, so California has somewhat more restrictive gun laws. Doesn't seem to stop anybody from getting them, as you all are proud to point out when you let everybody know how many of them you have.

Indy: Yes, I believe there are 200+ million guns in America . . . one reason so many are killed by same . . .

Stevehw wrote: No new laws are going to come along and take them, either. And we won't change anything about mental health or whatever.

Indy: Yes, congress saw about 90% of the public in favor of more comprehensive background checks but did NOTHING . . .

Stevehw wrote: This is *just another one of those incidents* that we have to accept. There'll be another one soon. And another. And another after that. Endlessly. And *nothing will change*.

Indy: Yes, until it’s your ‘kid’ that has their head blown off . . . think Sandy Hook Elementary . . . then it’s easy to stay in ‘ideology land’ with military style assault weapons that are only manufactured to kill people ‘quickly’, ‘effectively’ and in ‘great numbers’.

As horrific as the scene at that elementary school was, the ‘pictures’ of the massacre should have been ‘shown’ to the public so they can see what a military style weapon does to people . . . only when the public can ‘see’ the horrific images, will they get motivated and stop listening to the relentless recitals of cowardly politicians.


Indy: Posted: May 27, 2014 5:00 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Why not try the NRA's perpetual hypothesis...that the only cure for gun violence is more guns?" -stevehw

That's voluntary access to guns for the law abiding citizen.

Indy: Yes, the people that are killing Americans with military style assault weapons are not ‘law abiding citizen(s)’ . . . .

Tech wrote: Seems to be the case according to my previously posted links and the majority of states are now "shall issue" on CCW permits. CA based on Peruta vs. San Diego County will be as well soon. Do you have data to the contrary?

Indy: Yes, it will probably take somebody who ‘accidentally’ kills someone with their ‘concealed weapon’ to see where that leads . . .

Having poorly trained citizens walking around with weapons in our daily travels is going to create even more carnage as we saw with the ‘neighborhood’ watch captain ‘George Zimmerman’ who gunned down a teenager that he thought ‘looked dangerous’ . . . and who was even 'ordered by Police' to stay away . . .

In any event, it’s of value to know that many libertarian conservatives see the 30,000+ YEARLY gun deaths in the US, about 80 Americans ‘per day’, as the cost to keep their fantasy of overthrowing the US government alive . . .


Indy: Posted: May 27, 2014 5:07 p.m.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/about-gun-violence
About Gun Violence

America has a problem with gun violence
• One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot.1
• On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.2
• Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.3
• The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4
• A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5

Gun Violence Takes a Massive Toll on American Children
• More than one in five U.S. teenagers (ages 14 to 17) report having witnessed a shooting.6
• An average of eight children and teens under the age of 20 are killed by guns every day.7
• American children die by guns 11 times as often as children in other high-income countries.8
• Youth (ages 0 to 19) in the most rural U.S. counties are as likely to die from a gunshot as those living in the most urban counties. Rural children die of more gun suicides and unintentional shooting deaths. Urban children die more often of gun homicides.9
• Firearm homicide is the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle crashes) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S.10
• In 2007, more pre-school-aged children (85) were killed by guns than police officers were killed in the line of duty.11

Gun Violence is a Drain on U.S. Taxpayers
• Medical treatment, criminal justice proceedings, new security precautions, and reductions in quality of life are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually.12
• The lifetime medical cost for all gun violence victims in the United States is estimated at $2.3 billion, with almost half the costs borne by taxpayers.13

Americans Support Universal Background Checks
• Nine out of 10 Americans agree that we should have universal background checks, including three out of four NRA members.
• Since the Brady Law was initially passed, about 2 million attempts to purchase firearms have been blocked due to a background check. About half of these blocked attempts were by felons.14
• Unfortunately, our current background check system only applies to about 60% of gun sales, leaving 40% (online sales, purchases at gun shows, etc.) without a background check.


Indy: Posted: May 27, 2014 5:09 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: See how shy I am now?

Indy: LOL . . .


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 5:28 p.m.

Nation's Strictest Gun Laws Didn't Stop Rodger

Rodger had three handguns — two Sig Sauer P226s and a Glock 34 — in his car, all of which he had bought legally from a federally licensed dealer. Gun-control zealots who think magazine size matters and obsess about 30-round clips should note Rodger reportedly had 34 loaded 10-round magazines for the Sig Sauers and seven 10-round magazines for the Glock. A shooter can reload a fresh magazine in about a second.

He also had violent intent and made it known to the world in a series of YouTube videos that so concerned his mother, she contacted mental-health officials, who dispatched sheriff's deputies to check on him at his apartment close to the University of California's Santa Barbara campus. Elliot Rodger knew how to game the system. Deputies who were dispatched reported that he seemed "quiet and timid . .. polite and courteous," Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." So they left and never returned until the area was a crime scene.

Only three of the six killings involved a gun at all. The first three victims were Rodger's roommates. Two machetes, a hammer and a knife were among the items removed from the ground floor corner apartment they shared. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, call your office. So much for those scary-looking "assault" weapons.

As Jeffrey Lord notes in the American Spectator, California may have gotten an A- for its gun-control laws, but it also got an F from the Treatment Advocacy Center for the abysmal state of its mental-commitment laws. Neither Rodger's family nor his therapists could get him committed by a government bureaucracy little different from the one that runs the Department of Motor Vehicles. The emphasis should be on getting help to those that need help, not on shredding the constitutional rights of their potential victims.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052714-702335-elliot-rodger-not-stopped-by-gun-control.htm?p=full


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 6:20 p.m.

The irony of Indy posting talking points is amusing. :-D

"• Unfortunately, our current background check system only applies to about 60% of gun sales, leaving 40% (online sales, purchases at gun shows, etc.) without a background check." - Indy

Guns Acquired Without Background Checks

But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 6:46 p.m.

Indy: Yes, the people that are killing Americans with military style assault weapons are not ‘law abiding citizen(s)’ . . . .

How many would that be, Indy? The millions of owners of semi-automatic sporting rifles are law abiding citizens.

What else, Black Knight?


hopeful: Posted: May 27, 2014 7:06 p.m.

Tech wrote: "As Jeffrey Lord notes in the American Spectator, California may have gotten an A- for its gun-control laws, but it also got an F from the Treatment Advocacy Center for the abysmal state of its mental-commitment laws. Neither Rodger's family nor his therapists could get him committed by a government bureaucracy little different from the one that runs the Department of Motor Vehicles. The emphasis should be on getting help to those that need help, not on shredding the constitutional rights of their potential victims."

Very good point, Tech, and it reminds me of Virginia's Senator Deed's experience. Deeds tried desperately to find an in-patient psychiatric bed for his son, but when none could be found, he was left with no choice but to take his son home. Soon after, the son tried to kill his father, before he ultimately killed himself.

Our state of mental health care is deplorable. THAT is where we should emphasize change!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545270/Virginia-Senator-Creigh-Deeds-breaks-silence-moment-son-stabbed-him.html



chefgirl358: Posted: May 27, 2014 7:15 p.m.

In my opinion, the vast majority of these pathetic losers who feel sorry for themselves and want to murder crowds of people all have the same goals. I believe almost all of them are clearly aware of their actions but because they're pathetic, they always feel powerless. I believe they all seek feelings of control, power, intimidation and above all attention and fame. If no media outlet ever ever mentioned their names and society shunned them by pretending they never existed, I'll bet these mass killings would grind to nearly a complete halt.

I think this is true of the killers from Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Colorado and numerous other mall and school shootings, stabbings and vehicular murders over the years. We keep giving them what they crave and we'll keep seeing these awful massacres. It wouldn't matter if you could ban guns, these little buttheads will make bombs or find a means to the end they are seeking.


hopeful: Posted: May 27, 2014 7:43 p.m.

chefgirl - good point too, but there are some, who are truly psychotic that NEED to be institutionalized. From what I remember the Colorado Movie Theater killer, along with the Sandy Hook and now UCSB killers were all being seen by therapists and I think all, or most were on or prescribed medication.

Medication can be effective, BUT the patient will need to be closely monitored for a long period of time to make sure the medication doesn't CAUSE a psychotic break. Hence, that is why I think some of these people NEED to be institutionalized, even if it is only for 30 days, so the doctors can evaluate whether the medicines REALLY work, or if they will do more harm.

What I don't understand is the constant focus on gun control. Chris Martinez' father mentioned that young people didn't have to deal with this "fear" in the 50s, 60s, and 70s while he grew up, but I don't remember guns being harder to get then than now. If guns were just as easy, or easier to get back in the 70s, will the problem really be solved with MORE gun control now?

I think for gun control advocates, it is just easier to "blame" guns. They completely dismiss Timothy McVeigh, or any other mass-murderers, who are intent to kill, but do so without guns. Even if one makes it completely illegal for someone to own guns, don't you think sickos like the UCSB murderer would find a way to kill...there are plenty of ways to kill someone without using guns, and honestly the argument that guns kill quickly is ridiculous when you think about how much more efficient IEDs and suicide bombers can be...


tech: Posted: May 27, 2014 8:17 p.m.

Precisely, chefgirl and hopeful.

The irrationality of gun control advocates that maintain their obsession despite a lack of correlation is a complete non sequitur.

Statistical data requires a focus on the root causes of mental illness and drug gang violence in our society. But gun control advocates remain immune to common sense.

Why the persistence when their position is untenable? When will they accept that more regulation doubles down on failure?


projalice11: Posted: May 28, 2014 9:26 p.m.

stevehw:
Posted: May 27, 2014
2:48 p.m.
"I think I see a pattern here..."

I know I see a pattern here by some of the posters and it is scary...

Not one poster showed any concern or apathy for the victims families.
If I missed a post that showed concern or apathy for the victims families I apologize

Yea to any of you that posted this sentiment.
It was the right and human thing to do...


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 9:27 p.m.

You nailed it, chefgirl.

"It wouldn't matter if you could ban guns, these little buttheads will make bombs or find a means to the end they are seeking."


Like the punks who bombed the Boston Marathon using kitchen cookware.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 10:05 p.m.

projalice, I think if you actually read the comments, you'd see that sympathy for the VICTIMS was expressed unanimously.

The difference here, and what stevie was whining about, is that some of us have zero sympathy for the pathetic self-pitying bonehead who killed all these innocent people.

Speaking for myself, I think he got exactly what he deserved, and it's a damned shame there wasn't someone there with a CCW who could have clocked that SOB before he racked up that big a body count.

This whole sorry state is a "gun-free zone", meaning it's a whackjob's ideal hunting ground, filled with unarmed and defenseless prey.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 10:07 p.m.

BTW, did you really mean "apathy for the victims families", or "sympathy"?

Just tryin' to be helpful.


projalice11: Posted: May 28, 2014 10:30 p.m.

Apathy:
*Lack of interest or concern
*Lack of emotion or concern
*Lack of emotional responsiveness


chefgirl358: Posted: May 28, 2014 11:06 p.m.

Thanks guys, I think you've made some great points too Tech, 17 and Brian.

Hopeful, I agree with you too. Yeah, there is Richard Ramirez / Jared Loughner sick and then there is, ohhhh poor me, I'm not popular and the pretty girls won't go out with me but I want for nothing in life and I just don't know why people don't like me but because I get everything I want because I'm a spoiled little a.h. I'm going to punish you all to make me feel better, as this little twerp seemed to be thinking. He should've been locked up alright, but as a criminal. I have ZERO sympathy for this creep nor do I believe he was seriously mentally ill.

I am truly, deeply saddened and horrified for the actual victims families. I can't even begin to fathom how awful the magnitude of this really is for all of these families and friends.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:52 a.m.

Yes, projalice, I know the definition of "apathy".

Here's what you wrote: "Not one poster showed any concern or apathy for the victims families."

Now look at the definition. Now substitute it into your sentence, and here's what you get: "Not one poster showed any concern or (Lack of interest or concern) for the victims families"


Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't to me.


ricketzz: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:46 a.m.

"Semi-automatic" sporting rifles? Right. Auto reloaders are generally less accurate at range than bolt action rifles, in my limited experience. Some rifles are just extra big pistols, in the military world. When I think "sporting" rifles I think deer hunting, not varmint shooting.

The first time this subject showed signs of suicidal/homicidal ideation he should have been committed. Then he would at least have been on the no-buy list for guns and ammo. His "parents" coddled him with ineffective therapists for his whole life then set him free in Sin City with no social skills, no chaperon and a hyper sense of entitlement. Freedom!


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:25 a.m.

He killed 3 people with a knife.
A knife.
How is this a discussion about gun control?
He had no assault rifle.
He was a mentally disturbed young man.
The discussion must be around mental health, not guns.


CaptGene: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:32 a.m.

I think "Whackjobs", especially those with Aspergers Syndrome should be automatically listed as people of interest by law enforcement. The Isla Vista and Sandy Hook whackjobs were both diagnosed with AS.

I see a pattern here.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:34 a.m.

Ricketzz, it's easy to monday morning quarterback but the thing is, you can't just commit people against their will when they can convince folks that they have no desire to harm themselves or others. Just because someone is "weird" doesn't mean you can lock them up. There is a good reason for this. Back in the good 'ol days when LAPD had Order 1,2,3,4 or whatever it was called (think Angelina Jolie in The Changeling) people could be thrown into an asylum just for challenging powerful people's opinions.

Yes, there should be tools available to commit people or make them get treatment that are maybe a bit easier than currently exists, but we need to be really careful with that type of power. People have rights and you have to be careful with just locking up people willy nilly and forcing treatment and medications on them against their will. We have to be especially careful not to do that with folks that are a little "off", but might not pose any sort of threat at all to anyone or anything.


Socalguy: Posted: May 28, 2014 10:20 a.m.

Captain Gene said "I think "Whackjobs", especially those with Aspergers Syndrome should be automatically listed as people of interest by law enforcement. The Isla Vista and Sandy Hook whackjobs were both diagnosed with AS."

Wow, they were also both young men, so was the shooter in Colorado, the shoorter at Viginia Tech, the young men at Columbine....hmmm I see a pattern here, lets put all young white men between 18 and 25 on Captain Gene's watch list or maybe you'd love to see the mjsut put away in some sort of camp.

Please stop calling people,with Aspergers "Whackjobs", you have not idea what that illness is or does to people and families.


Socalguy: Posted: May 28, 2014 10:22 a.m.

Hey Captain Gene, why not put people that buy multiple guns or lots of ammo on that list?


tech: Posted: May 28, 2014 10:24 a.m.

"Semi-automatic" sporting rifles? Right. Auto reloaders are generally less accurate at range than bolt action rifles, in my limited experience. - ricketzz

Time to update your limited experience. Check out this 3-Gun Sport shooting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXL40_G_Fxk


tech: Posted: May 28, 2014 11:24 a.m.

Quantify and identify how those are a risk profile that should be monitored. Who sets the criteria? How is that a root cause of potential violence?

Last Sunday, my family and I fired 400 rounds through 2 pistols shooting steel targets at the range in ~1.5 hours. Would you consider that "multiple guns or lots of ammo"?

How about the 3 gun competition training video I posted above?


stevehw: Posted: May 28, 2014 11:50 a.m.

"Quantify and identify how those are a risk profile that should be monitored. Who sets the criteria? How is that a root cause of potential violence?"

And therein lies the problem with dropping it all at the feet of "mental health". Do we just go by the say-so of a psychiatrist? What about a psychologist? A counselor? Family? Who decides when someone else forfeits their Constitutional rights? The police? (I, for one, sure don't want to go down THAT path...). And what would be the "rules"? Or are they just "guidelines", which can be bent willy-nilly? Should they be hard and fast regulations? What about someone who *almost* fits the criteria, but not quite? And do we change/update these rules? How often? Who decides? And how does someone who is placed on this "no-gun list" get off of it? Is it secret, like the no-fly list? Does it have a procedure that nobody can use to get off of it, like the no-fly list? Are the rules for placing someone on it secret, like the no-fly list?


tech: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:30 p.m.

Good questions, Steve. All involve tradeoffs and need checks and balances.

As I stated previously, mental illness and gang violence should be the focus based on statistics.

We already know "gun control" doesn't work. Let's try something else.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 1:41 p.m.

I pretty much agree with steve on this one.

How do we deprive anyone of any of their rights based on what they MIGHT do?

Last I checked, you actually have to COMMIT a crime before any of your rights can be taken away from you. Anybody MIGHT do anything, depending on the circumstances. Mind-reading isn't a very good method of effectively "convicting" people of things they haven't "yet" done, but MIGHT do.

Anybody ever read Philip K. Dick's "Minority Report", or see the movie based on it?


stevehw: Posted: May 28, 2014 2:24 p.m.

"Let's try something else. "

And that's the rub. In my personal opinion, not based on anything other than walking around in life, I think the gun rights advocates and pro-gun folks need to start coming up with some solutions of their own, instead of just opposing everything that is proposed. The reason I say that is because, if they don't and nothing is done, *eventually* (if we keep having these massacres and such), something is going to be done *for* them, and they won't like it.

That's just me saying, based on my experience in life, if all you ever do is oppose others and never have any ideas of your own on how to improve things, eventually people stop taking you seriously and you end up with solutions you don't like.

I know it sounds trivial, but it really is the "if you're not part of the solution" thing. Yes, I know we have a 2nd Amendment to prevent loss of rights, but as everyone will admit, NO right is absolute...there can and have been limits places on all of them (including the 2nd). And the violence continues, and it will, something WILL change, sooner or later...and it may not be to your liking if all you've done to try to prevent violence is nothing.

I'm willing to entertain thoughts from Brian and others on this, without arguing endlessly about it. I just don't see any real, constructive solutions from the pro-gun side other than "better mental health" or other platitudes (like ending the war on drugs...never happen).


tech: Posted: May 28, 2014 3:48 p.m.

Here's the thing, Steve: You imply that violent crime trends are getting worse and if something isn't done we might have our rights curtailed. In fact, the opposite is true.

Myself and others have been offering policy directions. If we can put a man on the Moon and robotic rovers on Mars we can take concrete steps to reducing violence in our society. If you don't like what's been offered, provide some of your own.

Mental health is easier because there's some consensus in that direction. However, curbing urban violence will involve goring sacred cows.


tech: Posted: May 28, 2014 4:02 p.m.

Regarding the "War on Drugs", there are serious proposals being reviewed.

Nobel Prize economists call for new approach to failed drug war in new LSE IDEAS report

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2014/05/EndWarOnDrugsReport.aspx


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 4:20 p.m.

Fair enough, steve. This actually ties into our convo on the other thread, and I posted a thought there. You haven't responded as of now, so I'll just copy it in here.

As I wrote earlier on this thread, "This whole sorry state is a 'gun-free zone', meaning it's a whackjob's ideal hunting ground, filled with unarmed and defenseless prey."

Maybe if there'd been a couple of people with CCWs at Isla Vista the other night that crackpot could have been dropped before his body count got so high. At least SOMEONE would have had a chance to fight back, instead of just being sitting ducks.

The cops aren't the answer, and it's not even their job. They're not a protective service. At the Aurora theater shooting, they responded very quickly, but to what purpose? So they could arrest the guy. They didn't save a single life.

At the Virginia Tech incident, they waited ON SCENE for about 45 minutes, while the rampage was still going on, before even starting to enter the combat zone.

People need to be legally able to protect themselves, and legal carry is the only effective defense against an armed attacker. We outnumber THEM by a long shot, but being unarmed tilts the odds fatally in the wrong direction.

In support of my point: have you ever heard of one of these whackjobs starting their rampage at a gun store or shooting range, or anyplace else where there was a very great likelihood that their intended victims might actually be armed?

I haven't.


hopeful: Posted: May 28, 2014 5:51 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "have you ever heard of one of these whackjobs starting their rampage at a gun store or shooting range, or anyplace else where there was a very great likelihood that their intended victims might actually be armed?"

Yes - Tuscon, Arizona where Gabby Giffords was shot. There were people there with concealed weapons, but they chose NOT to shot because the scene was too chaotic.

Although I don't personally own a gun, I believe strongly in allowing people to own guns. However, I don't think it is a good idea to have college students roaming the streets with concealed weapons. I think that would make it worse in many cases, not better.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 5:58 p.m.

Tech wrote: The irony of Indy posting talking points is amusing. :-D

"• Unfortunately, our current background check system only applies to about 60% of gun sales, leaving 40% (online sales, purchases at gun shows, etc.) without a background check." – Indy

Indy: Yes, I’m sure the parents of the kids just killed at UCSB don’t share your cavalier attitude toward gun laws that try to address the ‘insanity’ that we’re experiencing in the US as ‘disturbed’ people with access to ‘semi-auto’ rifles and handguns go on shooting sprees killing innocent people.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 5:59 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Our state of mental health care is deplorable. THAT is where we should emphasize change!

Indy: I completely agree but why do you think our elected politicians don’t properly address this issue?


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:06 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: I think this is true of the killers from Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Colorado and numerous other mall and school shootings, stabbings and vehicular murders over the years. We keep giving them what they crave and we'll keep seeing these awful massacres. It wouldn't matter if you could ban guns, these little buttheads will make bombs or find a means to the end they are seeking.

Indy: I share you sympathies and observations toward the ‘losers’ that are killing innocents in ‘mass’ numbers.

I disagree, however, in allowing Americans to ‘own’ simi-auto weapons that can be used in these mass massacres.

I know the distinction between what is a military style assault weapon seems to get blurred in these discussions but I think we can reasonably assume that certain weapons designed specifically to KILL PEOPLE should be carefully considered before selling same to the general public.

The shooter in Colorado had the assault weapon with I believe a ‘100 round’ canister clip that allowed him to shoot without any chance of ‘interrupting’ his spree.

So the idea that some of these losers would ‘make bombs’ is a bit far fetched . . . but this recent killing in UCSB did involve knife deaths . . . but I’m not sure how the killer ‘approached’ his victims.

I to know that I’d have a better chance if I saw the guy with a knife versus an assault weapon . . . in that I could pick up something and use it against the killer beyond just ‘watching him’ continuously ‘pull the trigger’.


hopeful: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:07 p.m.

As we all probably expected, there is a new push in California to prevent the mentally ill from accessing guns. Although the bill hasn't been finalized yet, it does seem promising. Yes, we will also need to add funding to go along with it. I vote that we remove the bullet train, and instead spend that money on increasing in-patient psychiatric beds, family education and resources, as well as training for law enforcement officers, who will be charged at doing the welfare checks.

I also would like to see Chris Martinez' dad, the UCSB shooter's parents, Gabby Gifford, and any other high-profile victims of similar attacks start a non-profit and raise money to provide some of the mental health funding that is sorely needed. I believe a lot could be accomplished, and Martinez' plea for "Not one more" would be closer to being accomplished with these measures than by thinking that removing more guns will solve the problem.

http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2014/5/28/lawmakers-aim-to-restrict-guns--for-mentally-ill-after-shooting


hopeful: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:13 p.m.

Indy wrote: "So the idea that some of these losers would ‘make bombs’ is a bit far fetched . . ."

Really Indy? How quickly you forget!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/specials/boston_marathon_bombing_victim_list/


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:13 p.m.

Tech wrote: Precisely, chefgirl and hopeful. The irrationality of gun control advocates that maintain their obsession despite a lack of correlation is a complete non sequitur.

Indy: What a ‘load’ pun intended.

The gun death in the US are close to 10,000 while most other nations with similar demographics see deaths below ‘100’!

So the problem with the US is not the same as the other nations . . . and advocating ‘gun control’ is a rational alternative versus keeping alive the hope of some conservatives that still believe they are going to ‘overthrow’ the US government.

Tech wrote: Statistical data requires a focus on the root causes of mental illness and drug gang violence in our society. But gun control advocates remain immune to common sense.

Indy: Yeah . . . and how’s that WOD working out for ya?

And why did Ronald Reagan shut down the mental hospitals in CA?

Tech wrote: Why the persistence when their position is untenable? When will they accept that more regulation doubles down on failure?

Indy: As expected, the libertarian market fundamentalist endorses ‘social darwinism’ where the public is left ‘helpless’ as ideologues such as this poster post useless drivel that doesn’t address reality.

It’s sadly all too easy for this poster to dismiss regulations that are used to encapsulate our society’s knowledge to address our ‘common’ (read ‘we the people’) problems .


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:15 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "So the idea that some of these losers would ‘make bombs’ is a bit far fetched . . ."

Really Indy? How quickly you forget!

Indy: Don’t assume too much . . . these two guys were ‘terrorist’ with ‘connections’ that far exceeded what an average emotionally disturbed loser would have access to.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:21 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: The difference here, and what stevie was whining about, is that some of us have zero sympathy for the pathetic self-pitying bonehead who killed all these innocent people. Speaking for myself, I think he got exactly what he deserved, and it's a damned shame there wasn't someone there with a CCW who could have clocked that SOB before he racked up that big a body count.

Indy: This is one of the most glaring problems with conservative ideology in that trying to assess what drives ‘criminals’ is somehow ‘coddling’ them. That’s nonsense.

And one of the reasons we can’t address the ‘drivers’ of crime is this ‘after the fact’ ‘toe tag justice’ being advocated here by this conservative.

And we see this nonsense propagated by conservative politicians that keep grandstanding their ‘get tough on crime’ slogans forgetting that it of little value to considering only punishing the criminal when the ‘deed’ has already been done.

Punishment is expected but ‘foresight’ is missing from conservatives including their support for militarized assault weapons which were designed to ‘kill people’, ‘quickly’, ‘efficiently’, and with ‘deadly results’.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:27 p.m.

AlwaysRight wrote: He killed 3 people with a knife.
A knife. How is this a discussion about gun control?

Indy: As I noted above, I’d have a chance, assuming the guy didn’t sneak up behind me, to at least grasp something to beat the person into submission versus watching him ‘pull the trigger’ multiple times . . .

Even in the old Winchester rifle days the shooter had to take a moment to ‘cock the gun’ before shooting again.

AlwaysRight wrote: He had no assault rifle.

Indy: Yes, but he had a ‘semi-auto’ handgun . . .

AlwaysRight wrote: He was a mentally disturbed young man.
The discussion must be around mental health, not guns.

Indy: I agree about the mental health issue completely but I’m also for removing these ‘militarized style assault weapons’ just like I don’t expect citizens to possess machine gun, mortars, or other military weapons.

But same question to you: why did Ronald Reagan cut back mental health services including hospitals when he was Governor?


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:30 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: In other words, the militia is made up of all law-abiding Americans of military age.

Indy: Were these the militia members shown on film pointing weapons at US Federal Marshalls that were there to collect back taxes from Clive ‘Let me tell you about the Negro’ Bundy?


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:34 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: "Quantify and identify how those are a risk profile that should be monitored. Who sets the criteria? How is that a root cause of potential violence?"

And therein lies the problem with dropping it all at the feet of "mental health". Do we just go by the say-so of a psychiatrist? What about a psychologist? A counselor? Family? Who decides when someone else forfeits their Constitutional rights? The police? (I, for one, sure don't want to go down THAT path...). And what would be the "rules"? Or are they just "guidelines", which can be bent willy-nilly? Should they be hard and fast regulations? What about someone who *almost* fits the criteria, but not quite? And do we change/update these rules? How often? Who decides? And how does someone who is placed on this "no-gun list" get off of it? Is it secret, like the no-fly list? Does it have a procedure that nobody can use to get off of it, like the no-fly list? Are the rules for placing someone on it secret, like the no-fly list?

Indy: What I find interesting are the republicans that have ‘mocked’ our public education system here in CA for ‘daring’ to promote the ‘self-esteem’ of kids.

As you noted, we can’t lock everybody up . . . but we can minimize the number of ‘crazies’ walking around by helping them grasp their own mental health as well as not allowing them access to ‘semi-auto’ weapons that permit mass shootings.


Indy: Posted: May 28, 2014 6:39 p.m.

Tech wrote: Here's the thing, Steve: You imply that violent crime trends are getting worse and if something isn't done we might have our rights curtailed. In fact, the opposite is true.

Indy: Interesting statement as I look around the world at the social unrest being created from economic limitations as well as religious beliefs.

We even had our own ‘separatists’ in Nevada that were protecting a tax deadbeat who later wanted to ‘educate’ us about his views on the ‘Negro’.

Tech wrote: Myself and others have been offering policy directions. If we can put a man on the Moon and robotic rovers on Mars we can take concrete steps to reducing violence in our society. If you don't like what's been offered, provide some of your own.

Indy: We know that about 85% if the criminals in our public jails and prisons are functionally illiterate . . . yet conservatives argue for less resources toward public education.

We know that the economic unrest around the globe is due to ‘wealth inequality’ yet we see this poster advocate libertarian market fundamentalism that is ‘concentrating’ wealth in America.

And when the public actually wanted better background checks, this poster along with Congress ignored the 90% public opinion on the issue and went right back to reciting arcane laws and court decisions that haven’t addressed the carnage.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:03 p.m.

Hopeful, I'm sure there were plenty of people above college age in Isla Vista who would have qualified for CCWs, and who were present on-site.

In virtually every jurisdiction in which CCW laws have been relaxed to allow any law-abiding citizen to get one violent crime rates have fallen, in some cases dramatically. It’s just a fact, and demonstrates the validity of the concept.

Think of the human factor involved. If Bad Guys know that virtually any Joe Sixpack could be carrying, but they can’t tell WHO’S actually carrying, they have to assume that anyone or everyone could be carrying. So you not only have the actual deterrent of armed people potentially on-site who can intervene, you have the psychological deterrent because the Bad Guy has to assume that there IS an armed person on-site.

Is this a panacea? Hell no. There is no such thing. The Giffords shooting you cited is a perfect example. A clustered crowd that would have turned into a circular firing squad. But this whack was driving down the street, in some cases reportedly getting out of his car to take pot shots. People were running away. It was a PERFECT shooting environment.

What you’re proposing is something that I, like steve, think is more repugnant than more gun control laws that aren’t going to mean anything: taking away people’s right based on pure supposition and speculation about what they MIGHT do.

Where in the Constitution is that envisioned?
--edited.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:03 p.m.

Indy, there was an incident, I don't know if you heard about it...The Boston Marathon bombing? A few pressure cookers and some sickos and blam! So yes, people do make bombs. In fact, there have been a few of these loser kids arrested over the years for planning to blow up their school and having bombs or materials for them in their home.

I fully support gun ownership, semi autos, assault rifles and CCW's. I personally always feel safer with guns around me and would never feel truly safe in a home without them. The fact that over 300 MILLION firearms are owned by Americans pretty much says it all.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:05 p.m.

Dana Stern, if you're still visiting this thread, kudos!

Seems like you've stirred up quite the discussion.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:25 p.m.

Chefgirl: "Indy, there was an incident, I don't know if you heard about it...The Boston Marathon bombing? A few pressure cookers and some sickos and blam! So yes, people do make bombs."


Indy (proposed): "Ban kitchen cookware!!!!!"


hopeful: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:30 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "What you’re proposing is something that I, like steve, think is more repugnant than more gun control laws that aren’t going to mean anything: taking away people’s right based on pure supposition and speculation about what they MIGHT do."

First, I am not the one proposing it, but in my opinion, there needs to be some system to ensure the mentally ill, who are at risk of killing others, do not have access to guns. Obviously, there needs to be some controls, but I do believe that it can be done.

If a parent, like the UCSB mom, feels their kid is about to harm themselves or others, they should be able to call the police to get some help. The police should then do a few things 1) check the database to see what weapons the kid has purchased, 2) do a google search for youtube videos, rants, etc. to see if the kid has expressed violent tendencies, and 3) contact known therapists to see if they believe a welfare check is justified. All of that shouldn't take more than a couple of days, and then the police can present that to a judge, who gives the okay to go to the person's house to check on that individual (preferably trained officers, who are accompanied by a trained psychologist). Once they interview the kid, they should have the authority to search the person's room and car (search-warrant), and then put the kid on a psychiatric hold if warranted. When and if the kid is deemed fine, then they would regain their rights to own a gun.

I just don't buy into the idea that nothing can be done, which is pretty much what you are proposing.



hopeful: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:41 p.m.

Indy wrote: "Don’t assume too much . . . these two guys were ‘terrorist’ with ‘connections’ that far exceeded what an average emotionally disturbed loser would have access to."

You are so willing to dismiss anything as long as it doesn't fit into your ideology! What is wrong with you? With a simple google search, ANYONE can find the instructions on how to make a bomb using common household objects.

Indy wrote: " why did Ronald Reagan cut back mental health services including hospitals when he was Governor?"

Wow, your extreme partisan ideology is showing again...I was way below voting age when Reagan was Governor of California...go ahead and blame me for what Reagan did between 1967-1975... is that really all you got??? Pathetic!


BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:46 p.m.

Okay, hopeful, you're talking about "involuntary commitment".

I agree there's validity to this approach. It's proven to be very effective in other states that allow it. It's one of the predicate factors in federal gun law.

The issue then becomes this: THIS state has THE most restrictive "involuntary commitment" laws in the country. Meaning that this is THE state in which it's the HARDEST to involuntary commit someone to the psychological evaluation that your proposal would require.

Why?

Do I even need to answer that? In a state run completely by leftists more concerned with nutjobs' "rights" to run around defecating in the streets than in maintaining any kind of civil order, and more obsessed with banning guns while at the same time granting instant "citizenship' to a massive number of illegal aliens, I am NOT sanguine.

See a problem here?

I do.



BrianBaker: Posted: May 28, 2014 7:48 p.m.

PS, hopeful.

You wrote: "I just don't buy into the idea that nothing can be done, which is pretty much what you are proposing."

No I'm not. I'm proposing CCWs for ALL law-abiding Americans. The BEST "solution" of all.


stevehw: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:01 p.m.

"If a parent, like the UCSB mom, feels their kid is about to harm themselves or others, they should be able to call the police to get some help. The police should then do a few things 1) check the database to see what weapons the kid has purchased, 2) do a google search for youtube videos, rants, etc. to see if the kid has expressed violent tendencies, and 3) contact known therapists to see if they believe a welfare check is justified. All of that shouldn't take more than a couple of days, and then the police can present that to a judge, who gives the okay to go to the person's house to check on that individual (preferably trained officers, who are accompanied by a trained psychologist). Once they interview the kid, they should have the authority to search the person's room and car (search-warrant), and then put the kid on a psychiatric hold if warranted. When and if the kid is deemed fine, then they would regain their rights to own a gun. " There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to start. In most big cities, you can barely get a cop to respond to a non-life-threatening emergency (I had a car stolen in San Francisco, and it took over 12 hours just to get them out to take a report). They don't have to the time to go through this rigmarole every time some parent calls about a messed-up kid. And the courts are already jammed to overflowing. Not to mention the issue of searches, probable cause, and so on. And THEN we get to the involuntary commitment aspect, and the 2nd Amendment itself. This might work in a few cases, but it's not a long-term or broadly-reaching solution. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:03 p.m.

This forum has the WORST editing function EVER.


stevehw: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:07 p.m.

"I'm proposing CCWs for ALL law-abiding Americans. The BEST "solution" of all."

So, predictably, the answer to gun violence is MORE GUNS.

Well, hell...why not try it? It's not likely that anything else will change, we might as well go "all in". No restrictions. Carry them anywhere...bars, restaurants, schools, government buildings, airports...


stevehw: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:09 p.m.

Oh, and by the way...do a search for "murder shooting range". Quite a few cases. Quite a lot involving service members or veterans, too, which is odd, since we know they can't be dangerous (you know...gun-owning veterans who believe in God and all that).


hopeful: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:09 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "I'm proposing CCWs for ALL law-abiding Americans. The BEST "solution" of all."

For the most part, I have no problem with CCWs, and I would actually like to see them extended (I am not so sure about extending it to college-age kids in a college setting though). I spend a lot of time in states that allow CCWs, and I know that it isn't the problem that Liberal/Progressives make them out to be.

But, as Californians, we have to be realistic. I know there is a potential court case that will force the hand, but without that, the politicians and the majority of the people in California are going to do everything they can to prevent CCWs, especially since the Liberals/Progressives, who run this state are anti-gun.

Therefore, I believe we have to do all we can to come up with laws that will prevent some of the mass murders, otherwise, as Stevenhw said, we will lose more than we have now.


hopeful: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:17 p.m.

stevenhw - so you are just as guilty as those you accuse. Wasn't it you, who wrote: " if all you ever do is oppose others and never have any ideas of your own on how to improve things, eventually people stop taking you seriously and you end up with solutions you don't like."

Yep...that was you...no suggestions, no solutions...all you do is shoot down any ideas on how to help the situation...typical!


tech: Posted: May 28, 2014 8:37 p.m.

Tech wrote: The irony of Indy posting talking points is amusing. :-D

"• Unfortunately, our current background check system only applies to about 60% of gun sales, leaving 40% (online sales, purchases at gun shows, etc.) without a background check." – Indy

Indy: Yes, I’m sure the parents of the kids…

You just skated over the fact that the unverified talking point that you cut & pasted from the Brady Gun Ban Fans is statistically invalid and out of date.

But that figure is based on an analysis of a nearly two-decade-old survey of less than 300 people that essentially asked participants whether they thought the guns they had acquired — and not necessarily purchased — came from a federally licensed dealer. And one of the authors of the report often cited as a source for the claim — Philip Cook of Duke University — told our friends at Politifact.com that he has “no idea” whether the “very old number” applies today or not

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

Indy: The shooter in Colorado had the assault weapon with I believe a ‘100 round’ canister clip that allowed him to shoot without any chance of ‘interrupting’ his spree.

Magazines, that's what they're called, can be changed in less than a second. Did you note how many loaded magazines Rodgers had? There's no significant difference, except in the mind of non-shooters, between 10 x 10 round magazines and a 100 round drum magazine. Although the latter isn't OEM and is far more likely to malfunction.


stevehw: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:02 p.m.

hopeful...look, I'm a realist. Did anything change after Columbine? No. Fort Hood? No. Sandy Hook? No. And nothing will change this time, either. Or the next time. Or ANY time.

It's easy to just toss out "better mental health", but what does that MEAN? You can't just arbitrarily run around and throw anyone with any hint of mental problems in a mental ward to keep them from getting guns. And you can't take them away if they have them without some serious intervention and judicial action, etc.

I've never, EVER called for banning guns or "grabbing guns", despite the right-wing rhetoric about "liberal gun-banners" or what have you. But it's going to be awfully hard to turn "we need better mental health care" into something *real* and *effective*, particularly when nobody ever seems to present a comprehensive plan for it. To further make things difficult, the gun lobby has successfully prevented the government from even *studying* gun violence from a mental health (or any other) perspective.

So THAT won't change, either. Which leaves only pie-in-the-sky "better mental health care" slogans. Show me a comprehensive, long-term, nationwide PLAN for how to accomplish that across the board (e.g., suicide is a major element in gun deaths, too), and maybe we can all have a dialogue about it.

As I've also said...the endless, mindless, pointless "war on drugs", although it would reduce gun violence significantly (if Prohibition is any indication) is never going to end, either. No politician is EVER going to vote to end it, since the conservatives would crucify them at election time. That, and it gives the cops *all sorts of reasons* to search, seize, arrest and confiscate property. (I knew cops who actually admitted they didn't care about marijuana, but it was a "great excuse to execute a search"...all they had to do was claim they "smelled marijuana" and BINGO...probable cause!).

So two very big parts of any comprehensive solution to gun violence are off the table.

Which leaves the NRA talking point: More guns! Because apparently, 300,000,000 isn't enough.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:14 p.m.

Steve: "This forum has the WORST editing function EVER."

Yeah. I've learned from experience, and here are my suggestions.


When you're "editing" your comment in that little dinky box, you have to actually do "formatting", too, in the sense that you have to use your "Enter" key to create paragraphs.

The other option I've found effective is to write my comment in a word document, then copy and paste it in.


tech: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:17 p.m.

"hopeful...look, I'm a realist. Did anything change after Columbine? No. Fort Hood? No. Sandy Hook? No. And nothing will change this time, either. Or the next time. Or ANY time."

Armed Security At Schools Increases After Newtown

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/24/armed-security-at-schools_n_3809448.html


BrianBaker: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:20 p.m.

Steve (quoting me):

"'I'm proposing CCWs for ALL law-abiding Americans. The BEST "solution" of all.'

"So, predictably, the answer to gun violence is MORE GUNS.

"Well, hell...why not try it? It's not likely that anything else will change, we might as well go 'all in'. No restrictions. Carry them anywhere...bars, restaurants, schools, government buildings, airports..."


Exactly. Why not? The "experiment" has certainly worked elsewhere, and we're already living in the state with the second most restrictive gun laws in the country, which have been an abject failure.

If restrictive gun laws were the answer, that dude last weekend wouldn't have ever had anything more deadly than a pocket knife at his command.

Gotta say, steve, though I certainly detect the note of frustration in your comment (and who wouldn't?), I appreciate your open mind on the issue.


tech: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:25 p.m.

If you edit a posted comment a second time, all formatting is removed. Posting from my iPad is particularly annoying.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:25 p.m.

PS, steve.

We ALL share your frustration. There's not a single one of us who doesn't wish that gun violence didn't exist here.


stevehw: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:50 p.m.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/26/1298679/-Welcome-to-WalMart-Shoot-1-customer-this-week-get-another-of-equal-lesser-value-FREE-GunFAIL-LXX?showAll=yes

This is a typical list...Daily Kos posts them *every week*. 70 weeks of this so far. And it just goes on and on.

More guns -> more of this.

Now, I admit...idiots who play with guns are idiots, and would probably take themselves out of the gene pool sooner or later. But there are an awful lot of *other* people who get injured and killed by "responsible gun owners" every week, too. And a lot of them are children.

BTW, these are almost always termed "accidental discharge" or "accidental shootings" by the cops. I call them "negligent", as in "negligent homicide", etc.

I don't know about you, but given the utter stupidity of a large chunk of the population, I'm having trouble with the idea that allowing anyone who wants to carry a weapon (concealed or not) is such a grand idea.


stevehw: Posted: May 29, 2014 10:54 p.m.

" The "experiment" has certainly worked elsewhere"

The data on that is debatable, but it's late and I have an early morning meeting. We can talk the stats on that later.

I'm not so much frustrated as just resigned. Resigned to the fact that we, as a society, are basically consigned to accepting 30,000 deaths a year from guns, and the continuing incidents of mass murder. It's cold comfort to a family whose child was killed to say "well, that's just the price we have to pay. 2nd Amendment and all."

But that's really what it comes down to...it's not going to change.


ricketzz: Posted: May 29, 2014 7:51 a.m.

Chef Girl I said nothing about committing someone, beyond a 5150 Observation which I understand is still sufficient to flag a gun purchase in Cali gun stores. Especially if they tend to skip their meds.

tech, I said generally. I know you can blueprint anything into a better target machine; lightweight semi-autos are better suited to pistol-type duty, IMHO. Your YouTube (I have no sound on this computer) is probably the exception that proves my rule. (I could look in my Gun Digest in my large wood case full of books (and LPs at the bottom). Muzzle brakes and flash suppressors don't help accuracy either. Think javelina, rabbit with an AK, an AR or a Mini14. Deer or Sasquatch with your 30 cal long gun. Some ww1 surplus rifles make good hunting guns.


hopeful: Posted: May 29, 2014 8:45 a.m.

Stevenhw wrote:" hopeful...look, I'm a realist. Did anything change after Columbine? No. Fort Hood? No. Sandy Hook? No. And nothing will change this time, either. Or the next time. Or ANY time."

I will remain hopeful...


Indy: Posted: May 29, 2014 1:55 p.m.

Tech wrote: Tech wrote: The irony of Indy posting talking points is amusing. :-D

"• Unfortunately, our current background check system only applies to about 60% of gun sales, leaving 40% (online sales, purchases at gun shows, etc.) without a background check." – Indy

Indy: Yes, I’m sure the parents of the kids…

You just skated over the fact that the unverified talking point that you cut & pasted from the Brady Gun Ban Fans is statistically invalid and out of date.

Indy: Just ask the Father of the kids blown away by the CSBU shooter ‘how out of date’ those statistics are . . .

For me personally, I’m interested in the carnage that we see happening in the ‘here and now’ . . . and how to address it versus demeaning the folks at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ( www.bradycampaign.org/ ) . . .

Tech wrote: Indy: The shooter in Colorado had the assault weapon with I believe a ‘100 round’ canister clip that allowed him to shoot without any chance of ‘interrupting’ his spree.

Magazines, that's what they're called, can be changed in less than a second. Did you note how many loaded magazines Rodgers had? There's no significant difference, except in the mind of non-shooters, between 10 x 10 round magazines and a 100 round drum magazine. Although the latter isn't OEM and is far more likely to malfunction.

Indy: I wonder and am amazed at the minutia you ‘bury yourself’ in as the world goes on right by you . . .

I’m sure that in the hands of a ‘professional’, changing ‘magazines’ can be done quickly. In the hands of a lunatic that is massacring people at a theater, not so much . . .

But the point you miss and I guess want to ignore is the reality that someone with a 100 round capacity ‘magazine’ in a ‘military style assault weapon’ whose only purpose is to ‘KILL PEOPLE’ can pretty much do the deed without any resistance . . . thus the ‘mass killings’.

Do you think the parents at Sandy Hook that have to relive the killing of their kids as the ‘shooter’ with a 30 round ‘magazine’ blew these kids ‘apart’ while the other kids watched in horror . . . are interested in your views on OEMs?

You’re avoidance of the outcomes of your positions is your greatest weakness.


Indy: Posted: May 29, 2014 1:58 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Stevenhw wrote:" hopeful...look, I'm a realist. Did anything change after Columbine? No. Fort Hood? No. Sandy Hook? No. And nothing will change this time, either. Or the next time. Or ANY time."

I will remain hopeful...

Indy: As long as conservatives still feel the ‘need’ to overthrow the US government, there will be no rational approach to addressing the mass killings in America . . .

Permitting the use of military style assault weapons designed to specifically ‘kill in combat’ allow any individual the ability to kill innocents, ‘quickly’, ‘efficiently’, and with ‘deadly accuracy’.

Until the circumstances changes and Americans feel that losing 30,000 or so of their fellow citizens ‘per year’ is too high a price to pay, nothing will change . . .


Indy: Posted: May 29, 2014 2:04 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Hopeful, I'm sure there were plenty of people above college age in Isla Vista who would have qualified for CCWs, and who were present on-site.

In virtually every jurisdiction in which CCW laws have been relaxed to allow any law-abiding citizen to get one violent crime rates have fallen, in some cases dramatically. It’s just a fact, and demonstrates the validity of the concept.

Indy: This ‘fantasy’ about ‘arming’ more people I America is just that, fantasy.

Do you think most Americans walk around looking for ‘shooters’?

And in the ensuing chaos, some ‘wannabe’ ‘hero’ will be able to assess the situation?

Our police are trained in that approach and are ‘on alert’ during their ‘working hours’ and even they find it difficult to quickly assess ‘who is shooting who’ . . .

Even the police themselves don’t want to face ‘military style assault weapons’ . . .

Remember back in the late 1990s in North Hollywood where two robbers came packing military style assault weapons with 100 round ‘magazines’ and what they did? They held off police for some time before being killed by same . . . creating those types of ‘war zones’ has now entered our public schools and theaters since the ‘shooters’ can have the same type of weapons.

In any event, we need ‘less guns’ not more . . .


Indy: Posted: May 29, 2014 2:11 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: Indy, there was an incident, I don't know if you heard about it...The Boston Marathon bombing? A few pressure cookers and some sickos and blam! So yes, people do make bombs. In fact, there have been a few of these loser kids arrested over the years for planning to blow up their school and having bombs or materials for them in their home.

Indy: Yes, people that are ‘trained’ to do so and can get the needed materials including the explosive powder . . .

But where not talking about ‘terrorist’ with political aims, we talking about mentally disturbed people that have easy access to military style assault weapons.

We did see the two shooters in Columbine who brought along ‘gas containers’ but the killing they did was done by military style assault weapons as they ‘executed’ one student after another . . .

chefgirl358 wrote: I fully support gun ownership, semi autos, assault rifles and CCW's. I personally always feel safer with guns around me and would never feel truly safe in a home without them. The fact that over 300 MILLION firearms are owned by Americans pretty much says it all.

Indy: Great, 30,000 or so Americans ‘per year’ that are killed by guns in the US probably just wanted to live out their ‘natural lives’ would disagree with you . . .

And that’s about 1 person killed per every 10,000 guns . . . I guess we should feel ‘lucky’ we don’t happen to be where these shooters are at when they ‘let loose’ . . . with such lethal power.


Indy: Posted: May 29, 2014 2:12 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Chefgirl: "Indy, there was an incident, I don't know if you heard about it...The Boston Marathon bombing? A few pressure cookers and some sickos and blam! So yes, people do make bombs."


Indy (proposed): "Ban kitchen cookware!!!!!"

Indy: I’m not sure if the Father who’s been outspoken after his son was ‘executed’ by a shooter with a semi-auto handgun in Santa Barbara is laughing along with you . . .


Indy: Posted: May 29, 2014 2:20 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "Don’t assume too much . . . these two guys were ‘terrorist’ with ‘connections’ that far exceeded what an average emotionally disturbed loser would have access to."

You are so willing to dismiss anything as long as it doesn't fit into your ideology! What is wrong with you? With a simple google search, ANYONE can find the instructions on how to make a bomb using common household objects.

Indy: No, I’m assessing the situation rationally above and beyond the conservative ideology you seem to be a agreeing to . . .

And yes, by all means do the google search on building bombs and see how fast you ‘appear’ on the FBI list of ‘potential terrorists’.

Haven’t you been reading what Homeland Security and the NSA are doing with the internet?

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: " why did Ronald Reagan cut back mental health services including hospitals when he was Governor?"

Wow, your extreme partisan ideology is showing again...I was way below voting age when Reagan was Governor of California...go ahead and blame me for what Reagan did between 1967-1975... is that really all you got??? Pathetic!

Indy: Sadly, the state has never recovered from this . . . keeping in mind that conservative legislators understand completely that they only need ‘33%+1’ vote to deny any tax increases to properly fund more mental institutions. Did you know that? Here in CA, tax increases need a 2/3s majority . . .

And when we discuss things here, don’t take it so personal . . . what Ronald Reagan did is ‘his legacy' not yours but he followed conservative ideology and is quoted very frequently by today’s conservatives.

And as I noted above, republican legislators feel the slogan ‘no new taxes’ is more important that the consequences of not properly funding government.


Indy: Posted: May 29, 2014 2:24 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Do I even need to answer that? In a state run completely by leftists more concerned with nutjobs' "rights" to run around defecating in the streets than in maintaining any kind of civil order, and more obsessed with banning guns while at the same time granting instant "citizenship' to a massive number of illegal aliens, I am NOT sanguine.

Indy: I also find it amusing but saddening at the same time as conservatives, the ‘champions of liberty’ are so quickly able to dismiss that a person who may be admitted to a mental institution is done so in an appropriate manner.

But notice how this conservative just ignores how his conservative brethren in our state legislature have voted against funding for expanding mental health hospitals?

And it’s somewhat ‘clever’ how a discussion on mental health can see this poster draw in issues of immigration to which his conservative brethren in the House can’t even find a bill to vote on!

Truly pathetic . . .


Indy: Posted: May 29, 2014 2:32 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: Oh, and by the way...do a search for "murder shooting range". Quite a few cases. Quite a lot involving service members or veterans, too, which is odd, since we know they can't be dangerous (you know...gun-owning veterans who believe in God and all that).

Indy: Just as a sidebar about people that were in the military and their use of guns, consider Lee Harvey Oswald, a ‘marksman’ from his military training, took a very inexpensive rifle and killed perhaps one of the most internationally popular US presidents in JFK.

People just can’t fathom and many still don’t believe how just one guy, a former US military soldier, could do such a thing . . .

And let’s not forget Timothy McVeigh, also trained in our military, could take his far right ideology motivations and attack the a ‘Federal Building’ in Oklahoma ( think of the white militia members pointing their weapons at US Marshals in Nevada while serving Clive ‘Let Me Tell You About the Negro’ Bundy tax cheater . . . ) killing FBI personnel and their ‘children’ that were staying in the ‘child care’ area in the building.

In this case, this ‘trained’ soldier did use a ‘bomb’ . . . but that’s apart from these mentally disturbed shooters that have easy access to military style assault weapons.


tech: Posted: May 29, 2014 2:34 p.m.

"Indy: I wonder and am amazed at the minutia you ‘bury yourself’ in as the world goes on right by you . . .

I’m sure that in the hands of a ‘professional’, changing ‘magazines’ can be done quickly. In the hands of a lunatic that is massacring people at a theater, not so much . . . "

Wrong again, Black Knight. I can do it and while experienced, I'm hardly a "professional". Even if it were twice that figure, it's inconsequential from a rate of fire statistic.

That "minutia" you loath is fact to counter your simplistic talking point propaganda you lift from non-expert sources. You really do have no idea of what you're talking about regarding firearms. Stick to what you know, if that amounts to anything.


hopeful: Posted: May 29, 2014 3:01 p.m.

Indy wrote: "And yes, by all means do the google search on building bombs and see how fast you ‘appear’ on the FBI list of ‘potential terrorists’"

I'll let you know when the FBI knocks on my door. Considering this isn't the first time I have googled how to make a bomb, I would think they will be busting down my door any minute...

Now that I think about it, I might have been put on that watch list back in my college days, when I had to write a paper that answered the question, "Has the US supported terrorism against other sovereign nations."

See the difference between me and you, Indy, is that I seek answers by researching and learning from a variety of sources. You, on the other hand, seem to limit your research to what you deem safe, or what fits with your ideology.

I will take my chances...


chefgirl358: Posted: May 29, 2014 4:06 p.m.

Indy, nobody is talking about the fact that this little creep also STABBED THREE people to DEATH! And about 10 or 12 years ago, another little creep in Isla Vista killed several people (remember that? Also a Hollywood producer's kid. Very interesting article in the LA Times the other day drawing comparisons between the two killers) by mowing them all down with his car and announcing to the world that he was the "Angel of Death".

Several of the kids murdered lately, including the ones attacked at a prom, or for not going to the prom or something of that nature, were attacked with knives. Those stories simply don't make the headlines that a shooting does, so why is it any less reprehensible or sensational for killers to use some other form of weapon?

I'm telling you, the key to ending the violence is to stop giving these little creeps attention and press coverage.


ricketzz: Posted: May 30, 2014 6:37 a.m.

One N Hollywood bandit killed himself, the other bled to death for an hour in front of the world. "He may have been boobytrapped".


therightstuff: Posted: May 30, 2014 8:05 a.m.

Indy: """republican legislators feel the slogan ‘no new taxes’ is more important that the consequences of not properly funding government."""

Our government is over $17-trillion in debt and growing every day. The answer of the far-left fringe...we need to spend MORE money!

This is the economic solution when brains are the scarcity.


17trillion: Posted: May 30, 2014 8:40 a.m.

"Our government is over $17-trillion in debt and growing every day. The answer of the far-left fringe...we need to spend MORE money!"

Did someone say 17 trillion?


Indy: Posted: May 30, 2014 2:26 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: I wonder and am amazed at the minutia you ‘bury yourself’ in as the world goes on right by you . . .

I’m sure that in the hands of a ‘professional’, changing ‘magazines’ can be done quickly. In the hands of a lunatic that is massacring people at a theater, not so much . . . "

Wrong again, Black Knight. I can do it and while experienced, I'm hardly a "professional". Even if it were twice that figure, it's inconsequential from a rate of fire statistic.

Indy: Again, you keep ‘making up’ scenarios that simply doesn’t exist in the ‘real world’ . . . and it’s important to note that you make the assumption that these mentally disturbed ‘shooters’ are ‘gun experts’. . . well, let’s again let the guest reader decide.

Tech wrote: That "minutia" you loath is fact to counter your simplistic talking point propaganda you lift from non-expert sources. You really do have no idea of what you're talking about regarding firearms. Stick to what you know, if that amounts to anything.

Indy: It’s sad that conservative ideologues again believe that they narrow view of reality is somehow going to address the problems we face.

And of course, only ‘conservatives’ that advocate guns are out of hand the only ones to use them . . . do you just think that up on your own or do you have a link?

In any event, the public has grown weary of conservatives that fight for the overthrow of the US government though white supremacist conservative militias that you believe can ‘get the job’ done with assault rifles.

That’s the true fantasy you’ve got to come to grips with . . . and I can help you . . . made easier if you reveal your ‘secret’ education!!!


Indy: Posted: May 30, 2014 2:32 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: Indy, nobody is talking about the fact that this little creep also STABBED THREE people to DEATH! And about 10 or 12 years ago, another little creep in Isla Vista killed several people (remember that? Also a Hollywood producer's kid. Very interesting article in the LA Times the other day drawing comparisons between the two killers) by mowing them all down with his car and announcing to the world that he was the "Angel of Death".

Indy: I’ve addressed this . . . and indeed, I’d have a ‘fighting’ chance against a knife holder versus somebody with a military style assault weapon.

You can run away from a knife . . . or at least the ‘thrower’ just gets one chance while the assault rifle holder can shoot you as your run . . . multiple times . . . depending on the ‘magazine’ size.

And indeed, you can kill people by running them down with cars . . . but that’s now even close to the 10,000 murders each year at the hands of gun wielding ‘creeps’.

chefgirl358 wrote: Several of the kids murdered lately, including the ones attacked at a prom, or for not going to the prom or something of that nature, were attacked with knives. Those stories simply don't make the headlines that a shooting does, so why is it any less reprehensible or sensational for killers to use some other form of weapon? I'm telling you, the key to ending the violence is to stop giving these little creeps attention and press coverage.

Indy: I’ve also see mass knife attacks where no one was killed . . .

For me, it’s easy to defend a knife attack than trying to stop bullets that are ‘approaching’ you at ‘thousands of feet per second’.

I do agree that the media is involved and should at least ‘distort’ the pictures of these ‘creeps’ without disclosing their full names . . .


Indy: Posted: May 30, 2014 2:40 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """republican legislators feel the slogan ‘no new taxes’ is more important that the consequences of not properly funding government."""

Our government is over $17-trillion in debt and growing every day. The answer of the far-left fringe...we need to spend MORE money! This is the economic solution when brains are the scarcity.

Indy: I’m going to try a new approach here . . . I’ve grown tired of the ‘tit-for-tat’ barbs that get thrown back and forth . . . even if I’m not sure that’s how many here actually want to be communicated to in that manner . . . or perhaps that the only ‘style of speech’ they grasp . . .

In any event, we can stop running deficits as long as the American people accept ‘less growth’.

We may have to find a means where only ‘one’ person in a family is ‘allowed’ to work in that in today’s economy, even if it slows say 3%, people don’t see 3% of their wages reduced . . .

The adjustment is just layoff one person 100% and they are left without any income at all.

I believe there have been unions in Germany that take votes in that in an economic downturn, every worker works less and no one is laid off . . .

In any event, conservatives promote tax cuts but can’t understand that they produce deficits.

We must stop using ‘taxes’ as an ‘economic growth’ tool since they are only collected to provide ‘services’ that the public demands of government.

And today, with the economy recovering from the 2007 crash, we should start rising taxes or cutting spending . . . since Keynesian policy while appropriate for a recession isn’t appropriate when the recovery is ongoing. . .


Indy: Posted: May 30, 2014 2:50 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "And yes, by all means do the google search on building bombs and see how fast you ‘appear’ on the FBI list of ‘potential terrorists’"

I'll let you know when the FBI knocks on my door. Considering this isn't the first time I have googled how to make a bomb, I would think they will be busting down my door any minute...

Indy: I’m sure they run ‘you’ against various demographic profiles . . . and start their ‘threat assessments’ without contacting you.

And I’m also sure that if you do this infrequently, they probably aren’t putting you on the list.

But again, building weapons isn’t something the casual disturbed person is going to be able to do . . . versus just ‘paying cash’ for a gun.

Hopeful wrote: Now that I think about it, I might have been put on that watch list back in my college days, when I had to write a paper that answered the question, "Has the US supported terrorism against other sovereign nations."

Indy: Yes, just as we saw with Snowden’s disclosure that the congress was failing in its oversight of the NSA, I do remember the ‘Patriot Act’ allows the FBI to search library records on the ‘books’ you check out . . . all for national security mind you . . .

To be honest, I’m not sure how deep this whole thing goes . . . but I don’t search on such topics since I’m not really interested and don’t want the attention.

Hopeful wrote: See the difference between me and you, Indy, is that I seek answers by researching and learning from a variety of sources. You, on the other hand, seem to limit your research to what you deem safe, or what fits with your ideology. I will take my chances...

Indy: Your conservative beliefs and ideology is indeed something that I confront here often but mostly on the merits . . . does what you put forth ‘work or not’ . . .

And you make a lot of assumptions that go beyond what I write . . . many of which are based on your fellow conservatives here assertions and comments, most of them misleading and contrived.

I accept a certain amount of misunderstanding in this ‘forum’ due to the nation of same . . . but do indeed try to explain my positions in posts that are deemed ‘too long’ and I’m mocked for same.

So I’m not sure which way you want it . . . but rather than making your generalized assertions why not stay on topic . . . as you did till your last sentence.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 30, 2014 4:37 p.m.

Indy, it's suspected that the roommates didn't have a fighting chance against being stabbed because they may have been sleeping. In any case, I'm sure that not all stabbing attacks come straight at you, arm raised in the air like the movie Psycho, giving you a few seconds to react. I'm sure many of these attacks are designed to catch people unaware or off guard entirely.

Actually, most people that haven't spent hours each month or quarter for years on end at a shooting range, are usually pretty lousy shots, it's a very perishable skill. You actually have a pretty good chance of not taking a lethal shot by an inexperienced shooter. Hell, even the cops don't kill that many people compared to how many they fire upon and they get constant training. It's very difficult to shoot a moving object, even for an experienced shooter. It's even harder for inexperienced shooters to hit anything at all that they intend to hit. I very seriously doubt that the majority of gunshot wounds are lethal, I'll bet it's the other way around. Knife wounds, depending on the knife, can be just as deadly; a good nick to an artery or organ and you're toast.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 30, 2014 5:45 p.m.

You're talking to Indy about Psycho?



How droll...


stevehw: Posted: May 31, 2014 3:31 p.m.

"Actually, most people that haven't spent hours each month or quarter for years on end at a shooting range, are usually pretty lousy shots, it's a very perishable skill. You actually have a pretty good chance of not taking a lethal shot by an inexperienced shooter. Hell, even the cops don't kill that many people compared to how many they fire upon and they get constant training. It's very difficult to shoot a moving object, even for an experienced shooter. It's even harder for inexperienced shooters to hit anything at all that they intend to hit."

So how does that square with the argument that if more people had guns, they'd be stopping these killing sprees?

I think most people who argue the "if only a good guy had been there with his CCW, he'd have stopped this" have a very unrealistic image in their head, of the brave warrior with his concealed pistol whipping it out and playing cop, then dropping the "perp" with a single shot in an act of uncommon bravery and marksmanship.

You just admitted that most people can't hit he broad side of a barn, even when properly trained, let alone in the mayhem and confusion of an urban mass shooting event.


tech: Posted: May 31, 2014 4:15 p.m.

Let's test that assumption by review of actual events.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx


chefgirl358: Posted: May 31, 2014 6:39 p.m.

Steve, we would still be safer if more people were armed, at least we'd have some sort of recourse / defense and some of those people would likely be decent marksmen. I'd rather have more people armed than fewer, it still makes for much greater odds of taking out a gunman before he can do more damage. Speaking of gunMEN, how come they're always men? There's plenty of twisted chicks but you never hear about any shooting at crowds of strangers.

If any of you want to see something really cool check out www.mollyminute.blogspot.com this is my friend's kid, Molly. She's 17, about 5' tall and maybe 95 lbs soaking wet, and this girl can SHOOT! She's been sponsored by S&W for several years now and goes through about 5,000 rounds per week after school at the range. She's traveled all over the world and teaches kids and adults that there is a hugely positive side to shooting. She's earned a lot of money from competitions and it's going to pay for college, etc. She is sharp as a whip and one of the sweetest, brightest, most driven kid I've ever met in my life.


chefgirl358: Posted: May 31, 2014 6:49 p.m.

Here's a great video of Molly if you want to check it our...

http://home.nra.org/home/video/molly-smith-new-energy/list/home-feature


Indy: Posted: May 31, 2014 8:16 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: Indy, it's suspected that the roommates didn't have a fighting chance against being stabbed because they may have been sleeping. In any case, I'm sure that not all stabbing attacks come straight at you, arm raised in the air like the movie Psycho, giving you a few seconds to react. I'm sure many of these attacks are designed to catch people unaware or off guard entirely.

Indy: Yes, the outcome of a blind side knife attack is perhaps no different that an attack from a gun . . . and an attack from a ‘roommate’ would be hard to anticipate in any scenario.

But somebody coming at me with a knife is far different that somebody that can ‘standoff’ with a military style assault weapon who can just start firing . . . and I can’t outrun bullets.

chefgirl358 wrote: Actually, most people that haven't spent hours each month or quarter for years on end at a shooting range, are usually pretty lousy shots, it's a very perishable skill. You actually have a pretty good chance of not taking a lethal shot by an inexperienced shooter.

Indy: That’s why ‘machine guns’ or ‘semi-auto’ weapons allow the shooter multiple chances of killing you . . . that’s why no teacher was able to defend against the killer of those elementary school kids . . . I’m not sure anyone is about to charge a shooter with an assault rifle that is firing away . . .

chefgirl358 wrote: Hell, even the cops don't kill that many people compared to how many they fire upon and they get constant training. It's very difficult to shoot a moving object, even for an experienced shooter. It's even harder for inexperienced shooters to hit anything at all that they intend to hit. I very seriously doubt that the majority of gunshot wounds are lethal, I'll bet it's the other way around. Knife wounds, depending on the knife, can be just as deadly; a good nick to an artery or organ and you're toast.

Indy: Sadly, the ‘shooters’ with military style assault weapons do kill lots of people . . . just like the shoorter in Santa Bargara with a ‘semi-auto’ handgun.


Indy: Posted: May 31, 2014 8:20 p.m.

stevehw wrote: You just admitted that most people can't hit he broad side of a barn, even when properly trained, let alone in the mayhem and confusion of an urban mass shooting event.

Indy: That’s what frightens me the most . . . is having a bunch of ‘Zimmermans’ running around with guns when the ‘shooting starts’ and having them decide who’s the villain and who just happens to ‘be there’.

In any event, the gun advocates here live in a sort of ‘wild west fantasyland’ where they can run scenarios in the ‘safety of their own homes’ . . . versus having to ‘face the reality’ of a ‘real shooter’, one deranged with a weapon designed to kill people ‘quickly’, ‘efficiently’ and ‘deadly’.


tech: Posted: May 31, 2014 8:44 p.m.

Indy: That’s what frightens me the most . . .

Fear based on what? Where is the data?

Here's a map showing the green "shall issue" concealed carry weapon permits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_State_Concealed_Carry.png --edited.


tech: Posted: May 31, 2014 8:56 p.m.

Cool video of Molly, chefgirl!

To your point, I found the NRA Women featured "First Trip to the Range" video very useful for introducing my son's girlfriend to the shooting sports last weekend.

http://www.nrawomen.tv/home/video/episode-1-first-trip-to-the-range/list/featured-videos

I'm pleased to report that after safety orientation and a bit of coaching, she knocked down a steel target at 21 ft with her first shot!

The answer to fear is knowledge. :-)


chefgirl358: Posted: June 1, 2014 11:36 p.m.

Indy, almost ALL handguns that aren't revolvers are semi auto, are you suggesting we all return to single shot black powder or what? Semi auto is a far cry from fully auto which are illegal in CA.


chefgirl358: Posted: June 1, 2014 11:38 p.m.

Tech, Nice:).

Great job. We taught our daughter in law to shoot a few years back too. It was fun for the whole fam.


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 3, 2014 4:53 p.m.

My middle son was never very good at video games. His brothers, one older and one younger, always beat the tar out of him at Call of Duty and other shoot-em-ups.

Then, I taught him to shoot. Apparently, the calm, collected hand of a true marksman does not come out in these dumb video games. His brothers cannot touch him in either skeet or rifle (any range). He is the best shot in our family.

And his confidence grew. And he respects guns and is safe around them.


ricketzz: Posted: June 4, 2014 7:31 a.m.

We need a 10' seawall from Boston to Brownsville and you people are once again playing bean bag with unsolvable issues. Very shiny. Yeah.


tech: Posted: June 4, 2014 10:06 a.m.

Cool story, AR. No doubt it was rather satisfying for him to master a real skill that will last him a lifetime.


stevehw: Posted: June 5, 2014 4:30 p.m.

Well, that didn't take long:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/multiple-people-shot-campus-seattle-pacific-university-n124046


tech: Posted: June 5, 2014 7:58 p.m.

Of course. It's a "gun free" zone, remember?

"13. Possession, use or display on University property of any firearms, weapons, fireworks, live ammunition, incendiary devices, or other items that are potentially hazardous to members of the campus community."

http://www.spu.edu/acad/UGCatalog/20101/GeneralInfo/StudentLife/standards.asp#lifestyle

Now we'll have a parade of simpletons and opportunists calling for a ban on shotguns while disregarding the knife (according to one account I read). The media frenzy will inspire the next loon, ad nauseum.


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 6, 2014 9:54 a.m.

Mexico. No one seems to talk about our neighbors to the south. Guns are illegal down there. Drug gangs run rampant in the border towns. Trucks are routinely hi-jacked on the roads. People kidnapped in the streets. And the federales are powerless to stop them.

How would the landscape look with ordinary folks packing guns down there? Yes, there would be a spike in violence as the bad guys got "sorted out". But, long term, the good guys would begin to get things back under control.


ricketzz: Posted: June 7, 2014 7:31 a.m.

AR. The new government is authorizing citizen vigilante groups in Mexico.


stevehw: Posted: June 7, 2014 12:34 p.m.

Yeah, that's going to go well.


tech: Posted: June 7, 2014 12:57 p.m.

Surely being on the receiving end of extortion and murder via Mexican Drug cartels is a more peaceful life. No need to lose your head, eh? </sarcasm>


ricketzz: Posted: June 8, 2014 7:00 a.m.

I disagree. They call it the War on Drugs. In Mexico they take it literally.

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-michoacan-20140115-story.html#axzz2qOT64pCe

There are plenty of nice places in Mexico. Some nights El Paso is as deadly as C. Juarez. (When I lived in Houston I shakily remember that in 1976, we were more dangerous than Beirut, a city in a civil war.) The corrupt should fear vigilantes, because the courts look the other way.


CaptGene: Posted: June 8, 2014 9:46 a.m.

cricketzz: "...When I lived in Houston I shakily remember that in 1976, we were more dangerous than Beirut..."

I know this is a fools errand, but, source?


tech: Posted: June 8, 2014 3:30 p.m.

When ricketzz was in Beirut dispensing revolutionary street justice he shakily recalled storming the Bastille…


Indy: Posted: June 8, 2014 8:02 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: Indy, almost ALL handguns that aren't revolvers are semi auto, are you suggesting we all return to single shot black powder or what? Semi auto is a far cry from fully auto which are illegal in CA.

Indy: Don’t we have ‘six shooters’ for handguns?

Why would you need a ‘semi auto’ handgun?

And how does removing ‘semi auto’ weapons move us back to ‘single shot black powder’?

Many hunting rifles hold at least 5 rounds but they are manually loaded.

Shot guns the same type of limitation as well as the ‘Winchester’ type rifles.

Semi auto weapons in the hands of a ‘malcontent’ give them total power over any innocents that happen to run into them on a ‘killing spree’.

We saw recently where a shooter had to reload his shot gun giving a bystander the ability to intercede and subdue the shooter. Only one person was killed.

With semi auto militarized assault weapons like the AR15, now with ‘100 round magazines’, can literally kill as many people as they choose and nobody can intercede unless the gun jams.

As we saw with the malcontent that killed the kids at Sandy Hook Elementary, he used ’30 round magazines’ and executed tens of kids plus teachers. He only stopped when he killed himself.

And for the semi auto handguns the malcontent that show Gabby Gifford was ‘subdued’ when he had to change his magazine . . . but was still able to kill or harm many people.

So what are uses of a semi auto rifles?

Is that worth the potential mass murders that have been occurring in the US with scary regularity.

If your child was gunned down with a militarized weapon, would that effect your view point? I know the Father of one of the kids killed at UCSB was apathetic after Sandy Hook and only became ‘involved’ when his own son was killed. Is that the general feeling of the public, if it’s not my kid, who cares?


CaptGene: Posted: June 8, 2014 8:07 p.m.

Breathtaking ignorance.


stevehw: Posted: June 8, 2014 8:13 p.m.

And again:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/08/justice/las-vegas-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Two of the victims were "good guys with guns", too. And there are some reports the third victim was also a "good guy with a gun" (CCW).

Another day, another incident. Same old, same old.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 12:04 p.m.

Yep.

"A shopper, Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, of Las Vegas had a concealed weapon and decided to confront Jerad Miller, police said. As he walked toward the suspect, Amanda Miller came up behind him and shot him several times in the ribs, police said. "


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 2:37 p.m.

And, surprise, surprise...looks like the murderers were part of that "militia" at the Bundy stand-off deal.

<snark> SO glad the feds decided to back down to avoid violence. </snark>

Maybe next time, they'll take seriously people who threaten federal agents and point guns at them, etc., and respond appropriately.


AlwaysRight: Posted: June 9, 2014 2:42 p.m.

Why do armed citizens immediately turn into "armed vigilante groups"? All of my neighbors are armed and we don't turn into a pack of hyenas at night looking to something to kill.

(although, the thought sounds rather appealing....)


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 3:00 p.m.

steve: "...looks like the murderers were part of that "militia" at the Bundy stand-off deal."

"...the militiamen shunned the couple because Jerad Miller had prior felony convictions in Washington State."

steve, seriously, do you ever read past the first sentence?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/09/interior-secretary-jewell-connects-las-vegas-shooting-to-bundy-ranch/

Oh, and steve, if Bergdahl is an "alleged" deserter, then why aren't these people "alleged" murderers? Rhetorical question, we all know the answer. --edited.


stevehw: Posted: June 9, 2014 3:31 p.m.

"...the militiamen shunned the couple because Jerad Miller had prior felony convictions in Washington State."

And there he was, big as life, being interviewed during the Bundy ranch event, right there on the TeeVee machine.

I'm sure they "shunned" him...NOW. Not so sure about then, but we'll see what the facts are. In any case, HE certainly wanted to be associated with THEM.

And yes, you're right...he's an alleged murderer, although we certainly have more facts on these two than on the other guy.


CaptGene: Posted: June 9, 2014 3:54 p.m.

Nice to see you can throttle back the hypocrisy when it's pointed out to you.

"...we certainly have more facts on these two than on the other guy."

You crack me up.


stevehw: Posted: June 10, 2014 11:00 a.m.

And...again:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/oregon-high-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

What's that, about 2 days between events like this on average now?


CaptGene: Posted: June 10, 2014 4:54 p.m.

Hmm, Another shooting in a gun free zone. Maybe the killers weren't aware that it was illegal to have a gun on campus, surely if they were they would never have done such a thing.

My sympathies to the families affected.


stevehw: Posted: June 10, 2014 8:52 p.m.

Doesn't seem to matter if it's a "gun-free zone" or a place where cops eat lunch, does it?

You want teachers to carry guns? OK, say I'm intent on killing people at a school. First thing I do? Kill the teachers.

Cops in schools? Same thing...kill the school cop first, then anyone else who may have a gun.

Doesn't matter, really...this will just keep happening, as I've said so many times. Just the price parents have to pay for the 2nd Amendment.


CaptGene: Posted: June 11, 2014 9:40 p.m.

steve: "Doesn't seem to matter if it's a "gun-free zone" or a place where cops eat lunch, does it?"

Exactly. So why bother with the gun-free nonsense?

If you have a solution, I'd love to hear it. So far, all I've heard is lamenting the fact that this happens. Suggestions?


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 8:41 a.m.

I told you before. There is nothing that can be done, because we will not change our culture and/or the Constitution. The politicians are too afraid of the right-wing RKBA fringe and the NRA to do anything even the least bit meaningful or effective. We won't end the idiotic "war" on drugs, which is a huge contributor to the violence.

Everyone will spout platitudes (like you just did: "sympathies to the family"), but then will shrug their shoulders, accept the latest killings as "just the price you have to pay" or "sometimes bad things happen", and forget about it.

It's like the anti-marriage equality folks who somehow come around to a different point of view when it turns out someone in their immediate family is gay...nobody *really* cares about gun violence or mass murder unless and until it happens to someone in their family. Then, it's a different story.


CaptGene: Posted: June 11, 2014 10:14 a.m.

steve: "There is nothing that can be done..."

Glad to see you've come around, it shows some growth on your part. So, do you also agree that these ridiculous "gun free zones" and all the other feel good nonsense should stop?


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 10:45 a.m.

Well, the "gun free zones" don't appear to do any good, do they? Might as well get rid of them, since we seem to continue to have children killed at school.

If you want to be specific, rather than just tossing out a generic "feel good 'nonsense'" claim, please do, and I'll address it.

In any case, heck, why not just get rid of ALL gun restrictions, and let's see how it goes?

I'm waiting for the first case of some CCW permit holder killing one of these nutjob "open carry" types who thinks it's cool to walk into stores and restaurants carrying rifles and such! THAT is going to be fun to watch!


CaptGene: Posted: June 11, 2014 11:27 a.m.

Your hyperbole is underwhelming.


tech: Posted: June 11, 2014 7:14 p.m.

"Well, the "gun free zones" don't appear to do any good, do they? Might as well get rid of them, since we seem to continue to have children killed at school."

Indeed. Fortunately, 2 armed school resource officers confronted the shooter, limiting the loss of life.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-oregon-school-shooter-20140611-story.html --edited.


stevehw: Posted: June 11, 2014 7:46 p.m.

Hmmmm...I thought I read that the shooter in that case shot himself...


tech: Posted: June 12, 2014 1:41 p.m.

Yes, the news story relayed that occurred after exchanging fire with the resource officers. With the multiple weapons and supply of ammo detailed, do you think the shooter would have limited himself to 1 murder and 1 wounded without confrontation?

As I've previously noted, frequently perpetrators of these mass attack attempts self-terminate when they meet armed resistance. --edited.


dnstern2: Posted: July 6, 2014 2:34 p.m.

I wish to say that I don’t agree with your article of June 1st, but I would support your right to say it to the death. I write because I am disturbed about the events that I see going on around me.
Wikipedia says, “The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult staff members.[5][6] Prior to driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home.[8][11][12] As first responders arrived at the scene, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.
The incident was the deadliest mass shooting at a high school or grade school in U.S. history and the second-deadliest mass shooting by a single person in U.S. history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.[13][14][15]
The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, including proposals for making the background-check system universal, and for new federal and state legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition.[16][17]
A November 2013 report issued by the Connecticut State Attorney's office concluded that Lanza acted alone and planned his actions, but no evidence collected provided any indication as to why he did so, or why he targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School.”
I believe Adam Lanza picked Sandy Hook Elementary School because he knew no one would be shooting back at him. Clearly there was no armed guard to meet him and to radio for help. I suspect that the school had never anticipated the attack that it suffered. This was a cowardly, and dastardly attack on innocent people.
Based on a survey conducted by the School Effectiveness Network.
“72.4% of educators say they would be unlikely to bring a firearm to school if they were allowed to do so. 36.3% of educators surveyed report owning a firearm, 37.1% of whom say they would be likely or very likely to bring it to school if allowed.”
The Rampage in Isla Vista occurred off campus. Elliot Rodgers used a knife, guns, and his car to kill seven people and maim thirteen other people. None of these acts of violence occurred at the school. All of the acts occurred in proximity to the school. The local Sheriff Department sent Deputies to speak with Elliot Rodgers and they thought he was competent. When in fact he probably should have been taken in for observation.

The state of Texas has long had an open carry of firearms law on the books. In some instances private citizens using a firearm have thwarted criminal acts that were in progress. These acts saved lives and property.
I suspect that over time the Georgia guns everywhere law will act as a deterrent to those who would use a firearm on defenseless people.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...