7 dead, 7 wounded in Santa Barbara shooting rampage

[Boom_70]

Instructive here is the contention that someone who has suffered a loss is not permitted to advocate for a change to keep others from suffering the same loss.

A mom who loses a child in a drunk driving accident, could not start a Mothers Against Drunk Driving or speak out against drunk driving because that would make them attention whores standing on the body of their dead child to keep [me] from being able to get a drink.

It is an interesting argument and I think it is largely in reaction to how successful the grieved are in making a change.

Also instructive here is the apparently common belief that if you lose a family member to some sort of criminal activity, you become infallible and are allowed to blame all kinds of people who had nothing to do with the crime and you are also allowed to call for the elimination of rights for millions and millions of law-abiding citizens. And anyone who dares to have the common-sense position that you shouldn't be blaming the wrong people and calling for the elimination of basic Constitutional rights for the law-abiding is to be threatened with violence and called all kinds of things in personal attacks.

It's possible to disagree with the father but do so in a manner that respects his grieving process.

Not when the "grieving process" attacks people who had nothing to do with the crime and calls for the senseless elimination of rights for law-abiding people who, again, also had nothing to do with the crime.

It's like having a family member killed by a drunk driver who had 15 vodka/Red Bulls and then blaming General Motors.

Have you lost a kid? Have you buried a murdered child? I haven't. I can't imagine how I would cope with it. Therefore, I give the father a pass. It's the decent thing to do.

Instead of using him, the cable news programs should help the father who can't help
himself and not put him on.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Instructive here is the contention that someone who has suffered a loss is not permitted to advocate for a change to keep others from suffering the same loss.

A mom who loses a child in a drunk driving accident, could not start a Mothers Against Drunk Driving or speak out against drunk driving because that would make them attention whores standing on the body of their dead child to keep [me] from being able to get a drink.

It is an interesting argument and I think it is largely in reaction to how successful the grieved are in making a change.

Bingo.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Instructive here is the contention that someone who has suffered a loss is not permitted to advocate for a change to keep others from suffering the same loss.

A mom who loses a child in a drunk driving accident, could not start a Mothers Against Drunk Driving or speak out against drunk driving because that would make them attention whores standing on the body of their dead child to keep [me] from being able to get a drink.

It is an interesting argument and I think it is largely in reaction to how successful the grieved are in making a change.

Also instructive here is the apparently common belief that if you lose a family member to some sort of criminal activity, you become infallible and are allowed to blame all kinds of people who had nothing to do with the crime and you are also allowed to call for the elimination of rights for millions and millions of law-abiding citizens. And anyone who dares to have the common-sense position that you shouldn't be blaming the wrong people and calling for the elimination of basic Constitutional rights for the law-abiding is to be threatened with violence and called all kinds of things in personal attacks.

It's possible to disagree with the father but do so in a manner that respects his grieving process.

Not when the "grieving process" attacks people who had nothing to do with the crime and calls for the senseless elimination of rights for law-abiding people who, again, also had nothing to do with the crime.

It's like having a family member killed by a drunk driver who had 15 vodka/Red Bulls and then blaming General Motors.

No, it's like having a family member killed by a drunk driver who had 15 vodka/Red Bullsmand then blaming the alcohol industry for not even being willing to pass a law prohibiting drunken driving because they claim that drunk drivers don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[old_tony]

Instructive here is the contention that someone who has suffered a loss is not permitted to advocate for a change to keep others from suffering the same loss.

A mom who loses a child in a drunk driving accident, could not start a Mothers Against Drunk Driving or speak out against drunk driving because that would make them attention whores standing on the body of their dead child to keep [me] from being able to get a drink.

It is an interesting argument and I think it is largely in reaction to how successful the grieved are in making a change.

Also instructive here is the apparently common belief that if you lose a family member to some sort of criminal activity, you become infallible and are allowed to blame all kinds of people who had nothing to do with the crime and you are also allowed to call for the elimination of rights for millions and millions of law-abiding citizens. And anyone who dares to have the common-sense position that you shouldn't be blaming the wrong people and calling for the elimination of basic Constitutional rights for the law-abiding is to be threatened with violence and called all kinds of things in personal attacks.

It's possible to disagree with the father but do so in a manner that respects his grieving process.

Not when the "grieving process" attacks people who had nothing to do with the crime and calls for the senseless elimination of rights for law-abiding people who, again, also had nothing to do with the crime.

It's like having a family member killed by a drunk driver who had 15 vodka/Red Bulls and then blaming General Motors.

No, it's like having a family member killed by a drunk driver who had 15 vodka/Red Bullsmand then blaming the alcohol industry for not even being willing to pass a law prohibiting drunken driving because they claim that drunk drivers don't kill people, people kill people.

Please tell me about all these states that don't have drunk-driving laws.

Or, failing that, please tell me why you're comparing drunk driving to a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[DeskMonkey1]

Beating smallpotatoes to the punch...

Well known conservative:

Exene Cervenka, singer for the 80′s punk icons X, just upset a whole mess of people this afternoon (May 28) with a series of tweets aimed at exposing last week's Santa Barbara shooting as a hoax.

The 58-year-old frontwoman has added herself to the list of "truthers" who believe Elliot Rodger was just another bad actor in a long line of well-produced hoaxes, which include the Boston Marathon bombings and the attack on the World Trade Center.

Calling herself a "Conspiracy Therapist," Cervenka digs into Elliot Rodger's videos and various news reports in order to find incongruities.

Several videos added to her YouTube channel playlist today that back up the theory that Rodgers manifesto videos were filmed in a studio. "No one died and no one got hurt. The story is 100% fabricated from start to finish," claims one YouTube truther.

Cervenka believes Rodger's killing spree along with the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting were designed to force stricter gun control laws ultimately leaving citizens defenseless against the government.

http://kroq.cbslocal.com/2014/05/28/xs-exene-cervenka-claims-santa-barbara-shooting-was-a-hoax/

Ouch. I'm a big X fan. Exene's always been kind of nuts, but that's disheartening.

Isn't that the band that did the Wild Thing remake for Major League 2?

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Beating smallpotatoes to the punch...

Well known conservative:

Exene Cervenka, singer for the 80′s punk icons X, just upset a whole mess of people this afternoon (May 28) with a series of tweets aimed at exposing last week's Santa Barbara shooting as a hoax.

The 58-year-old frontwoman has added herself to the list of "truthers" who believe Elliot Rodger was just another bad actor in a long line of well-produced hoaxes, which include the Boston Marathon bombings and the attack on the World Trade Center.

Calling herself a "Conspiracy Therapist," Cervenka digs into Elliot Rodger's videos and various news reports in order to find incongruities.

Several videos added to her YouTube channel playlist today that back up the theory that Rodgers manifesto videos were filmed in a studio. "No one died and no one got hurt. The story is 100% fabricated from start to finish," claims one YouTube truther.

Cervenka believes Rodger's killing spree along with the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting were designed to force stricter gun control laws ultimately leaving citizens defenseless against the government.

http://kroq.cbslocal.com/2014/05/28/xs-exene-cervenka-claims-santa-barbara-shooting-was-a-hoax/

Ouch. I'm a big X fan. Exene's always been kind of nuts, but that's disheartening.

Isn't that the band that did the Wild Thing remake for Major League 2?

They did.

 

[doctorquant]

Just a general point ... would it be too much for the board to move beyond the "I can't believe you're comparing X to Y" b.s.? I think we're all capable of recognizing that there's a mutatis mutandis facet to pretty much any analogy being made 'round here. As a token of my good faith in floating this proposal, I forswear commenting on the quality of any analogies being drawn by anyone* from this moment forward.

*And believe me, in some cases this is going to take a Herculean effort. See, there I went comparing myself to Hercules. I can't believe I did that!

 

[jr/shotglass]

.

and

.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Instructive here is the contention that someone who has suffered a loss is not permitted to advocate for a change to keep others from suffering the same loss.

A mom who loses a child in a drunk driving accident, could not start a Mothers Against Drunk Driving or speak out against drunk driving because that would make them attention whores standing on the body of their dead child to keep [me] from being able to get a drink.

It is an interesting argument and I think it is largely in reaction to how successful the grieved are in making a change.

Also instructive here is the apparently common belief that if you lose a family member to some sort of criminal activity, you become infallible and are allowed to blame all kinds of people who had nothing to do with the crime and you are also allowed to call for the elimination of rights for millions and millions of law-abiding citizens. And anyone who dares to have the common-sense position that you shouldn't be blaming the wrong people and calling for the elimination of basic Constitutional rights for the law-abiding is to be threatened with violence and called all kinds of things in personal attacks.

It's possible to disagree with the father but do so in a manner that respects his grieving process.

Not when the "grieving process" attacks people who had nothing to do with the crime and calls for the senseless elimination of rights for law-abiding people who, again, also had nothing to do with the crime.

It's like having a family member killed by a drunk driver who had 15 vodka/Red Bulls and then blaming General Motors.

No, it's like having a family member killed by a drunk driver who had 15 vodka/Red Bullsmand then blaming the alcohol industry for not even being willing to pass a law prohibiting drunken driving because they claim that drunk drivers don't kill people, people kill people.

Please tell me about all these states that don't have drunk-driving laws.

Or, failing that, please tell me why you're comparing drunk driving to a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

Thank you for making my point. Why are there drunk driving laws? Because enough people decided that there was a problem. And even then, there are groups opposed to lowering the limit further:

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/2014/05/23/lower-drunk-driving-limit/9508293/

Meanwhile, gun rights people don't think there's a problem. They've fought every single measure, even common sense ones like background checks.

 

[jr/shotglass]

~~

 

[JC]

.

 

[SoCalDude]

Paddle-out last night.

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2014/05/ucsb_students_paddle_out.php