7 dead, 7 wounded in Santa Barbara shooting rampage

[Stoney]

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.

There is absolutely nothing "senseless" about thinking that our gun laws should move closer to those of every other industrialized first world nation. You know the ones that DON'T have this perpetual "senseless" mass murder problem and have murder rates far lower than our own?

Christ, you make it sound like the dad is blaming puppies and calling for the elimination of the right to go to school. That ain't the case, and there's nothing irrational or particularly radical about his views. They're ones also supported by a large percentage of our population, and to the extent he's pointed the finger at anyone, it's folks who absolutely do bear responsibilty for preventing gun law reform and making it easier for tragedies like this to happen.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I asked this of the anti-gun crowd a few pages ago and still haven't gotten an answer:

What as-yet-passed gun restriction would have saved the lives of this idiot's three roommates had it been already been law?

 

[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.

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.

And before that, drunk driving was a Constitutional right? Because it would have to have been for your comparison to be valid.

 

[outofplace]

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.

Tony doesn't care about decency. Nobody who dares to question his beloved GOP deserves decency.

 

[outofplace]

I asked this of the anti-gun crowd a few pages ago and still haven't gotten an answer:

What as-yet-passed gun restriction would have saved the lives of this idiot's three roommates had it been already been law?

I thought somebody did answer you, but you just didn't like the answer.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I asked this of the anti-gun crowd a few pages ago and still haven't gotten an answer:

What as-yet-passed gun restriction would have saved the lives of this idiot's three roommates had it been already been law?

None. Tighter laws only would have saved the lives of three people in this case, and saved several others from being wounded.

Happy?

 

[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.

And before that, drunk driving was a Constitutional right? Because it would have to have been for your comparison to be valid.

So you're not bothered by gun control laws, you're just bothered that it's not through the Constitution. I assume you would be in favor of all the gun control measures if only they were done by Constitutional amendment.

 

[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.

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.

Tony doesn't care about decency. Nobody who dares to question his beloved GOP deserves decency.

I care greatly about decency. That's why I've been calling out Mr. Martinez for his indecent attacks of people who had nothing to do with his son's death.

 

[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.

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.

And before that, drunk driving was a Constitutional right? Because it would have to have been for your comparison to be valid.

So you're not bothered by gun control laws, you're just bothered that it's not through the Constitution. I assume you would be in favor of all the gun control measures if only they were done by Constitutional amendment.

Spoons make you fat.

 

[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.

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.

Tony doesn't care about decency. Nobody who dares to question his beloved GOP deserves decency.

I care greatly about decency. That's why I've been calling out Mr. Martinez for his indecent attacks of people who had nothing to do with his son's death.

President Obama had nothing to do with the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi. Yet, there are plenty of people who blame him for those deaths. Are those critics indecent?

 

[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.

And before that, drunk driving was a Constitutional right? Because it would have to have been for your comparison to be valid.

So you're not bothered by gun control laws, you're just bothered that it's not through the Constitution. I assume you would be in favor of all the gun control measures if only they were done by Constitutional amendment.

Spoons make you fat.

Sloganeering. Do better.

 

[RubberSoul1979]

forktard Opinion of the Rampage: Joe the Plumber

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/27/joe-the-plumber-the-real-victim-of-santa-barbara-shootings-would-be-me-losing-my-guns/