7 dead, 7 wounded in Santa Barbara shooting rampage

3_Octave_Fart · May 29, 2014

Lanza sends a shiver down my spine, every time. And that's one of his more benign visages.

Boom_70 · May 29, 2014

Smallpotatoes said:

old_tony said:

Baron Scicluna said:

old_tony said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

JayFarrar said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

1). Who are you to say what's acceptable grieving behavior and what isn't? There is no "acceptable grieving behavior."
2). "Shall not be infringed" does not mean anybody can own any weapon they want and take it anywhere they want, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

-

3_Octave_Fart · May 29, 2014

jr/shotglass said:

.
Click to expand...

The sum of your critical thinking.

Smallpotatoes · May 29, 2014

Boom_70 said:

Smallpotatoes said:

old_tony said:

Baron Scicluna said:

old_tony said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

JayFarrar said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

1). Who are you to say what's acceptable grieving behavior and what isn't? There is no "acceptable grieving behavior."
2). "Shall not be infringed" does not mean anybody can own any weapon they want and take it anywhere they want, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

-
Click to expand...

Yes?

Boom_70 · May 29, 2014

Smallpotatoes said:

Boom_70 said:

Smallpotatoes said:

old_tony said:

Baron Scicluna said:

old_tony said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

JayFarrar said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

1). Who are you to say what's acceptable grieving behavior and what isn't? There is no "acceptable grieving behavior."
2). "Shall not be infringed" does not mean anybody can own any weapon they want and take it anywhere they want, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

-
Click to expand...

Yes?
Click to expand...

.

BDC99 · May 29, 2014

This is why we can't have nice things/threads.

old_tony · May 29, 2014

Boom_70 said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

outofplace said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

JayFarrar said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

When a child is murdered, some parents lash out. Some go catatonic. Some drink themselves to death.

He's trying to cope with an amount of grief that you and I can't begin to understand.
Click to expand...

And some go on MSNBC
Click to expand...

... five times a day.

old_tony · May 29, 2014

BDC99 said:

Tony, Martinez's father is not "grandstanding," and it is incredibly insensitive to say he is using his son's death for political gain. He is angry and distraught that he lost his son, and he did initially describe his son and the depth of his loss. I disagree with him blaming the politicians and the NRA, but he is just lashing out because his son is a victim and we have all seen it way too many times the past several years. But at the same time, Rodger purchased all the guns legally, as is his right, and there is no one to blame in this case except the mentally ill shooter. Some might blame the authorities for their failure to see it coming after it was called to their attention, but it doesn't seem there was much they could do at the time. Sometimes it's just a tragedy. But I can't blame Martinez for any comments he makes. He has the right to grieve any way he wants, and he hopes he can make a difference in the name of his son. It will pass, and everyone who has a right to own a gun will still have that right.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a respectful and thoughtful comment. We can disagree about some things, but you just raised the level of discourse here and (if it means anything to you) my level of respect for you.

Boom_70 · May 29, 2014

old_tony said:

Boom_70 said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

outofplace said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

Inky_Wretch said:

old_tony said:

JayFarrar said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

When a child is murdered, some parents lash out. Some go catatonic. Some drink themselves to death.

He's trying to cope with an amount of grief that you and I can't begin to understand.
Click to expand...

And some go on MSNBC
Click to expand...

... five times a day.
Click to expand...

The Fred Goldman school of grieving

outofplace · May 29, 2014

old_tony said:

BDC99 said:

Tony, Martinez's father is not "grandstanding," and it is incredibly insensitive to say he is using his son's death for political gain. He is angry and distraught that he lost his son, and he did initially describe his son and the depth of his loss. I disagree with him blaming the politicians and the NRA, but he is just lashing out because his son is a victim and we have all seen it way too many times the past several years. But at the same time, Rodger purchased all the guns legally, as is his right, and there is no one to blame in this case except the mentally ill shooter. Some might blame the authorities for their failure to see it coming after it was called to their attention, but it doesn't seem there was much they could do at the time. Sometimes it's just a tragedy. But I can't blame Martinez for any comments he makes. He has the right to grieve any way he wants, and he hopes he can make a difference in the name of his son. It will pass, and everyone who has a right to own a gun will still have that right.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a respectful and thoughtful comment. We can disagree about some things, but you just raised the level of discourse here and (if it means anything to you) my level of respect for you.
Click to expand...

That should leave you deeply disturbed and worried, BDC.

BDC99 · May 29, 2014

old_tony said:

BDC99 said:

Tony, Martinez's father is not "grandstanding," and it is incredibly insensitive to say he is using his son's death for political gain. He is angry and distraught that he lost his son, and he did initially describe his son and the depth of his loss. I disagree with him blaming the politicians and the NRA, but he is just lashing out because his son is a victim and we have all seen it way too many times the past several years. But at the same time, Rodger purchased all the guns legally, as is his right, and there is no one to blame in this case except the mentally ill shooter. Some might blame the authorities for their failure to see it coming after it was called to their attention, but it doesn't seem there was much they could do at the time. Sometimes it's just a tragedy. But I can't blame Martinez for any comments he makes. He has the right to grieve any way he wants, and he hopes he can make a difference in the name of his son. It will pass, and everyone who has a right to own a gun will still have that right.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a respectful and thoughtful comment. We can disagree about some things, but you just raised the level of discourse here and (if it means anything to you) my level of respect for you.
Click to expand...

Nah, oop. I appreciate it. I just wish everyone could find more of a middle ground on things. It doesn't have to be so black/white.

outofplace · May 29, 2014

BDC99 said:

old_tony said:

BDC99 said:

Tony, Martinez's father is not "grandstanding," and it is incredibly insensitive to say he is using his son's death for political gain. He is angry and distraught that he lost his son, and he did initially describe his son and the depth of his loss. I disagree with him blaming the politicians and the NRA, but he is just lashing out because his son is a victim and we have all seen it way too many times the past several years. But at the same time, Rodger purchased all the guns legally, as is his right, and there is no one to blame in this case except the mentally ill shooter. Some might blame the authorities for their failure to see it coming after it was called to their attention, but it doesn't seem there was much they could do at the time. Sometimes it's just a tragedy. But I can't blame Martinez for any comments he makes. He has the right to grieve any way he wants, and he hopes he can make a difference in the name of his son. It will pass, and everyone who has a right to own a gun will still have that right.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a respectful and thoughtful comment. We can disagree about some things, but you just raised the level of discourse here and (if it means anything to you) my level of respect for you.
Click to expand...

Nah, oop. I appreciate it. I just wish everyone could find more of a middle ground on things. It doesn't have to be so black/white.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement on this thread. Kincannon's verbal attack on not only a grieving father, but also one of the victims is not one of those areas. It is a truly despicable act and tony has disgraced himself by siding with the Kincannon.

Log in or Sign up

7 dead, 7 wounded in Santa Barbara shooting rampage

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

BDC99 Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

BDC99 Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

7 dead, 7 wounded in Santa Barbara shooting rampage

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

BDC99 Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

BDC99 Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches