Quantcast

Liberal Logic: When Liberals Commit Mass Murder, It’s the NRA’s Fault

Screen Shot 2014-05-27 at 10.37.19 AM

Elliot Rodger, 22 years old of Santa Barbara, California says: “I hate all of you. If I had it in my power, I would stop at nothing to reduce every single one of you to mountains of skulls and rivers of blood.”

* Rodger kills 3 people with a knife,
* Injures 4 or 5 with his car,
* Kills 3 people with a gun,
* and injures 8 with a gun.

* This is a kid who was an over indulged child of Hollywood liberals who drives a BMW,
* is deeply immersed in violent video games since childhood,
* alleges a deprived, hellish and sad life, blames all women for his sexual problems,
* has been seen by multiple therapists,
* has posted videos about murder and suicide for weeks prior to his violent attacks, ….
* his alarmed family calls police… police visit him once, but do nothing.
* Police write hime off as a “perfectly polite, charming and wonderful human.”
* The reason Rodger gives for mass murdering people is “he can’t get laid.”

yet, somehow with all of this, the liberal conclusion is: This is the NRA’s fault.

Does it get any more ridiculous than that? The Liberal conclusion speaks volumes about the credibility of the liberal agenda.
I rest my case.

I have a message for Mr. Martinez and the family members of the victims.
While I am sorry for your loss, your rage and blame are misplaced and people like you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Ignoring the real root of this problem and misplacing blame does nothing to solve it.
Ignoring mental illness is the problem. I suggest you get on the right bandwagon if you truly want, as you say, “This madness to stop.”

By the way, if this had occurred in a state where gun control laws are not so strict and there were more citizens around with concealed carry permits, carrying guns, Elliot Rodger would have been stopped from killing as many people as he did.

here is the killer at his finest…. of course the fact that he is mentally ill is the NRA’s fault too…

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Teresa Corn

    I totally agree. I have a disabled adult son and him being violent would have nothing to do with the NRA. In fact lack of appropriate funding for mental healthcare is the blame. I quit working outside my home and we have very little in the way of expensive things. But we have love and we will continue to help him by monitoring him 24/7. That is our job. The NRA cannot control who gets a gun but they could place sick people in an appropriate setting when needed. But hey the blame guns, police officers, teachers and parents. This is BS.

    • Exactly, Teresa… thanks for your input

      • vernabc

        But there are a lot of things the NRA can control, and putting safety in front of profits is the most important. Not likely though.

        • jmac67

          The NRA sponsors more safety classes than anyone and has never advocated profits over safety. Never in the time I have been a member have I seen that happen. They have advocated for the government to do more for the mentally ill to prevent this from happening. Compared to the draconian measures that the left wants to do which will do nothing when those who do evil get their weapons illegally. The only thing it will do is disarm those who want to protect themselves and their loved ones.

          • vernabc

            I will certainly give you that on the local level. However, on the national level the NRA is spending millions that it gets from gun manufacturers to make it politically favorable to continue sell as many guns to as many people possible. That is your NRA.

          • jmac67

            Tell me what would you advocate as a limit for the number of guns that someone be allowed to own? Would it be 1 rifle and 1 shotgun and maybe a handgun.? Tell me can you own them only for hunting or can you also own 1 for target shooting? And which 1 is it? Limitations are a slippery slope to violation of a persons rights.

          • vernabc

            How many guns does it take for you to feel safe? The answer is: none of my business. Look, you want to spend your money on guns? Have at it. But what I would love to say to joe the plumber is, his constitutional rights do not trump my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look, you are entitled to buy as many cars as you want, but there is something wrong in that it is easier for you to buy a gun than it is to buy a car. How about a test to be an operator of
            A gun? How about a license and registration for your guns? A yearly inspection of your guns? Or reporting when your gun is sold or stolen? And how about gun manufacturers being made to make a safer product? Or are all conversations or considerations off limits because of ‘shall not be infringed’?

          • jmac67

            How would you feel if someone from the government came to your house to check if you performed safe sex? How about if they put a camera in your car to see if use a seat belt or obey EVERY traffic law? What if they said you were omly allowed to take so many aspirin per week or you cant have red meat more. Than 3 times a month because its bad for y cholesterol? At what point do we tell the government to stay out of our lives? Its called Freedom and that is the one right that insures the other Rights we have come to expect. By the way you are required to report a lost or stolen weapon. Any law abiding gun owner will tell you that. The other “suggestions” you made are all the same as registration because that allows the government to know what you own and that is NOT part of he Constitution. Lets face it, you want some sort of restriction put on gun owners and I say we already have too many. I think we should agree to disagree because I have a feeling that neither one of us is going to change our minds anytime soon.

          • vernabc

            Really..? That is what you are using as a serious argument/discussion regarding possible gun legislation? Seat belts and high cholesterol…? Come on.

            “Its called Freedom and that is the one right that insures the other Rights we have come to expect.”

            You’re are absolutely right, and my freedom includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the fact that there are now over 300 million guns (due in part because of our current gun laws or lack thereof) in our country, those rights are being infringed upon.

            “By the way you are required to report a lost or stolen weapon.”

            That is not true. At least it is not true my state. There are no federal laws requiring anyone to report a stolen gun…? And there certainly are no requirements to report the sale of your gun..?

            “The other “suggestions” you made are all the same as registration because that allows the government to know what you own and that is NOT part of he Constitution.”
            There are lots of things the federal government requires its citizens to do that are “NOT part of the constitution”, including you registering your vehicle. And before you go to your “shall not be infringed” nonsense, I will remind you that there always has been and always will be “infringement” (i.e., regulations) on owning firearms. And there will continue to be people (i.e., American citizens) that will want more infringements, and they have rights, just like you. So you certainly can continue to disagree, but let me suggest you try make a stronger argument than safe sex and traffic laws if you expect to be taken seriously.

          • W Dawes

            what they are using, is that ALL your ideas are not new. Every fascist government put “YOUR” rules in place, then took everyone’s freedom. That is how the game works. A political game you liberals don’t understand because you want government to act like surrogate parents. well I have parents and the U.S. Constitution does not give the government the right to act like my parents. they are there to protect my freedom, not chip away at it. You really need to grow up or take some history classes, and not “Revisionist” history classes.

          • Sugarsail1

            you are conflating the rights to gun ownership and privacy with your right not to be murdered…two totally different things. If your argument is based on right to life and liberty as an argument for stricter gun laws then your argument is logically unsound.

  • Gregg Macklin

    But there is no way to grab power away for the citizens if we place the blame where it clearly belongs

  • Nikki Moonitz-Volaski

    Love this, but can we please say the POS’s name as little as humanly possible?

  • Ken Wood

    Way to go ‘Murica, now others will go on killing people thinking they will get in no trouble while the NRA gets the blame! As they say; “You can’t fix stupidity”

    • Ken, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers..

      • vernabc

        So Jan (whoever you are), why do you think there is so much anger being expressed towards the NRA? They are beginning to reap what they sowed. The pendulum towards more responsible gun ownership and regulations/laws (i.e., gun registration and background checks) is beginning to swing back to where a civilized country should be. Again, no one is talking about taking away your guns, but we are talking about turning the tide on responsible gun ownership, which means being a responsible gun owner, as well as preventing those that should not have a gun, access to obtaining them. You can either get on board or face the similar criticism that is being placed on the NRA. The veil has been raised off the NRA. The country is now becoming aware that their only purpose is to serve gun manufactures, and they care nothing about the safety of every day Americans, whether they own a gun or not. Profits of gun sales are the only thing the NRA is concerned with. They are about to feel the wrath of what they have sowed.

        • AndyC

          A liberal psycho kills 3 with a knife, 3 with a pistol in a gun-free zone in a gun-control state – and it’s the NRA’s fault. Right.

          • vernabc

            Did I say that? What part of my comment is inaccurate? And how do you know (i.e. who cares) what ideology this kid believed in. His rants appeared to be conservative to me, but I did not feel the need to mention that did I?

          • AndyC

            No, you just went on some inane rant about the NRA. Kindly show proof of how the NRA profits directly from gun-sales, do.

          • vernabc

            The simplest of searches brings up a wealth of information.
            The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills,[23] after the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.[24] The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.[25]

            Until the middle 1970s, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues. However, passage of the GCA galvanized a growing number of NRA activists, including Harlon Carter. In 1975, it began to focus more on politics and established its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), with Carter as director. The next year, its political action committee (PAC), the Political Victory Fund, was created in time for the 1976 elections.[26]:158 The 1977 annual convention was a defining moment for the organization and came to be known as “The Cincinnati Revolution.”[27] Leadership planned to relocate NRA headquarters to Colorado and to build a $30 million recreational facility in New Mexico, but activists within the organization whose central concern was Second Amendment rights defeated the incumbents and elected Carter as executive director and Neal Knox as head of the ILA.[28][29]

            After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans.[30] With a goal to weaken the GCA, Knox’s ILA successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 and worked to reduce the powers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 1982, Knox was ousted as director of the ILA, but began mobilizing outside the NRA framework and continued to promote opposition to gun control laws.[31]

            At the 1991 national convention, Knox’s supporters were elected to the board and named staff lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the executive vice president. The NRA focused its attention on the gun control policies of the Clinton Administration.[32] Knox again lost power in 1997, as he lost reelection to a coalition of moderate leaders who supported movie star Charlton Heston, despite Heston’s past support of gun control legislation.[33] In 1994, the NRA unsuccessfully opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), but successfully lobbied for the ban’s 2004 expiration.[34] Heston was elected president in 1998 and became a highly visible spokesman for the organization. In an effort to improve the NRA’s image, Heston presented himself as the voice of reason in contrast to Knox.[35]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

            http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Firearms-industry-big-donor-to-NRA-4156261.php

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/

            Once an organization that claimed to not be affiliated with any gun companies, the NRA has received tens of millions of dollars in contributions from them since 2005 alone. Any company giving $25,000 or more gets to be part of their “Ring of Freedom.” Giving $5 million or more gets you dinner at headquarters with the NRA CEO. Five million dollars before the CEO will have dinner with you? I guess that shows how much money there is in guns and how lucrative it is lobbying for rich gun makers.

            The NRA gets money from its regular members as well, but what the NRA doesn’t do is represent their views. Polls show that NRA lobbying has been out of step with its members’ beliefs. This year’s poll of gun owners by Republican strategist Frank Luntz shows the continuing disconnect.

            Throughout its 142-year history, the National Rifle Association has portrayed itself as an advocate for the individual gun owner’s Second Amendment rights. In turn, the NRA relied on those gun owners, especially its 4 million or so members, to pressure lawmakers into carrying out its anti-gun control agenda.

            In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares. That alliance was sealed in 2005, when Congress, after heavy NRA lobbying, approved a measure that gave gunmakers and gun distributors broad, and unprecedented, immunity from a wave of liability lawsuits related to gun violence in America’s cities.

            It was a turning point for both the NRA and the industry, both of which recognized the mutual benefits of a partnership. That same year, the NRA also launched a lucrative new fundraising drive to secure “corporate partners” that’s raked in millions from the gun industry to boost its operations.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html

          • vernabc

            The “rant”, inane or otherwise, was a far cry from your claim that I was blaming the NRA for the most resent shooting spree.

          • Ralph Farmer

            You were. Quote some more left wing sites. You left move on.org off.

          • vernabc

            Please show me where I blamed the NRA for this shooting. And you don’t like my sources? Prove me wrong. You don’t think gun manufactures are in bed with the NRA..? Prove me wrong.

          • Ralph Farmer

            For one thing that the NRA supported gun manufacturers only. They serve citizens who are wise enough to know that the second amendment is their friend and why. Libs have an inability to use common sense and to be truthful.

          • vernabc

            No, you asked for proof of the NRA and gun manufacturers. I did that.

          • W Dawes

            Basically you inferred, little Alinsky-ite troll. You trolls keep believing that the NRA is to blame, meanwhile in LIb controlled cities, like Los Angeles, gun sales are spiking.

          • Ralph Farmer

            Absolutely right. Like all libs he misrepresents the truth. And was that a don’t tread on me flag? Like I said obfuscate and lie.

          • vernabc

            Again, point out my lie/s… And the flag? The better to mock you.

          • vernabc

            So I am beginning to detect a theme here. Anyone that you disagree with must be a liar..? Makes your argument a lot easier doesn’t it?

          • Ralph Farmer

            Wow. Have a nice day. Take those meds. Please.

          • vernabc

            I always do. Thanks for caring.

          • Sardis

            A liberal psycho? First, what does his political affiliation have to do with his actions? Second, how do you know he’s liberal? Because of his parents? Look at the manifesto. This kid wasn’t thinking about politics… He was thinking about his own depression, isolation, and resentment. Shame on you.

        • Ron Spencer

          Vern, again the NRA is not against logical reasoning. Unfortunately for every inch Gun Owners give three yards are taken. I live in Oregon and we have gun registration. I know that there is a record of every gun purchase I have ever made even though there is not suppose to be after the allotted time period. It is not about the “responsible gun ownership” it is the mentally ill and the criminals. Stop calling me and the other NRA members the bad guys and look to the real cause.

          • vernabc

            First of all, to be fair and accurate you need to differentiate between gun owners and the NRA. So with that in mind when has the NRA given an inch, or given anything? Second, I never called you or any gun owner, including myself, the bad guy/s. However, I may have made a few derogatory comments about the NRA.

      • vernabc

        There is already enough hate in this world, why do you feed it? For profit?

  • Sense

    Where is the outrage against the knife manufacturers? Where is the outrage against the car manufacturers? Where is the outrage against everyone who saw this coming and did nothing?

    • Sense… you are correct… misplaced outrage.

    • Sardis

      Even if you met the shooter ahead of time and saw that he was creepy, had scary ideas, even seemed like the “type” to you who would do something like this, what could you do? Call the police? Someone did that, and the police had to leave him alone, because he hadn’t committed a crime. Nor can you commit someone involuntarily indefinitely if they haven’t done anything wrong.

      The shooter had some kind of a record of mental health issues. There should have been a system in place to prevent guns from being sold to someone with his issues. There wasn’t. There will never be such a system unless we pass laws to implement one.

      • Ralph Farmer

        They already exist. Criminals don’t follow the law. Why should that surprise you?

        • vernabc

          Boy that is an awful convenient sound byte. But in this case it really does not apply. This shooter was not a criminal until after he went on his shooting spree.

          • Ralph Farmer

            That’s not necessarily true. We know he made recordings and writings before the acts. If he discussed them with anyone or when he did something in furtherance of the acts like purchasing the ammo he may gave committed a crime. It’s called conspiracy. We don’t know more than what we are reading at this point. Also when he lied to buy the gun he committed a crime. The form asks about being treated for serious mental illness.

          • vernabc

            Initial reports state that he was a law abiding citizen who had legally purchased guns, but if that is not the case I will stand corrected.

          • Sardis

            Ah, so your idea of a robust system of mental health checks for gun buyers is a form asking you to self-report whether you’re in good mental health. If you lie on the form and get a gun, well that’s just because you’re a criminal and it’s inevitable criminals will get guns anyway. Not because the system is a joke and fails to weed out the mentally ill, of course. So freaking stupid.

            Rodger bought his guns from licensed gun stores through legal channels, not through some black market. Period. This kid was so strange and isolated, it’s doubtful he would have known how to obtain a gun otherwise. Too bad the gun stores were able to sell to him.

        • Sardis

          Rodger broke no law obtaining his guns. The system clearly is not designed to stop someone like him from arming himself, or it would have. We need to fix that.

    • Ralph Farmer

      Kawlifornia had taken the law abiding peoples guns away.

      • vernabc

        But that is not true is it. So I guess it is not just us ‘libs’ that lie, huh?

        • Ralph Farmer

          Virtually. They have a May issue as opposed to shall issue for permits. This in concert with their left leaning laws make it very gun unfriendly. This explains my statement and was unnecessary for most participants here as they know how California is.

          • vernabc

            But you said that California takes guns away from law abiding citizens and that is a lie.

          • W Dawes

            Not totally as there are guns that Californians want to buy, and could buy if living in another state, except that gun dealers can’t sell anything that is not on the handgun safety list. Now are all guns “unsafe” according to the judicial dept.? No only the ones that pass a “drop test” and paid the $200. and that is for every gun, even the same model just different color. So who is really about the money now?

  • Eliott

    I don’t know when the liberals are going to learn, it is not the guns they have to worry about, it is the mentally ill and the gang bangers. Now I hear Congressman King from New York is actually saying we need stricter gun laws. When Republicans start spewing this crap, we really better watch out.

    • Eliott, yes.. I posted a story about Kings proposal on this website today as well… Check it out. Go to the home page.. you will see it.

      • Eliott

        Thank you Jan. I just read it. He is a disgrace. We might have another R.I.N.O. among us.
        p.s. you have a new follower.

    • Ralph Farmer

      He isn’t a republican. He is a rino. That means progressive. That means vote liberal.

      • Eliott

        I wouldn’t vote Democrat even if the Republicans had a farm animal running against him.

        • Ralph Farmer

          Me neither.

          • vernabc

            But you are a farm animal…?

          • Ralph Farmer

            If you think I am , I think I’m okay. Your opinions are not indicative of someone who would know…..Anything important.

          • vernabc

            Oink, oink.

        • Sardis

          In some states they do!

  • vernabc

    “By the way, if this had occurred in a state where gun control laws are not so strict and there were more citizens around with concealed carry permits, carrying guns, Elliot Rodger would have been stopped from killing as many people as he did.”

    Of course you don’t know that, but it makes a great sound bite. However, the facts are, the US has the most lax gun laws of any civilized country which has resulted in the most gun violence of any civilized country. We have tried it your way (i.e., very little gun control/restrictions which have resulted in over 300 million guns in our society) and it has not worked. It is past time for a new approach.

    • Daniel Woodworth

      Your argument fails to be cogent on a number of levels. First, you consider only gun violence. In most cases, more guns means more gun violence – that is almost a truism – however, more guns has been followed by less overall violence in nearly every case. Unless your particularly concerned about the method, and not the existence of, violence, restricting guns makes no sense.

      Second, you confuse correlation with causation, and you attempted to draw a conclusion from far too small a sample size. In reality, not only would a correlation between lax guns laws and violence not prove a causal relationship, no such correlation exists. A simple plot of gun violence versus gun ownership rates reveals that there is statistically significant relationship between the two, and every study conducted on the topic – including studies by Harvard and the CDC – has come to the same conclusion.

      Finally, you argue that we don’t know that more people with guns could have shortened the rampage. You’re right, we don’t know that – but we can reasonably conclude it to be the case. Rampages where people have guns are typically short; the ones you hear about all occur in areas where private citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

      To summarize, you approach the problem from a myopic perspective, you attempted to draw an illogical conclusion without enough data to draw any conclusion at all, and you ignored the significant correlative relationship between gun control efforts people like you initiated and increased crime. This is a time for rational thought, not irrational emotions. We need to sit down, using facts and a data, and find out what’s wrong, not attempt a major policy change without evidence.

      • vernabc

        “more guns has been followed by less overall violence in nearly every case.”

        What are the crime rates in Japan, Australia, Britain, Germany, France (or Europe in general)?

        “…restricting guns makes no sense.”

        And the opposite is thus true (i.e., not restricting guns???)?

        “…you confuse correlation with causation…”

        Actually, my point was, there is no way of knowing that had there been more guns present at the time of this shooting spree, than there would have been fewer deaths/injuries.

        “…but we can reasonably conclude it to be the case.”

        Sure you can, especially if that just happens to fit your narrative. But I will assume that you also know, that even the well trained and experienced (i.e., police, military, etc.) gun owners have a very difficult time hitting their intended target when they too are being shot at. More guns, more bullets, greater chance of further injuries/deaths.

        “To summarize, you approach the problem from a myopic perspective, you attempted to draw an illogical conclusion without enough data to draw any conclusion at all…”

        I am torn between “irony” and “projection”…?

        “…and you ignored the significant correlative relationship between gun control efforts people like you initiated and increased crime.”

        So you were able to learn all of this about me from my initial post (i.e., seems a bit myopic, which may have led you to an illogical conclusion without enough data to draw any conclusion at all… Just say’n.

        “We need to sit down, using facts and a data, and find out what’s wrong, not attempt a major policy change without evidence.”

        Finally!!! Something we can both agree on.

      • Eliott

        Maybe more guns among the criminals means more violence but not among law abiding citizens. Look at Chicago with the one of the strictest anti gun laws in the nation and all the bad guys have the guns and are doing all the killing. I would like to see out of all the gun killings in the last 50 years, how many were law abiding citizens or nra members. I know the number will be miniscule.

    • AndyC

      Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year – or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

      Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound
      his/her attacker. As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

      Data above taken from “Armed Resistance to Crime,” at 173, 185 – Dr Kleck and Gertz.

      By the way – Dr Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. He is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates.

      • vernabc

        And what does any of that have to do with my comments? Again, my comment/s was, there is no way of knowing that had there been more guns available at the time of these killings then there would have been less killings/injuries. In addition, we know that more guns means more gun deaths/injuries/violence. There are other countries/civilizations that do not allow any guns, and the per capita for violent crimes (i.e., rape) are not greater.

      • vernabc

        “Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals..”

        And when does a law-abiding citizen (i.e., gun owner) become a criminal (was this current shooter a law-abiding citizen before the shooting spree?)? But more to the point of my comment, in the middle of a shootout, how do you know who are the law-abiding citizens and the criminals?

    • jmark80

      “US has the most lax gun laws of any civilized country which has resulted in the most gun violence of any civilized country.”

      Of course you don’t know that, but it makes a great sounds bite.

      I would argue that the Drug War has resulted in the most gun violence of any civilized country. This would be rational however, and would involve critical thinking.

      • vernabc

        “Of course you don’t know that, but it makes a great sounds bite.”

        Well, actually I do know that, and you could too, if you just bothered to look it up.

        The US has the most lax gun laws of any civilized country which has resulted in the most guns, per capita of any civilized country. We also have the most gun violence of any civilized country. And no, I don’t think it makes a great sound bite at all. But keep talking about how more guns will solve these problems, because that is exactly what the NRA is telling you. Now that is a sound bite.

        • jmark80

          You either aren’t using critical thinking skills, or just have a finely tuned knack for irony.

          You were saying that her statement that more people with concealed carry licenses would have stopped Rodgers from killing so many is conjecture. Which is a bit entertaining when it precedes your theory that “lax gun laws” result in more gun violence.

          Your opinion about what “results” in more gun violence is no more cogent or factual than hers. Her statement is that too STRICT of gun laws are adding to gun violence, when in reality, by even the most recent study ordered by the President, gun proliferation seems to have NO impact on violent crime either way.

          You apparently have no understanding of the basic scientific principle:

          Correlation does not prove causation.

          • vernabc

            “You either aren’t using critical thinking skills, or just have a finely tuned knack for irony.”

            Or maybe I just disagree with you.

            “Which is a bit entertaining when it precedes your theory that “lax gun laws” result in more gun violence.”

            Well, actually, both can be true. Lax gun laws means guns getting into the wrong hands, resulting in more gun violence. That is a separate issue from concealed weapons. My point was/is, having more guns at the scene does not guarantee fewer deaths/injuries, and, in fact, more guns means more bullets, which very will could result in additional deaths/injuries.

            “Her statement is that too STRICT of gun laws are adding to gun violence..”

            And I countered that by saying we do not have strict gun laws in comparison to most/all civilized countries.

            “Correlation does not prove causation.”

            I think you meant “Correlation does not, necessarily, prove causation”.

          • jmark80

            Tell me that you are simply trolling, as there is no way that you can possibly be this dense, and still not understanding my point. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing, it is about your fallacious claim of fact.

            Her statement:

            “By the way, if this had occurred in a state where gun control laws are not so strict and there were more citizens around with concealed carry permits, carrying guns, Elliot Rodger would have been stopped from killing as many people as he did.”

            Is an opinion. You were absolutely correct in saying:

            “Of course you don’t know that”

            Where you went off the tracks, in a seeming freight train of irony, is then insisting that YOUR opinion is a fact:

            “However, the facts are, the US has the most lax gun laws of any civilized country which has resulted in the most gun violence of any civilized country.”

            No, it is NOT a “fact” that “lax gun laws” have resulted in “most gun violence of any civilized country”. That is simply your theory, and one that is not backed up by comparative analysis. This is not just me disagreeing with you, but the CDC and Harvard as well. Let me say it again, just in case you still don’t get it. You have an opinion of what causes so much gun violence here. This is based upon your interpretation of what data you have. So does she. That is normal and fine. The hilarity ensues when you disparage her opinion AS an opinion, and then fail to recognize yours as such and pretend to be representing fact.

          • vernabc

            Let me try to make this a little more simple for you.

            It is a fact that the United States has the most lax gun laws of any civilized country? Is this not true? It is also true that the United States has more guns than any other civilized nation. Is that not true? It is also fact that the United States has the most gun violence of any civilized country. Is that also not true? These are not my opinions. These are facts, correct?

            I will leave you to your own conclusions.

            “Where you went off the tracks, in a seeming freight train of irony, is then insisting that YOUR opinion is a fact:”

            I believe I already addressed this issue in my reply to you:

            “Well, actually, both can be true. Lax gun laws means guns getting into the wrong hands, resulting in more gun violence. That is a separate issue from concealed weapons. My point was/is, having more guns at the scene does not guarantee fewer deaths/injuries, and, in fact, more guns means more bullets, which very will could result in additional deaths/injuries.”

            However, you seem fixated on my comment of:

            “However, the facts are, the US has the most lax gun laws of any civilized country which has resulted in the most gun violence of any civilized country.”

            It would appear that there is a misunderstanding by what I was presenting as fact versus opinion. The fact were/are: 1). The US has the most guns, due to lax gun laws, compared to any other comparable nation. 2). The US has the most gun violence than any other civilized nation.

            And yes. my opinion (i.e., conclusion), based on these facts, is that our lax gun laws have allowed a massive influx of readily available and dangerous weapons (i.e., guns) into our country, which has resulted in the US now having more gun violence than any other civilized country.

            “The hilarity ensues when you disparage her opinion AS an opinion, and then fail to recognize yours as such and pretend to be representing fact.”

            I’m glad you were amused, I will be here all week.

          • Ron Spencer

            The funny thing about all those country’s that have eliminated the free person the right to own a gun is there is always room for one more like minded person. Do you want help packing?

          • vernabc

            No thanks, I love my country, even if that means I have to share it with close minded people that may have different views than mine.

          • jmark80

            “It is a fact that the United States has the most lax gun laws of any civilized country?”

            Possibly. Define “lax” and define “civilized”. These are also opinions. I would venture that countries who allow civilians to own fully automatic firearms have more “lax” gun laws, but the argument could also be made that their other restrictions make them more “strict”. Stop claiming opinions and subjective interpretation as fact. It is intellectually dishonest.

            “It is also true that the United States has more guns than any other civilized nation.”

            Correct.

            “It is also fact that the United States has the most gun violence of any civilized country.”

            Correct.

            “I will leave you to your own conclusions.”

            Indeed. However, my opinions are supported by studies such as the recent CDC study that indicated that increased gun ownership had no impact on violent crime in an area in either direction. Ipso facto, it is illogical to assume that the firearms are the issue barring other factors. Claiming otherwise is not supported by the available data.

            “My point was/is, having more guns at the scene does not guarantee fewer deaths/injuries, and, in fact, more guns means more bullets, which very will could result in additional deaths/injuries.”

            Yes. It COULD. However, this has not been the case in real world examples. There have been no mass gun fights or civilians slinging bullets all over the place. This theory of yours is based upon fear, not reality. In reality, there are hundreds of thousands, (some argue millions) of defensive firearm uses in the US each year. With all of those, you are still 5x more likely to be shot accidentally by a police officer than you are to be shot accidentally by civilians. I would agree with you that this seems incredible, but it is easily researched and is a fact. The data says that armed civilians tend to hit what they are aiming at as a whole.

            “It would appear that there is a misunderstanding by what I was presenting as fact versus opinion.”

            There is no misunderstanding, you are simply backpedaling. As you clearly have a good grasp of the English language, read your statement for what it is. You are flat out saying that it is a “fact” that “lax gun laws” in the US have “resulted” in the most gun violence….

            So which is it, were you being dishonest or did you misspeak?

            “And yes. my opinion (i.e., conclusion), based on these facts, is that our lax gun laws have allowed a massive influx of readily available and dangerous weapons (i.e., guns) into our country, which has resulted in the US now having more gun violence than any other civilized country.”

            Well, as an opinion, I cannot say whether you are correct or incorrect. I can say that I would agree that the availability of firearms contributes to gun related violence, but I think honing in on that is myopic considering that the actual studies seem to belie that theory, and that you are simply disregarding relevant factors such as socio-economic status, ethnic diversity, metropolitan population and most importantly…the “War on Drugs”, which is attributed to between 25% and 80% of our gun violence depending upon location and study cited.

            In short, you are still missing too much of the puzzle, and give too much credit to your opinions and too little to the facts at hand.

          • A. G. T. Jr.

            “……5x more likely to be shot “accidentally” (quotation marks mine) by a police officer…..” It has been reported that ex-Mayor Bloomberg’s cops have been so amiss with their marksmanship skills they hit a lot more other targets than the criminal. Collateral damage, so they say. There were some 600,000 hunters in Wisconsin last year and there was never an accidental shooting and no one, repeat, no one ever got hurt. I stand by the premise that had there been someone with a concealed-carry permit while Mr. Rodger was imposing his evil ways upon others, he could have been neutralized much earlier.

          • vernabc

            Oh, and for the record… There is nothing “simple” about trolling.

          • Ralph Farmer

            Dense is as liberal is. Vern is why our nation is in decline. Inability to use common sense or critical thinking.

          • vernabc

            So what nation do you live in?

    • Ralph Farmer

      Actually the only thing we don’t know is if there would have been anyone around who had a weapon. If there had been the metrosexual would have been stopped… FAST.

      • vernabc

        Like I said, I thought you were a farm animal.

        • Ralph Farmer

          You leftists always start attacking the person who disagrees with you because you can’t successfully argue your point.
          Liberal policies have never worked but you can still try to remain above the affray and display a little class.

          • vernabc

            That was not attacking you, that was attacking farm animals. And besides why would I want to attack you? You are one of the best examples of why we need gun control in this country.

  • Sardis

    Elliot Rodger’s firearms were legally obtained through a system that was not designed to prevent someone like him–someone with a documented history of mental illness–from obtaining deadly weapons. Had there been laws providing for such a system, this massacre may not have been able to arm himself with guns, and this massacre either would not have taken place, or it would have involved many fewer injuries and fatalities.

    Should concealed carry be encouraged, or even allowed, on a college campus or areas of student residence? Of course not. Living in a community where it’s impossible to know if the average Joe or Jane walking down the street could suddenly whip out a firearm and kill you, if he or she so chose, is hardly conducive to learning. It would result in a culture of fear, especially because college students are of an age where they tend to be prone to unstable feelings and behavior, make unsafe choices, and drink quite heavily.

    • jmark80

      Your first paragraph is absolutely correct, and one you will find an almost across the board agreement on from all sides of this argument.

      Your second is built upon conjecture and hoplophobia. One could just as easily say that being in an environment where you are forced into a state of perpetual helplessness is not condusive to learning.

      • Sardis

        Perpetual helplessness? Campuses have police and security, people trained and vetted to carry weapons. I feel a lot safer when they have the guns, not some fratboy stumbling out of the bar.

        • jmark80

          How you “feel” is irrelevant. The reality is that you are 5x more likely to be accidentally shot by a police officer than accidentally shot by a civilian, and if you understood CCW, you would also know that if you are drinking in a bar (stumbling), you are no longer legally permitted to carry the firearm in the first place.

          In addition, the only situation at a college campus where an active shooter was confronted by armed students was at Virgina Tech, where they stopped the shooter. As I said before, your statement is based upon hoplophobia instead of actual events or reality.

  • jmac67

    hen does he blame the knife manufacturer or the car manufacturer? Oh yeah those are the NRA’s fault as well. When will people say that it is the fault of the parents who do’t get help for their kids or the school that ignores the behavior patterns that lead up to these tragedies? Oh yeah thats the NRA’s fault too. When gangs buy guns illegally or steal them outright thats the NRA’s fault too. Oh hell lets blame the NRA for this kids mental illness as well as everything else you can think of. Maybe we should blame them for Healthcare woes, the employment problems and the Russian takeover of the Crimea as well. You know maybe Catholics should blame them for Original Sin and the Jews should blame them for the Holocaust. I can only say that I hope that at some point this man will realize that what he has said in his grief is so wrong and someday he will understand this.

    • Sardis

      The shooter’s guilt is obvious and undisputed.

      The NRA has worked tirelessly to ensure we live in a country where someone like Rodgers can get a deadly firearm as easily as possible. That’s what I think the father is blaming the NRA for, and the blame is well-directed.

      • Ralph Farmer

        Your statements are untrue. But you know that don’t you?

        • Sardis

          No. Why are they untrue? You can call it protecting the Second Amendment if you want, but the reality is that the NRA uses its considerable resources to oppose any legislation that would in any way make it harder for a person in this country to buy a gun.

      • jmac67

        Does the NRA advocate for sales to the mentally disabled? Does the NRA advocate selling to minors or those with violent criminal history? The NRA only asks that all legally eligible Americans have the right to bear arms as written in the Bill of Rights. Why didn’t Mr. Martinez blame the shooter or the shooters family for not seeing his depression and get him the help he so obviously needed. There is an old adage and if you really think about it, you have to admit it is so true. A gun is a tool. It is neither good nor evil. It is only who uses it that will determine how it is used..

        • Sardis

          Do you think children should be allowed to walk into a gun shop and buy firearms? I’d hope not. A gun may just be a tool, but it’s a tool for killing and wounding. That’s why there ought to be reasonable laws keeping them out of the hands of people who haven’t have demonstrated they can be trusted with such a tool, or worse, people like Rodger whose mental health record should have disqualified him from purchasing guns. This isn’t about good or evil. This is about who should be trusted with with the power to kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger.

          The NRA opposes any law which would provide for even commonsense limits on the sale of firearms and ammunition. The NRA and it’s supporters have to live with the consequences of that. Unfortunately, so do the rest of us.

          • jmac67

            A knife is a tool that can wound or kill and it is much easier to acquire. Remember this person used a knife, a gun and a car. Why limit him from only having a gun? Don’t the victims he killed with the knife or car count as well? Also what part of legally eligible did you not understand. And there is already an FBI background check that all purchases go through. Your gripe should be with the government that doesn’t help nor prevent such purchases where mental illness is involved.. The NRA has never advocated any person with mental health issues be allowed to have a gun. The commonsense laws you advocate always seem to only prevent legal ownership. And not one of these deranged people had an amount of ammunition so large that it might have been large enough to be included in an ammo limit law that you are speaking about. Tell me how many bullets do you think a gun owner should be allowed to own?

          • Sardis

            Knives and cars have other purposes besides killing and wounding. But even certain kinds of knives are in fact regulated (limits on blade length, switchblade, etc.–i.e. Knives suited primarily to be weapons).

            How is the government supposed to prevent sale of guns to the mentally ill without inconveniencing the mentally sound? Be realistic. There’s no mass murderer detection machine. Any system that establishes steps or requirements to weed out buyers who can’t be trusted with guns will be opposed by you and by the NRA.

          • jmac67

            Tell me, if a criminal uses a legal technicality to go free does that mean that the law should be changed? No, because there may be another time that that same technicality will be used to help someone who is genuinely innocent. You cannot legislate with a knee jerk reaction because an incident (and that is what they are – a few incidents when compared to the entire population and number of crimes committed) but they are blown up to the level of World War II. Are they terrible, yes, but you cannot change the lives of the other 330 “million Americans because of it.

          • Sardis

            If a criminal uses a legal technicality to get free does that mean the law should be changed? Absolutely. It’s possible to have good law that protects the innocent and penalizes the guilty. Just like it’s possible to have law that restricts gun ownership to those who have demonstrated they can handle gun ownership. We don’t have such law right now.

            ON AVERAGE OUR COUNTRY HAS FOUR MASS SHOOTINGS PER MONTH. That is not a small thing. This has been happening for years. Any gun restrictions we impose now would not constitute a “knee jerk” reaction, as our politicians have been sitting on their hands, afraid of angering the NRA, for years. If we finally impose some real restrictions that will make people safer, it will be because we’ve decided enough is enough.

          • jmac67

            I take it back, your not a knee jerk just a jerk. The law I was using as an example and the one you would change is the Miranda Law. Ever hear of it? Also where do you get you facts of 4 mass shootings a month. It certainly isn’t in the news because they would be trumpeting it like nobody’s business. I am sorry to tell you that your life is no more valuable to save by restricting guns as someone else’s right to save theirs by having access to those same guns.

        • vernabc

          The NRA will fight anything that might limit or even delay the sale of any gun. The NRA no longer represents the individual gun owner. The sole function is to support the further sales of guns. They do this through the spending of millions of dollars on lobbying and election contributions. The NRA represents the gun manufacturers. That is their only interest in your 2nd amendment rights. The welfare and safety of our citizens does not factor into their bottom line. You are being used.

          • jmark80

            As I asked in another post, please provide some sort of credible citation proving that the NRA “no longer represents the individual gun owner. ”

            You seem to function under the illusion that representing individual gun rights and representing the interests of gun manufacturers are mutually exclusive. This is illogical.

      • jmac67

        This disturbed individual put out more than enough signals that something was wrong and yet no one, not his family nor the police did anything to prevent this from happening. The police decided nothing was wrong after speaking with him and the family didn’t seem to pursue all avenues. So why should those who follow the law be penalized and persecuted for something they had nothing to to with.

        • Sardis

          Persecuted? Really? The same way you are persecuted by metal detectors at the airport or by speed limits? These aren’t laws in place to penalize anybody. They’re preventative measures to keep people safe from people who would do dangerous things given the chance. You may know that you can own a gun safely and responsibly, but the rest of us don’t know that about you. Pardon on us for wanting to feel safe.

          • jmac67

            Perhaps I should pardon you for feeling so paranoid. Not everyone out there is a predator and believe it or not you aren’t prey for everyone who owns a gun. In fact if you do the math with apx 330 million people in America your odds of being involved in such a crime are probably in the neighborhood of 1 in about 100 million. Personally I will take those odds. If you can’t I suggest you try moving to a cave on an otherwise deserted island. Actually if you go there you might want to take a gun with you because you just might be prey for the non humans who live there.

    • Ralph Farmer

      Right on.

      • jmac67

        If only more people would open their eyes and their minds.

  • Peter Hauer

    NEW GUN CONTROL LAW???
    Every proposed gun control law should
    be subject to the following test:

    “WILL CRIMINALS AND MADMEN OBEY THIS NEW LAW?”

    If the answer is “No,” then the law is useless.
    In fact, the law would be counter-productive, because it would only
    restrict the behavior of good people.

    • Kanudawg

      That is an excellent suggestion.

  • raygun

    Where was the NSA ??? Asleep I suppose. The cops and doctors ??? The parents ??? Another spoiled brat bites the dust. Blame the NRA ???? Ha ha …. the easy way out …. sounds like BHO when he blames W.