One parent really lays it on the line

Richard Martinez criticises gun laws after his son Christopher was killed near the University of California | News.com.au

and now I'm going to hear a barrage of how gun owners are responsible, and how they have "rights" but don't others have "rights"? and a preeminent natural right that predates something written on a piece of paper? the right to life! But the guy is right, what is happening is some form of madness, deniel in fact of the natural right of every person to live without threat of violence and death

You want a reasonable compromise? no person under the age of 25 years be allowed to be in possession of a weapon. why do I say this, because recent mass killings appear to have been perpetrated by persons under 25 years of age

So are you trying to say that more laws are going to stop the lawbreakers? Sorry but it doesn't seem to be working that way. This is more to do about mental illness then it is about guns. What rights do you wish to give to the mentally ill ?

He was a nut!! Was one for a long time.

Your title of "irresponsible politicians," Clete, hints at a possible cause aside from the mental health of the shooter. I take the opposite view of your solution. Adding marksmanship and safety to middle school curricula would lessen the attractiveness of guns as status symbols. If your score on Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto was less of a deal, your tendency to refer to firearms in real life would be lessened as well.


Tal has this one pegged, tho'. It looks like his emotional development stopped at puberty.

There are many gun laws already... they are often not enforced as they should be. Tighten up on that issue, along with better recognition and support in the mental health arena, and working towards getting families back on track (which in turn will help with the mental health issue), and you'll see change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Your title of "irresponsible politicians," Clete, hints at a possible cause aside from the mental health of the shooter. I take the opposite view of your solution. Adding marksmanship and safety to middle school curricula would lessen the attractiveness of guns as status symbols. If your score on Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto was less of a deal, your tendency to refer to firearms in real life would be lessened as well.

Tal has this one pegged, tho'. It looks like his emotional development stopped at puberty.

---

the title of the OP were the words of a distraught father of a victim, I felt it encapsalated the problem perfectly. This shooter was a victim of his society and it would seem many people pulled that trigger and I'm waiting for someone to tell us guns don't kill people. The availability of guns in the society is the problem, it it too easy to find that sort of crutch.

Now you want to blame video games, it is interesting that once video games came on the screen kids stopped playing cowboys and indians but in reality the fantasy no longer stopped in the backyard and the joystick no longer felt like a gun and no longer satisfied. tal certainly has this one pegged the emotional development of your whole nation stopped in puberty, time to grow up

He was no victim of the society. He was a nut. The emotional fallout of horror and shock will be exploited as it always is. Your own diatribe is an example of that fact.

Don't you follow the details? he was rejected over and over again, that makes him a victim of a narcissistic society. The end result, he created other victims. My diatribe, as you call it, is on the money, we all have right to safety, it is not the prerogative of the gun owner. This fellow's disorder should have been apparent long before he killed people and it should be that he should not have been able to obtain weapons and he didn't just have one apparently'. But then we see similar scenarios repeated over and over again, and no one takes any action, because the right to possess a firearm is sacrosanct. Where were all those citizens who were shooting back? they weren't there, that's theory number one blown Where was the regulatory system that prevented him from obtaining a gun, that's theory number two blown.

The fact is guns don't prevent violence, they enable it, they enhance it. They do not enhance your rights, they actually subvert them. I live in a place where the politicians did not fear to take action and their courageous action means events like this don't happen here very often. The proof that guns removed from the general community do, in fact, lessen these incidents is obvious, without the citizens political rights being infringed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Don't you follow the details? he was rejected over and over again, that makes him a victim of a narcissistic society.

---

HE claimed he was rejected. I'm waiting to hear reports to counter that. According to his menifesto, he was socially fine until he hit puberty when he figured out he was short and weak. Those two facts destroyed his self esteem.

Quote:

---

This fellow's disorder should have been apparent long before he killed people

---

He had been seeing myriads of counselors and therapists and doctor for years. So why didn't they pick up on this? Why could he legally buy guns?

Hmmm, Guns. He also hacked to death 3 roommates with a knife. No more Steak Knives and all food will be eaten with a plastic spoon from now on. Opps there goes baseball no more bats, and no more golf clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catonsville

Hmmm, Guns. He also hacked to death 3 roommates with a knife. No more Steak Knives and all food will be eaten with a plastic spoon from now on. Opps there goes baseball no more bats, and no more golf clubs.

---

you go to the sublime to the rediculous if you want to. People in therapy should not be allowed to possess weapons they shoudl be on a registry and their homes checked

Quote:

---

He had been seeing myriads of counselors and therapists and doctor for years. So why didn't they pick up on this? Why could he legally buy guns?

---

A terrific question and I would like to hear the answer frome those politicians and the NRA. Fact is they will cringe in the corner like the craven cowards they are before they answer that one. A coward is a person who won't face the big issues

Quote:

---

HE claimed he was rejected. I'm waiting to hear reports to counter that. According to his menifesto, he was socially fine until he hit puberty when he figured out he was short and weak. Those two facts destroyed his self esteem

---

.

Here we go blame the victim and not his persecuters, those up themselves women who didn't want to know him. So now every one who feels rejection has to have it confirmed before it is rejection. Yes being short will destroy your self esteem and so will other problems but we live in an imperfect world and most don't measure up to perfect a fact that should be addressed in school, not be all you can be, but be who you are

" People in therapy should not be allowed to possess weapons they shoudl be on a registry and their homes checked"

Hmmm, can't disagree with the first part of your statement but the second part is far out. The government would love if they could get that into law. Not a smidegen of abuse with that law.

you see you miss the point; to be effective law enforcement has to be active not passive, proactive not reactive. It is useless having laws unless you have active law enforcement, you have allowed due process to get in the way of common sense, probable cause to prevent law enforcement, and lobbys and corruption to replace democracy.

The days of the absolute monarch have gone and yet you still act as if he lived next door. There are many reasons today why police forces should be able to inspect premises on the report of various responsible people, medical practitioners and such regarding many conditions including mental condition, drug addiction and so forth. but no you want to wait until someone else is dead and then you can say "what a terrible thing" "Those poor people"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

you see you miss the point; to be effective law enforcement has to be active not passive, proactive not reactive. It is useless having laws unless you have active law enforcement, you have allowed due process to get in the way of common sense, probable cause to prevent law enforcement, and lobbys and corruption to replace democracy.

The days of the absolute monarch have gone and yet you still act as if he lived next door. There are many reasons today why police forces should be able to inspect premises on the report of various responsible people, medical practitioners and such regarding many conditions including mental condition, drug addiction and so forth. but no you want to wait until someone else is dead and then you can say "what a terrible thing" "Those poor people"

---

So in a nutshell you want the government to arrest people based on thought alone ? That doesnt sound like a free society to me. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Also there are laws here to protect privacy such as HIPAA laws. Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule

Having it your way would almost be a sure thing that every couple that divorces or has a spat should recieve a visit and walkthrough from the government. Anyone violating any law no matter how minor needs to be checked for compliance. That is not somewhere I want to live. I choose to be free and I take my chances by allowing others freedom also. In this case the system failed. The perp was mentally ill. Dont confuse that with being stupid. From what I have read about it there were chances to stop everything and mis steps along the way that ending in lives being lost. I mourn those losses along with those of my nation.

Well said CDad. What do you think of a tweak in the law that says when a family member calls in a welfare check on another family member we do more than just knock on the door? Maybe a walk through is warranted then. Reasonable as a reaction to family concerns?

One thing that stood out about this nut is how he fooled law enforcement. They could have checked to see if he was a gun owner when the parents called 3 weeks ago, and maybe looked deeper than just a knock on the door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Well said CDad. What do you think of a tweak in the law that says when a family member calls in a welfare check on another family member we do more than just knock on the door? Maybe a walk through is warranted then. Reasonable as a reaction to family concerns?

One thing that stood out about this nut is how he fooled law enforcement. They could have checked to see if he was a gun owner when the parents called 3 weeks ago, and maybe looked deeper than just a knock on the door.

---

And actually viewed those videos the parents were concerned about.

I also think it is marvelous that people will go from the sublime to the rediculous or take a point to an extreme to denegrate it

Quote:

---

So in a nutshell you want the government to arrest people based on thought alone ?

---

a statement like that begs the question but to ask it would denegrate you. Don't think that I am as stupid as you apparently think. The smoking gun was there and it wasn't followed up thouroughly, we see the same thing repeated in these cases, the perp was mentally ill and the indications were clear but no action taken. You have to ask why, what stopped them? Inadequate laws, or stupid laws? If the cops do their job and prevent a crime the case will be thrown out because of the presumption of a rights infringement or worse they will be sued, their time wasted and their job rendered ineffective. You need to wake up

Quote:

---

Having it your way would almost be a sure thing that every couple that divorces or has a spat should recieve a visit and walkthrough from the government.

---

here we are begging the question and putting up the strawman. Rule one of undergraduate debate, make the opposition look stupid. But the reality is fireams should be removed from those situations. Once you breach the law you have lost your right to privacy and given the police the right to enquire so have a spat with you wife that gets loud enough to call the cops and there you are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Well said CDad. What do you think of a tweak in the law that says when a family member calls in a welfare check on another family member we do more than just knock on the door? Maybe a walk through is warranted then. Reasonable as a reaction to family concerns?

One thing that stood out about this nut is how he fooled law enforcement. They could have checked to see if he was a gun owner when the parents called 3 weeks ago, and maybe looked deeper than just a knock on the door.

---

Here is the problem with a tweak as your saying. They went to the location for a welfare check and the did interveiw the person that it was called in on. That is really all the police can do. If you tweak it further then how far are you wanting to go with it? If a welfare check is called in by a disgruntled spouse in a custody battle should the children be removed automatically ? If the person being checked is doing something illegal and discovery is only made by a walkthrough inspection without that persons permission is that ok too? In most cases a search warrant is called for to enter a home without consent unless done during the comission of a crime. We need to be very careful about what we do when we start tweaking the law because of emotions in the moment. Is there responsibility by social networks to monitor whats being said on them - Yes. Should comments and subject matter be examined for dangerous content - Yes. Much of what has been in the news has ties to social media. Part of being a martyr is being know for a cause and being subject to harsh treatment or death because of it. Many of the ones with mental imbalance seem to be on that direct path and leave clues beforehand. I think with those you can act on the clues and check out the situation to its fullest extent. The only way for it to involve the police is for something to have happened and by comments being made in writing that is enough to start the wheels turning and investigate.

ah the voice of reason. but "acting on clues" that infringes the inalienable right to be stupid being defended here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

ah the voice of reason. but "acting on clues" that infringes the inalienable right to be stupid being defended here

---

I think your missing how the laws work over here in this country. What I spoke about infringes on no rights. A person is still entitled to be as stupid as they wish. There are consequences to actions and if your acting stupid then you may bare the brunt of the law for doing so. Stupidity isnt limited to mentally ill. Almost everyone at some point in their life does something stupid. The results vary with each act.

There are different lines between spying on someone vs them shouting out in the public square. It is that which is public that needs to be under scrutiny and not a persons private life until such a time as the act warrants it.