Santa Barbara shooting

JG762

Again, your logic is faulty. No one says it is a simple, one-dimensional problem, or that one single law is going to prevent every single killing, every day of the year. But we don't need to say that.
I think the point is: Given all the problems we have, if someone unknown to you was to decide that they had a grudge against you, or your wife or husband, or someone else in your family, would you rather that person was armed with a semi-automatic or a knife?
C'mon. You must choose one. Which would you choose?
You cannot argue that with restrictions it would not be much harder for a potential multiple murder to get a firearm. That's what a restriction is. Saying that a restriction is not going to be perfect is not an acceptable objection -- when it might save somebody's little boy's life.
Personally, I choose that boy's life. We have freedom in this country. Not complete freedom. We never have had complete freedom.

Sorry you're wrong, you think that it might save a life but how about the lives it could cost in taking away the ability of self protection, especially taking it away from those who aren't physically able to protect themselves from an attacker, don't they deserve the right of self defense?
As far as whether an attacker has a gun or a knife it really doesn't matter, if an assailant is within 7 yards of you and armed with a knife it is well proven that a motivated assailant can close that distance and cut/stab you no matter what you do.
I'm simply responding to your statements that there needs to be more gun control, you're failing to substantiate your assertion, I have provided examples that show you're incorrect.

Nobody hates what has occurred more than I do, but I will not set quietly and let the opinions of others take away a basic right. The police were notified of this persons instability and they did nothing, now after the fact they have decided to review their findings, his parents read his writings and at the last minute decided it was time to act. The parents had to know years ago that there was a problem, whether it was a conscious decision on their part to ignore it we will never know. There were multiple opportunities to prevent this...

LexingtonBadger

He was a psycho. That's really all there is to be said about him. Here's his writings describing his plans to attack.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-isla-vista-document-20140524-story.html#page=3

dismissing violent misogynists as "crazy" is a neat way of saying that violent misogyny is an individual problem and not a cultural one

Thanks so much for saying this.

da faq you talking about?! Cultural?!

Is this Saudi Arabia we are talking about?!

Misogyny/sexism/violence against women comes in a vast number of ways, not just men going out looking to shoot women.

It's absolutely everywhere. Ads on television which show that men are idiots and can't do laundry so the women have to do it, it's on billboards that you see on the street every day, in video games with the helpless damsels in distress, it's in our language and the way that we refer to tank tops as "wife beaters." it's in how we call each other "*kitten*" for being weak because having a vagina signifies that you're automatically a weak person.

It goes beyond what you're seeing.

+1

jeskuhsmeekers

I live about 40 mins from UCSB so i'm interested in seeing what people are saying about this..

GiddyupTim

Again, your logic is faulty. No one says it is a simple, one-dimensional problem, or that one single law is going to prevent every single killing, every day of the year. But we don't need to say that.
I think the point is: Given all the problems we have, if someone unknown to you was to decide that they had a grudge against you, or your wife or husband, or someone else in your family, would you rather that person was armed with a semi-automatic or a knife?
C'mon. You must choose one. Which would you choose?
You cannot argue that with restrictions it would not be much harder for a potential multiple murder to get a firearm. That's what a restriction is. Saying that a restriction is not going to be perfect is not an acceptable objection -- when it might save somebody's little boy's life.
Personally, I choose that boy's life. We have freedom in this country. Not complete freedom. We never have had complete freedom.

Sorry you're wrong, you think that it might save a life but how about the lives it could cost in taking away the ability of self protection, especially taking it away from those who aren't physically able to protect themselves from an attacker, don't they deserve the right of self defense?
As far as whether an attacker has a gun or a knife it really doesn't matter, if an assailant is within 7 yards of you and armed with a knife it is well proven that a motivated assailant can close that distance and cut/stab you no matter what you do.
I'm simply responding to your statements that there needs to be more gun control, you're failing to substantiate your assertion, I have provided examples that show you're incorrect.

Nobody hates what has occurred more than I do, but I will not set quietly and let the opinions of others take away a basic right. The police were notified of this persons instability and they did nothing, now after the fact they have decided to review their findings, his parents read his writings and at the last minute decided it was time to act. The parents had to know years ago that there was a problem, whether it was a conscious decision on their part to ignore it we will never know. There were multiple opportunities to prevent this...

No. A bullet is not a shield.
Those girls, even had they been carrying firearms would not have had a chance because they had no warning. I believe, and I think you would be hard pressed to refute, that those girls would have stood a much better chance of protecting themselves if that guy had had to come running up to them and physically accost them than they did when he simply shot from out of the darkness.
I put it to you again, if guns are such great protection, than why wasn't Dodge City safe and sane? Someone mentioned how safe and civilized Texas is, and concluded that the reason for that was loose guns laws. But it occurs to me that Texas has had its share of mass shootings -- and those occurred on military bases where guns are ubiquitous and people are trained to use them. Those guns were a big help there, weren't they?

salembambi

He was a psycho. That's really all there is to be said about him. Here's his writings describing his plans to attack.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-isla-vista-document-20140524-story.html#page=3

dismissing violent misogynists as "crazy" is a neat way of saying that violent misogyny is an individual problem and not a cultural one

Thanks so much for saying this.

da faq you talking about?! Cultural?!

Is this Saudi Arabia we are talking about?!

Misogyny/sexism/violence against women comes in a vast number of ways, not just men going out looking to shoot women.

It's absolutely everywhere. Ads on television which show that men are idiots and can't do laundry so the women have to do it, it's on billboards that you see on the street every day, in video games with the helpless damsels in distress, it's in our language and the way that we refer to tank tops as "wife beaters." it's in how we call each other "*kitten*" for being weak because having a vagina signifies that you're automatically a weak person.

It goes beyond what you're seeing.

perfect response :flowerforyou:

MassiveDelta

0% sympathy for this load of *kitten* human

male entitlement kills (& rapes) women and this is just a blown up in your face example of that

so beyond disgusted that I might actually cry

You sound fun want to go out sometime.

MassiveDelta

rjmudlax13

A.) Quality women can be found all around the world, just as immature girls can be too...

B.) Feminism is seen as a bad word now because many people, even those who claim it for their own, don't fully understand it. It's not supposed to be about hate, it's not supposed to be about women being better than men, it's not supposed to be about women BEING treated as men. It's suppose to be about women having the strength and courage to be who they want to be, who they really are. If you truly want to be a housewife then that is a beautiful thing and should be persued, however, if you don't want that life and you want to go after a high power career then do it.

I hate when feminists tear down the opposite sex or women who choose to do something against their own beliefs, it defeats the purpose of the whole movement...

Wow. An intelligent and reasonable post!? You must not be a regular MFPer.

rjmudlax13

^antidepressants

every single mass shooter has been on them, and lots of them. But big pharma lobbies and lobbies to keep this on the DL.

Da Faq!?!?

Correlation does not imply causation. An argument can be made that the reason depressives commit suicide and kill is they are actually getting better psychologically. This is extremely counter-intuitive, however it fits into the model of depression recovery. People go from feeling extremely exhausted and indifferent to the point of not being able to function to getting angry. Anger is actually a good thing (psychologically) because it can help break the cycle of depression. These horrible events usually happen when people are not under the proper guidance and supervision. The anger is let out like powder keg instead of a tea kettle. This is why we need more attention on how we view mental health in our society.

I actually partially agree with you about big pharma. I believe they want us to believe that SSRIs are "magic pills" that will "cure" mental illness. This is a very dangerous perception.

kwaz29

Hijacking the murders of innocent people to further one's own misandrist agenda before the bodies are cold. Stay classy, MFP.

Couple thoughts on this:

First, it's interesting that there are three issues being discussed here; guns, mental health, and misogyny, all being argued by both sides of each issue, but you choose only to focus on one, and instead of contributing intelligently and maybe even providing a counterpoint, just choose to call names and shame the contributors who have provided thoughtful answers to this discussion. Almost positive that no one on this thread has said they hate men, so calling anyone a misandrist is not only petty, it's nonsensical.

Second, I did not know the victims. They were not personal friends of mine or even acquaintances. It would not make sense or be financially feasible for me to fly to California to their funerals to pay respect. I don't believe I belong there either. In my own way, discussing the issues that led to their tragic deaths is my way of paying respect to them. When would you prefer we discuss these issues, all 3, not just the misogyny. When they are buried? One year from now? 10? To keep silent is the true disrespect. Only by discussing what had happened, recognizing it and trying to improve the situations that led to it can we avoid further tragedies like this one. Keeping quiet won't help anyone, it will just pave the way for another individual to do the same thing to more victims.

Lilly_the_Hillbilly

I just want SalemBambi to know that I support her statements on this topic.

Ihatecoldsoup

Criminals are going to get guns no matter what bans/restrictions you place. They are criminals, their hobby is to procure illegal items.

1pandabear

My son goes to UCSB and I even know the apartment building where Rodger lived quite well. Thank you. And, yes, I blame guns. Hell yes I blame guns. The fact that you can say "Well, yeah, deaths happen all the time that are not caused by guns" does not exonerate our lax and irresponsible gun laws. The is a stupid argument. I am quite sure the parents of the two girls shot outside the sorority -- killed very rapidly and easily, without the slightest chance of defending themselves -- and the father of the boy who was just buying a sandwich would agree.

Interesting, prior to the gun control act of 1968 anyone could buy a firearm through the mail or walk into any hardware store and pick up an old military rifle or handgun out of a barrel full of them and pay the money and walk out the door. But prior to then a ‘mass shooting” was nearly unheard of, if guns and their ‘ease availability” are at fault today how does one explain that?

^antidepressants

every single mass shooter has been on them, and lots of them. But big pharma lobbies and lobbies to keep this on the DL.

Curious. You state this as if it is a fact you know to be true. I am wondering how you know this? Aren't your health records protected from release to the public by the HIPAA laws?

CJisinShape

My son goes to UCSB and I even know the apartment building where Rodger lived quite well. Thank you. And, yes, I blame guns. Hell yes I blame guns. The fact that you can say "Well, yeah, deaths happen all the time that are not caused by guns" does not exonerate our lax and irresponsible gun laws. The is a stupid argument. I am quite sure the parents of the two girls shot outside the sorority -- killed very rapidly and easily, without the slightest chance of defending themselves -- and the father of the boy who was just buying a sandwich would agree.

There are too many gun laws in California as it is and they are not enforced. I blame law enforcement and State mental health, and the parents. There were warning signs, action could have been taken but it wasn't.

Sure, hindsight is twenty-twenty. That's the cliche because it is true. Easy to see the signs after the fact. Not so with the present. The present is never so transparent and predictable.
Better to restrict or get rid of the guns. Another gun is not a shield for the innocents and potential, and actual, victims and never will be. Dodge City was not the safest city in America because everyone had a gun to defend themselves. It was actually the most violent and deadly.
Time to say our children -- your children, my children, Santa Barbara's children, Newtown's children, Columbine's children, Sparks', Nev., children, etc. -- are more important than unrestricted access and ownership. Seems the lesser price to pay...

If more gun control is the answer to a 'safer city" please explain Chicago or Los Angeles...

Precisely. Laws are punitive to criminals, not preventive. However, access is the issue, and again, even if access were restricted, it creates a black market for it and thus, more crime surrounding it. My personal opinion it that it is a societal issue that glorifies criminal activity. If people were embarrassed to be a gang member or drug dealer, you'd have less of them. As for the ones who do the mass shootings, I wonder what kind of stuff they were on, because I don't think this is normal human behavior in a civil society during peacetime.

HerkMeOff