Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, May 26, 2014

New York Daily News: We Do Have Gun Control In America!

Posted by on Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM

It's this:

Once again, the only true gun control in America is when the shooter finally puts one of his guns to his own head and blows his own brains out.

But what does Elliot Rodger, the alleged UCSB shooter, have in common with Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook killer)? Not just color of skin, which is not that important. What is deeper and more troubling is the combination of their ages (between 20 to 24) and sex (male). Look at the numbers (a PDF) in the Census Bureau's statistics for "Murder Victims—Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000 to 2009." Men in this age range are more in danger, and as a logical consequence are more dangerous than men in all other age groups. (The statistics concerns victims, yes, but male victims tend to be like their killers in sex and age.) Indeed, it is not irrational to propose that guns be banned for males of all races until the age of 25—a more effective ban would be until 29.

The picture is clear. Men are really bad news in the first half of their 20s. The fact that the age area of male danger is consistent in all races, means that the culture/gene relationship is exceptionally volatile (there is no such thing as just genes; there is always genes and the natural/cultural environment). Also, the number of female victims between 20 and 24 is pronounced; but my guess is that this is a consequence of these kinds of women tending to associate more with, and therefore being exposed longer to, the males in the dangerous age group—an age group that's armed by the NRA.

 

Comments (67) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
lark 1
Good Morning Charles,
I wish you and all a pleasant Memorial Day. Let's remember our fallen who served the USA. Also, I'd like express my condolences to the victims of the Santa Barbara massacre.

I can understand one of the victim's father lashing out at the NRA. Fair enough. I would hope that some healing now begin.

My only one quibble is with your last sentence. The NRA didn't arm Rodger, Lanza et al. They, the latter and others are definitively the perpetrators of these horrors, plain and simple. I'm pretty certain neither was a member of the NRA as well. That said, I do believe we live in a "gun culture" for better or for worse. I don't like it myself.

Yes, I understand your cynicism. The Rodger case is a particularly difficult situation. From what I read, he carefully eluded authorities. It was extraordinary that he was able to purchase firearms considering his mental health. But, he still killed without firearms too. He was just damned determined. Most unfortunate.

I do think mental health issues played a major role in this tragedy. "Gun culture" was a close second. I can only conclude how astoundingly difficult it is here in America to place mental health care patients in treatment and keep them safe from the public. Seems like the parents and authorities did all they could. My heart goes out to them.

We humans are a most elusive bunch. Again, my condolences.
Posted by lark on May 26, 2014 at 12:23 PM · Report this
meanie 2
Indeed, it is not irrational to propose that guns be banned for males of all races until the age of 25—a more effective ban would be until 29.


Its irrational because your suggesting that these types of men, mental illness and all, Would unable to murder, assault, rape, or bomb people without a firearm.

From Rwanda to the Boston marathon, your so profoundly wrong it would be sad if it wasn't so stupid.

For bonus points, the logic of prohibiting the actions of 20-25 year old men your using here, are the same used against people of color during segregation periods in the US and abroad.

Congrats, you have doubled down on stupid.
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on May 26, 2014 at 12:28 PM · Report this
3
Brilliant. On this Memorial Day it's inspired to recommend that men under 29 not be capable of owning guns. I look forward to only women and older men being permitted on the battlefields.

Epic logic.

I think it would be more helpful to give police full authority over anyone reported by family as having a mental health crisis.... from being able to commit to institutions, remove all firearms, and give full warrant-less search authority to the police. That'll surely stop the next Lanza/Rodger.
Posted by ChefJoe on May 26, 2014 at 12:40 PM · Report this
5
@2 Are you saying unless we can get rid of bombing, rape, assaults and murder there's no point in getting rid of young dudes embracing your stupid hobby? By that logic they should never have cured Polio because Cancer is still a thing. If you think there are racial implications in this then I have a surprise for you... the drinking age is racist!

@3 Do you really believe owning guns trains young men for battle? I'm pretty sure 99% of active soldiers learned how to use guns from video games like normal people. How about we just taking away one thing and not pretend that will turn into a police state? I'm pretty sure if you've taken a community college Intro To Logic class you know what arguments are.
Posted by ryry on May 26, 2014 at 1:01 PM · Report this
7
@5, Chuck makes no provision for soldiers or training bases and I think you'll find most people entering the armed services have fired a weapon before enlisting.

Indeed, it is not irrational to propose that guns be banned for males of all races until the age of 25—a more effective ban would be until 29.

The picture is clear. Men are really bad news in the first half of their 20s. The fact that the age area of male danger is consistent in all races, means that the culture/gene relationship is exceptionally volatile (there is no such thing as just genes; there is always genes and the natural/cultural environment)
Posted by ChefJoe on May 26, 2014 at 1:10 PM · Report this
8
Well sonofabitch, I guess this legislation that Chuck just wrote has some flaws! #backtothedrawingboard
Posted by ryry on May 26, 2014 at 1:16 PM · Report this
9
My congratulations Mudede! Suggesting no men under 30 should be granted full citizen rights is among your best trolling!

I'd expect comments above 100 again.

Oh. You're SERIOUS! Sorry, you're not being clever- just your usual bone stupid.
Posted by Seattleblues on May 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM · Report this
seatackled 10
@3

I know that having police exercise full authority over anyone whom a family member reports as experiencing a mental health crisis is a wet dream for you men's rights nutjobs, but given that you were celebrating Chris Martinez's murder by the Santa Barbara shooter yesterday, I would have thought that you want to encourage the next Lanza or Rodgers?
Posted by seatackled on May 26, 2014 at 1:31 PM · Report this
11
@10, I don't think you have an accurate view of my beliefs or the meaning of "if it's any consolation" and dark humor related to fewer lawyers in the world in light of something tragic.

It's ok, I know you don't read full posts without expecting them to somehow be useful in attacking others.
Posted by ChefJoe on May 26, 2014 at 1:46 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 12
i always know Mudede's made a solid observation when the Slog Gun Trolls immediately start foaming at the mouth.

Posted by Max Solomon on May 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM · Report this
13
This murder spree is about mental illness and misogyny, not guns, and to say otherwise only allows us to skirt the real problems in our society. Classic case of ignoring the forest but for the weeds.
Posted by pioneer on May 26, 2014 at 1:49 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 14
@13: fucking sophist bullshit.

read the NYT article; Rodger's main worry when his parents sent the cops to check on him was that they'd take his guns. not his knives, not his BMW. his handguns.

he bought THREE SEMI-AUTOMATIC HANDGUNS to project his mental illness and misogyny onto innocent people. he didn't buy fluffy kittens. think of how many LA porn star escort services he could have bought for what he spent on the guns and bullets.

can you at least admit that, in retrospect, this particular crazy fuck shouldn't have had firearms?
Posted by Max Solomon on May 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM · Report this
seatackled 15
@12

I notice they take him at the most literal level.

@11

Great. Tell us something tragic that happened in your family, and maybe we can find a joke in there.
Posted by seatackled on May 26, 2014 at 2:01 PM · Report this
16
@10

You're not making any sense.

I'm concerned about the attacks on the 2nd Amendment. So, in your interesting view, I want to suspend the 4th? See, the reason why I defend the full bill of rights is because eroding one erodes all. Establish precedent that we have certain rights unless a few folks want to surrender them and you can kiss any reason to believe the others are safe goodbye.

It's already begun. I can't go into a government building or board a plane without an unreasonable search of my person, belongings and papers. I can't entirely know if my phone calls or internet usage or reading habits aren't subject to warrantless surveillance. All without amendment of constitutional provisions and all without much outrage from citizens.

So pardon me if something as clear and concise as the 2nd Amendment being railroaded on idiotic interpretations annoys me. Probably because I'm a real American who actually values his liberty.
Posted by Seattleblues on May 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM · Report this
17
@14, if his parents had ever had him put in an involuntary hold while he was a child or the police had been more concerned about his state of mind during their multiple visits earlier, he would have set off all the red flags for mental illness that CA's gun laws already setup.
Posted by ChefJoe on May 26, 2014 at 2:13 PM · Report this
18
I've said this before- if you anti civil rights crowd hate the 2nd Amendment so much, use the legal process in place to change it. Until and unless the text of the damn thing is changed, though, it ought to mean what it actually says.
Posted by Seattleblues on May 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM · Report this
delirian 19
Dammit Charles! You finally made a post that I completely agree with. I thought we had some sort of agreement. I mean, I do have my expectations.
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 2:25 PM · Report this
Knat 20
@5: I can't even begin to deconstruct all the stupid things you said in that little Gish Gallop of yours. But if you think you can learn how to effectively operate any of gun by way of a video game as instruction, I can only conclude you've never had personal encounters with either in your life, nor have you ever set foot into - let alone received instruction from - one of those Intro to Logic classes you mention.

If you could learn things from video games to the level you're implying, not only would I at this point be a master marksman, but a world renowned swordsman, surgeon, pilot (atmo + deep space), hacker, thief, theoretical physicist, bank robber, detective, undead slayer, street fighter, and pirate. I would also be a four-star general with experience operating helicopters, submarines, tanks, and warships.

TL;DR: I award you no points.
Posted by Knat on May 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 21
@13,

He had seen multiple therapists over the years. It's impossible to treat an unwilling patient, especially given how impossible it is to involuntarily commit someone *before* they attempt to kill themselves or others. And mentally ill people who have an illness that has lack of empathy as one of the symptoms have no reason to want to get better.
Posted by keshmeshi on May 26, 2014 at 2:48 PM · Report this
delirian 22
@2,3,7,9: Strawmen.

I would encourage posters not to respond to these posts because these posters are not arguing in good faith. You are wasting your time and only empowering them. If someone starts an argument with a strawman, I can guarantee that they will continue misreading your posts and fighting extreme imaginary arguments that they can construct. Don't give them the space. Just ignore them.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 2:51 PM · Report this
seatackled 23
@16

You're so full of shit. The designated hitter is one of the worst developments in the game, and too often all it's really doing is keeping one-dimensional players in the game. In your world, that's welfare.
Posted by seatackled on May 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM · Report this
smade 24
@18 Are we to understand, then, that you support the right of private citizens to own chemical and biological armaments? Arms are arms after all and the second amendment makes it very clear that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in a strict reading of the text indicates that the amendment refers only to gunpowder weapons.
Posted by smade on May 26, 2014 at 3:00 PM · Report this
25
@22, F you.

It's Memorial Day. Charles proposes that men under 29 (the same age/sex of whom are being remembered today for giving their lives in the name of our country) are not responsible enough to possess guns. Charles is the troll.
Posted by ChefJoe on May 26, 2014 at 3:05 PM · Report this
27
@18 you are aware that only recently the supreme court said there is a personal right to own a gun? If not be god to read up. I'm not saying ban all guns buy just the 2nd is open to interpretation. And nothing unreasonable about a metal detector.
Posted by Seattle14 on May 26, 2014 at 3:18 PM · Report this
delirian 28
@25: No, that is what you proposed. He is talking about private ownership. You can't privately buy a handgun until you are 21 but you can still use them in the military. A person in the military can't privately buy a rocket launcher, but they can use them. Your argument is a strawman. You are trying to find some extreme imaginary point to counter so that you feel clever. But you aren't clever. You are using the same logic tricks as a 13 year old.
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 3:18 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 29
@18: Do the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

I think they clearly do, so precedent is established. The right has been limited. If that's so, until those are overturned, the 2nd does not, in fact, mean what it says. I don't hear the NRA agitating to repeal those laws.

Somehow, despite this infringement on our right to bear fully automatic arms, we've managed to not become a tyranny, your paranoid opinion to the contrary.

Posted by Max Solomon on May 26, 2014 at 3:25 PM · Report this
31
@28, no, Chuck makes no distinction between private ownership or simply handling. He suggests that men of such a young age just aren't mentally capable of handling firearms in general. Your rocket launcher argument is the strawman, Chuck says man under 30 can't be trusted with guns (mysteriously suggesting all races are equally untrustworthy despite his statistics suggesting otherwise).

guns be banned for males of all races until the age of 25—a more effective ban would be until 29.

The picture is clear. Men are really bad news in the first half of their 20s. The fact that the age area of male danger is consistent in all races, means that the culture/gene relationship is exceptionally volatile (there is no such thing as just genes; there is always genes and the natural/cultural environment)
Posted by ChefJoe on May 26, 2014 at 3:29 PM · Report this
raindrop 32
@6: FTW
Posted by raindrop on May 26, 2014 at 3:34 PM · Report this
delirian 33
@31: It is impossible for you to argue against anything but an extreme imaginary argument, isn't it. You have the intellect of a child and no intention to argue with good faith. Fuck off, troll.
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 3:50 PM · Report this
delirian 34
@32: raindrop, you dumb shit, you failed to give a </i> tag. I'll do it for you.
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 3:51 PM · Report this
delirian 35
@32. Fuck, that should have worked. Let me open a case and close a case.
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 3:52 PM · Report this
delirian 36
@32: Sorry raindrop, it was actually ChefJoe fucking up the board, not you.
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 3:56 PM · Report this
37
@36, it's sort of fitting for the odd slant all you anti-gun zealots put on a story where 3 people were stabbed.
Posted by ChefJoe on May 26, 2014 at 4:01 PM · Report this
delirian 38
ChefJoe, you made me check the source, you jerk. This should fix it (he used the <em> tag).
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 4:02 PM · Report this
scary tyler moore 39
men are really bad news at ANY age. men rape and kill women, children and the environment. men are the number one cause of world wide destruction. it is way past time to cull the herd.
Posted by scary tyler moore http://pushymcshove.blogspot.com/ on May 26, 2014 at 4:23 PM · Report this
40
@16

Huh?
Posted by Seattleblues on May 26, 2014 at 5:23 PM · Report this
41
@29

As a citizen I'm not allowed to travel freely, without government checkpoints, in my own country. Even by car courts have upheld roadblock checkpoints, assuming all citizens are breaking some law, for drunks or illegal immigrants. To travel by train or plane I must submit to illegal searches and present identification to government agents.

My private communications, electronic or paper, may be intercepted and read without warrant.

My private medical records are now the property of Herr Obama, for fucks sake. How my doctor conducts his business entirely in my state is illegally regulated by Obamacare.

The standards by which my kids are educated? You guessed it- even though entirely an intra state matter with no federal authority at all that's become federal too.

The fuckers can steal my money that I earned to give it to layabouts and grifters without any recourse on my part.

What do YOU call tyranny, if that doesn't fit the definition?
Posted by Seattleblues on May 26, 2014 at 5:35 PM · Report this
42

The real story is the reporting of this story. The news feeds (SLOG included) have been trying to shoe horn it into what have become the standard memes, but it just doesn't fit. Even informed of this, they continue blithely on -- proving that facts don't really matter in the telling of news, only the reinforcement of the story.

Guns
He killed his first 3 victims by stabbing

Misogyny
He killed more men (4) than women (2)

Geek Kills The Prom Queen
He craved beautiful women who rejected him -- but he didn't kill any of the sorority girls, they wouldn't open the door, so he killed two women on the street, one of whom was a math major (not a majorette).

The parts of the story that are being de-emphasized are the real ones because instead of re-enforcing the memoplex, they destroy it!

Specifically, the shooter was exactly the kind of young, educated, collegiate, wealthy and highly verbal male that our society caters to. If every film about college that ends up on Netflix were true, this is the guy who should have been swimming in coeds! In fact, he would be the bad guy in the movie, the frat kind who had it all,and the clever by poor geeks would find a way in to grab some of the action!

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on May 26, 2014 at 5:35 PM · Report this
ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ 43
@41: You are allowed to travel freely. The police have the authority to RANDOMLY stop people at a ROADBLOCK looking for SPECIFIC violations.
Your private communications pass through hands other than those of the sender and the recipient. Searching such correspondence is different from searching one's home or person because you have already sent it out of your possession. Also, Uncle Sam can gather metadata on your phone correspondence but requires a court warrant in order to actually wiretap, unless there is probable cause to believe you are an agent of a foreign power.
Obamacare is legal and constitutional; the highest court in the land has upheld it. Absent contradictory court precedent, it stands.
Your state determines its own curricula. The Department of Education provides extra funding to school systems that meet certain expectations; there is no compulsion.
Taxation of income is legal under the 14th Amendment. If YOU don't like it, YOU go and get that stricken.

Again, Seattleblues thinks that he knows better than everyone else and should be allowed to force his opinion down the throats of 300-odd million people. No thanks!
Posted by ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ on May 26, 2014 at 5:54 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 44
I would only add that all the cases of guns falling out of holsters and being left behind in restrooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and legislative hearing rooms are men in their 50s and 60s. And by the time they're in their 70s and 80s they're just confused and scared, waving a gun in front of the police before being sadly shot down.

So... Guns for men ages 30 to 49. But only with proper training, background checks, and insurance.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on May 26, 2014 at 6:00 PM · Report this
delirian 45
@41:
How my doctor conducts his business entirely in my state is illegally regulated by Obamacare.
The Supreme Court upheld it, so it is not illegal. You and people like Cliven Bundy might think that you can make your own laws and make your own determination of illegality but you can't. The people elected Congress which passed Obamacare and was signed by the President. Then the Supreme Court affirmed it. All three branches and the people created and affirmed Obamacare which IS THE LAW. Period.
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 6:04 PM · Report this
delirian 46
@44: In many ways, the insurance idea may be the easiest way to regulate guns. Insurance companies will take the precautions to make sure that unsafe people don't get insured by them. And it will allow the gun lobby to start to financially compensate for all the carnage they cause.
Posted by delirian on May 26, 2014 at 6:10 PM · Report this
seatackled 47
@36
Well, Chefjoey--we can call him Chefjoey because he calls Mudede "Chuck" instead of "Charles" or "Mudede"--fucks up every board.
Posted by seatackled on May 26, 2014 at 6:19 PM · Report this
48
@47
Very constructive, troll.
Posted by ChefJoe on May 26, 2014 at 6:35 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 49
@48: like "constructive" is the point of your niggling.
Posted by Max Solomon on May 26, 2014 at 7:12 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 50
Hey Charles, if we can use gender and age to selectively suspend citizen rights, what other factors might we use once that precedent is set?

Are there any other groups that account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime, whose rights may have to be abridged for the public good?
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 26, 2014 at 7:40 PM · Report this
seatackled 51
@50
None whose rights you don't already want to abridge.
Posted by seatackled on May 26, 2014 at 9:47 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 52
@51

Great! Which people were they again?

The questions are - "If we can use gender and age to selectively suspend citizen rights, what other factors might we use once that precedent is set? Are there any other groups that account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime, whose rights may have to be abridged for the public good?"

Do you have an anything relevant to contribute, troll?
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 26, 2014 at 10:06 PM · Report this
53
Charles, race IS important in this sad situation, unfortunately. His self-loathing of his NON-whiteness was a big part of his deranged inner chorus:

http://qz.com/213553/what-isla-vista-sho…
Posted by g on May 26, 2014 at 10:13 PM · Report this
54
@52, I think gender and age are sufficient. It may turn out to be a slippery slope, but it's still a good start.
Posted by sarah70 on May 26, 2014 at 10:19 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 55
@54 "It may turn out to be a slippery slope"

If you're willing to go that far, are you willing to hold on to the advances we've made in eliminating those slippery slopes, and finding a sensible way of preserving lives while only disenfranchising the most relevant population? Sounds good, when put that in that manner doesn't it?

The majority of gun violence correlates most strongly to poverty, as does violent crime in general.

So, if we look at this issue with the aim of removing access to guns from the portion of our population which would most reduce gun violence, the solution is obvious - No guns for the poor.

No guns for the poor. That's the most statistically relevant curtailment of citizens rights we could make. Is that something you're willing to support? I sure as hell am not.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 26, 2014 at 10:53 PM · Report this
seatackled 56
Ooh, TCLballardwallymont! You just called me "troll"! Are you ChefJoe, or do you just like aping him?

I don't think anyone has ever actually called me that, so this can't be a coincidence on the same thread. I guess ChefJoe isn't happy that I've been laying into him for his celebration of Chris Martinez's murder in Santa Barbara.

(FWIW, ChefJoe claims he wasn't celebrating, just making a funny about the murder, so I guess we are supposed to consider him a misunderstood soul. Me, I just think he's disgusting.)
Posted by seatackled on May 26, 2014 at 11:22 PM · Report this
seatackled 57
@TCLballardwallymont

Wait a minute, wasn't it you who sarah70 called a stupid idiot or something similar yesterday and you responded by calling her a stupid idiot?

So we can see that you have little originality. My apologies to ChefJoe, who's actually half-clever in a dull sort of way, for suggesting that he might be you.
Posted by seatackled on May 26, 2014 at 11:33 PM · Report this
seatackled 58
@22
And thank you, derilian for reminding us not to feed the trolls. I usually do manage to ignore ChefJoe, but the offensiveness of his celebration of Chris Martinez's murder got the better of me. It's a little cathartic directing invective at him, but you're right: ultimately, it's a waste of time that just encourages and empowers them.
Posted by seatackled on May 26, 2014 at 11:40 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 59
Hey look, combative troll is combatively trolling. Surprise!

Yes indeed. It's clearly a vast conspiracy to defame you, not the lack of contribution and sheer shit-wittedness in your comments that results in that pejorative being used in reference to your babbling.

I'm curious, does having to stop between comments to mop the drool from your keyboard make trolling difficult for you?
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 26, 2014 at 11:52 PM · Report this
seatackled 60
@59,

Hi, no, actually, it's not really possible for anyone to drool so much that mopping would be necessary; in my case, when I drool on my keyboard, usually a corner of napkin is enough to get things dry.

Also, thank you for demonstrating derilian's point that you will continue to misread people's posts to create your own imaginary argument.

To be specific, I made no suggestion of a vast conspiracy against me as you claim. What I wrote involved at most two posters, which can hardly be considered vast. But a conspiracy involves people working together; what I wrote was that either you were posting under two different monickers or you were simply imitating someone else. I used the word "aping," to say that you are like an ape. But in neither scenario would anyone be working together.

So that's why if I were trying to "win" against you, I can't. No one really can.
Posted by seatackled on May 27, 2014 at 12:31 AM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 61
Wonderful! So we can get back to the point at hand! Again!

The questions are - "If we can use gender and age to selectively suspend citizen rights, what other factors might we use once that precedent is set? Are there any other groups that account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime, whose rights may have to be abridged for the public good?"

Do you have an anything relevant to contribute, troll?
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 27, 2014 at 12:34 AM · Report this
delirian 62
@60: What these trolls don't understand is that this message board isn't the place where public policy is created. All that happens here is that we discuss things. And if they decided to put a good faith effort into discussing the issues here they would have a productive conversation. They might even be able to convince someone about a point they are making (or surprisingly, learn something and be convinced themselves).

Unfortunately, they simply try to mimic the way the dialogue is presented by politicians (the real trolls). And by doing so, they undermine their own credibility. It is as if they fear that if they 'lose' a conversation here then they will lose their guns. This isn't going to happen. But if they bully people and make strawman arguments, they do harden people against listening to potentially rational pro-gun posters. There are some on this board who don't seem to post anymore. I think the screechers like TCLballardwallymont and ChefJoe have driven them off. The rational pro-gun posters tried to make an argument, but they were drowned out by the freakout bullshit of these trolls. And now these threads just come down to name-calling and misrepresentations.
Posted by delirian on May 27, 2014 at 1:45 AM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 63
Great point!

If we can use gender and age to selectively suspend citizen rights, what other factors might we use once that precedent is set? Are there any other groups that account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime, whose rights may have to be abridged for the public good?

Any answer, or are you too busy screeching?
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 27, 2014 at 1:50 AM · Report this
64
One line from Charles's post jumps out at me. "But what does Elliot Rodger, the alleged UCSB shooter, have in common with Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook killer)? Not just color of skin, which is not that important."

In Rodger's own words: " I am half White, half Asian, and this made me different from the normal fully-white kids that I was trying to fit in with." . . . "I came across this Asian guy who was talking to a white girl. The sight of that filled me with rage. I always felt as if white girls thought less of me because I was half-Asian, but then I see this white girl at the party talking to a full-blooded Asian. I never had that kind of attention from a white girl! And white girls are the only girls I'm attracted to, especially the blondes. How could an ugly Asian attract the attention of a white girl, while a beautiful Eurasian like myself never had any attention from them? "

Rodger clearly thought that race was important. But perhaps he would have been as full of rage no matter what race he was, so maybe it wasn't important after all.
Posted by ridia on May 27, 2014 at 2:39 AM · Report this
65
@62, when you start from the ridiculous premise that men under 29 can't be entrusted with guns and anyone who asserts otherwise is a troll, there is no dialogue. Add in the assholes like yourself who start interjecting rocket launchers as guns, and it's pretty clear this blog is a circle jerk of anti-gun nuts making strawmen arguments for those of us who favor a rational gun policy.
Posted by ChefJoe on May 27, 2014 at 7:35 AM · Report this
67
sorry children; the only way to stop ALL of these mass murders [including classic terrorism] is to ban monogamy. The inevitable near future will have mass murder attempts on a daily basis and they wont even make the news. [see coverage of this latest event compared to the ones that occurred 15 or 20 yrs ago] Banning monogamy and consequentially all forms of human ownership will improve everyones lives immeasurably. One law is all that is needed for true love.
Posted by carsten coolage on May 27, 2014 at 11:10 AM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 68
@66

It's perfectly legal to own a tank :D
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 27, 2014 at 11:21 AM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 69
Funny seeing as Mudede's family and their Marxist allies participated in armed genocide in Rhodesia.

If Chuck does not like the laws of this nation he can go back home.

Posted by Cascadian Bacon on May 27, 2014 at 8:33 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 71
@70 tl;dr. Too busy driving my tank around. I need it to carry all my guns.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on May 28, 2014 at 11:57 AM · Report this
Lissa 72
Oh this whole thread is so funny! None of you are trolls for heaven's sake!
Well maybe Charles could be described as such, since he's managed to suck us all into arguing about his ridiculous suggestion!
Why are you fighting over one of his fantasies? Is it any way likely that what he proposes could occure? It's on the same level as if he were to say something along the lines of the way to solve traffic jams would be to require us all to commute in hot air balloons.
It's Charles people!
So no, nobody here is a troll, and I say that as a gun owner who would love to see some realistic legislation regarding gun ownership, and would also kind of love owning a tank.
Because that would certainly make my commute more enjoyable.
Posted by Lissa on May 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM · Report this
73
We really want to see some foolproof and sensible gun legislations. Go ahead folks. Thanks
Posted by Norman Rick http://greenflagnews.blogspot.com on July 31, 2014 at 1:25 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy