4 shot, 1 dead at Christian retreat in California

[firedupdem]

Source: Associated Press

TEMECULA, Calif. - Authorities said late on Tuesday that at least four people had been shot and one killed at a Korean Christian retreat in Southern California.

Riverside County Sheriff's spokesman Dennis Guttierez said the gunman was likely one of the people hospitalized after the shooting Tuesday night in Temecula, about 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles.

He said at least two of the victims had been critically injured.

Mario Lopez of the California Highway Patrol said officers responded to the retreat at about 7 p.m. after hearing a man had shot his wife. He said one person was dead when they arrived.

Guttierez said the language barrier was making it hard to get all the facts and that some nuns at the scene were very distraught.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30100435/

[firedupdem]

1. What the hell is going on? n/t

[Optical.Catalyst]

13. He is what is going on, just tune in your radio dial

The Rush Limbaugh Show Broadcast live at: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. ET

The Sean Hannity Show Broadcast live at: 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. ET

Michael Medved Show Broadcast live at: 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. ET

The Michael Reagan Talk Show Broadcast live at: 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. ET

The Savage Nation Broadcast live at: 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. ET

The G. Gordon Liddy Show Broadcast live at: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. ET

Neal Boortz Show Broadcast live at: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. ET

The Glenn Beck Program Broadcast live at: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m ET

The Mike Gallagher Show Broadcast live at: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Spend the day cleaning your guns and getting fired up. You know the wacko right wing haters are.

[timtom]

17. But why are they not picking

left-wing or progressive victims?

It seems as though they are ravaging their own.

[The Stranger]

33. Leave them be.

Perhaps it is a function of evolution.

[knixphan]

94. lol - like 'The Happening'.

[PassingFair]

28. I listened to "Hannity" for the first time yesterday....

Had to drive out of my normal range, and just
scanned for an AM station.

This guy was over the TOP! Saying that
we were in DANGER. SCARY situations.
Obama is cutting the defense budget,
we're all DOOMED.

What a crock.

[FailureToCommunicate]

57. I happened upon "Savage Nation" after the Red Sox win and holy cow! Not only

did he go on about the Obama pics with the troops were not with REAL combat troops ("they hate Obama") but he and several callers joked about what SHOULD
happen (if only the pesky FBI wouldn't show up at your door) was for Obama to be "taken out." Now, I'm no linguist, but that sounds to me like the Secret Service should be
checking in on Michael Savage and explain how freedom of speech vs. threatening the president's life works...

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Critters2]

77. Umm, probably not a good idea to suggest such things regarding

an elected official, even a crazy, wing nut elected official.

[rl6214]

105. I really think

The internet plays a bigger role in these mass shootings than any of these talking heads. They have access to anything and everything including supremesist groups, neo-nazi groups, obcene videos of hate filled speech, you name it, it's there.

[cboy4]

2. It's almost getting comical, in a WTF is going on kinda way

:crazy:

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. Another shooting? It's one or two a day.

[dustbunnie]

76. Well the average total of yearly homicides is about 17,000 so it's more than one or two a day.

Any given week, month, or year. We're just focussing on them these days for some reason.

[villager]

4. It's getting so far past comprehensible tragedy, that it's becoming cosmically absurd

...in a truly awful kind of way....

[willing dwarf]

12. Stressful times drives people over the edge

Working in the mental health field, I've seen how stress is the switch for crises. Granted, there are millions of people with diagnosed mental illness who do not go on shooting rampages, but I don't think you'll ever find a sane person who does go on a shooting spree.

I guess the economic meltdown is causing countless mental breakdowns and some of them are turning violent. So sad.

[Dr Fate]

5. Face it- we all need guns and bullet proof vests. We must embrace the gun culture to survive.

Because the gun absolutists ain't budging.

[MercutioATC]

7. Most of those you call "absolutists" are anything but.

Most supporters of gun rights agree with sensible gun legislation...which already exists and has since 1934.

What they take issue with are silly laws that ban certain firearms based on how they look.

[geckosfeet]

16. We DO NOT sensible legislation. Every state does what they darn well please.

You may live in a state with relatively restrictive gun laws (MA, CA) which is right next to states with virtually no regulation.

Federal regulations are minimal. There are laws on the books but they do next to nothing to prevent these types of shootings.

[MercutioATC]

18. NO laws will prevent these types of shootings....unless you propose to ban ALL guns.

Federal legislation is perfectly adequate.

CA has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Did it stop the shooting yesterday?

[Dr Fate]

53. If CA rolled back their gun laws, would there be less shooting?

If CA rolled back every gun law that the NRA has opposed for the last 30 years, would they have less or more gun killings?

I dont know what the answer is- but it's interesting to see gun absolutists argue that everyone is going to get shot, stabbed, run over or otherwise killed no matter what we do as a society to prevent it.

[slackmaster]

110. I believe it wouldn't make any measurable difference

We've had registration of handguns here since 1968, yet most handguns used in crimes are not registered to the people who misuse them.

[Blandocyte]

20. they all look real scary fromthe business end of them

and that's why legislators will start trying to decrease the number of them using whatever means they can to get a foothold. If it's "scary looking" from other angles so much the better to get the foothold and start getting those off the streets. One less gun out there means one less gun some nutjob can get a hold of.

[MercutioATC]

23. Are you proposing a ban on ALL firearms?

If not, why should how the gun looks have any relevance?

[jberryhill]

45. Why not?

I don't see why appearance should be irrelevant. If there is data that indicates that certain styles appeal to certain pathologies - and I certainly don't know whether there is or is not one way or the other - then such data would be relevant. Law is about regulating behavior, not some exercise in geometric logic over whether you believe a distinction is substantive or not.

And, no, this is not an invitation to anecdotes, as I'm not terribly interested in the issue, but my comment is directed to the general question of whether "looks have any relevance". Certainly looks have relevance if the looks are or are not relevant to any particular behavior.

It's much like the arguments over "simulated child porn". Some take the position that even if the subjects are adults dressed or appearing to be children, or if the matter is photo-realistic renderings of what appears to be child pornography, then such matter should be regulated on the basis of proposed behavior such porn inspires. Others take the position that "simulated child porn" does not involve exploitation of actual children in its production, and is thus functionally harmless.

There is merit to both positions in the "simulated child porn" argument, but it is entirely about appearance and behavioral consequences.

[X_Digger]

51. I'm reminded of an analogy someone recently made..

The analogy isn't entirely on topic, but it does apply.

If someone crunched the insurance numbers and found that red cars are more likely than other colors to be involved in accidents, banning the color red wouldn't significantly reduce the incidence of accidents- those who have a predisposition to drive recklessly may have a preference for the color red, but it's not a causal relationship.

Similarly, I think that banning weapons based on appearance will only lead those who would use them irresponsibly to choose another weapon of equal strength yet more 'acceptable' appearance.

[jberryhill]

54. Yes, well, that's why I am not a statistician....

But my point is that it is possible to make data-driven decisions, test hypotheses, and then adjust for unexpected outcomes.

Taking your hypothetical, then it is just as simple to say, "Oh well, that didn't work, let's have red cars again." What is the irremediable harm in that?

[X_Digger]

70. True- to me, that's kind of where we are re: AWB

We had 10 years of the AWB. Looking at the steady decline in gun violence over the last 40 years, there was no steep drop in those 10 years, no 'bounce' after it expired, nor did the incidence (already low) of AW's use in those crimes drop.

The conclusion that I draw is that a ban based on appearance doesn't have a measurable effect on gun violence- whether it was because of substitution, already low incidence, or general decline in violent crime. Quite the opposite, I'd say, the AWB just made the targeted guns (no pun intended) more popular, and a new generation is using them in more situations- defense of home, hunting, shooting competitions. There are more of these kinds of weapons on the street, yet their incidence of use in the commission of a crime hasn't shot up or down (figures from the recent spate of shootings notwithstanding, the actual gun used is often misreported up front.)

The other portion that I keep hearing from politicians that scares a lot of folks is this talk of 'compromise'. There is no "give" and "take", it seems to be "take as much as I want" versus "take as much as you'll let me". Many pols have talked about making the AWB permanent- not a lot of experimentation and correction there, seems to be more, then more, then more. Give an inch, you'll lose a foot. Give a foot, lose a yard.

[rrneck]

106. Laws regulate behavior

in the form of verifiable acts. We have laws that adjudicate the actual things that people do. That's how we get evidence to convict them. It sounds like you are suggesting we regulate taste. The Assault Weapons Ban didn't work because the market was able to respond with its usual blinding speed to the need to change the appearance of the firearms. But they still shoot real bullets.

I'm not aware of any new firearms regulations that are possible. But I'm always open to suggestion.

[Dr Fate]

52. Exactly- they wont budge. They call any regulation passed after 1934 "silly."

The main options they present is for everyone to succumb to the gun culture by arming themselves, as well as to put more people in prison.

The gun absolutists I speak of give us 2 options- more prisons and more guns.

[jberryhill]

55. That's cool - can we have nukes? /nt

[Dr Fate]

56. Why do we need nukes? We can kill people with cars, bath tubs and axes.

The main message we all need to take away from this is that "crazy people" are going to kill us no matter what society does- so you may as well buy a gun.

The gun absolutist strategy is to force everyone to throw up their hands and say- "Oh well- these guns are not going anywhere,so I guess I have to arm myself."

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

[roguevalley]

99. those poor people. may they rest in peace. that is the saddest thing I've heard today

[aquart]

9. Piffle. The Republicans ain't budging either.

Should we all become Republicans just because they manage to make so many of us dead?

If you're trying to say that hunters won't shoot at other hunters...well, there's a lawyer who went out hunting with Dick Cheney ....

[Dr Fate]

68. See my other posts if you want to know where I'm coming from. n/t

n/t

[Blandocyte]

22. But what happens if I embrace someone in the gun culture

and the "safe action trigger" of their Glock gets brushed causing an accidental shooting? Heh. Maybe the next big fashion fad can be ballistic vests by highbrow designers.

[jberryhill]

47. You should see some of the designer bullet resistant clothing

There are quite a few popular designers of fashionable bullet resistant clothing and accessories.

Beautiful stuff:

www.miguelcaballero.com/

There are also places where you can get bullet stopping school backpacks for the kids.

[Dr Fate]

62. Support the Troops- er I mean the students!

Gun absolutists may not allow us to regulate guns, but at least they make sure that our troops- er- I mean students have the finest and most stylish equipment available!

[benEzra]

102. Anyone in the "gun culture" would have the Glock in a holster, as designed.

Someone with a Glock loose in their pants is part of either the "Criminal Culture" or "Darwin Award Culture."

My wife carries a Glock (G26), FWIW. In a holster.

[remedy1]

6. But California has very strict gun control laws...

How could this happen?

[CreekDog]

11. because there's nothing stopping anyone from bringing them in from Nevada or Arizona or anywhere

[Cali_Democrat]

15. We do?

I didn't even know that.

[Blandocyte]

24. Instead of controlling guns

let's control the grips- all guns except those in the hands of active military and LE should be made with freakin huge grips so that, just like the little gas station bathroom key on the huge honkin piece of wood you get for those restrooms outside the station, guns would be so hard to conceal that they couldn't be sneaked into schools, retreats, etc. Picture a Glock with a 24' long flourescent orange grip. Hey, better control of muzzle flip... hmmm. The gun guys would like that, right?

[Hannah Bell]

8. we skipped a day, i was getting worried.

[tan guera]

10. Thanks for your dark humor.

[firedupdem]

34. I didn't even think we skipped one. Thats good to know...

jeez this is getting scary!

[Turbineguy]

14. A Christian Retreat.

If there is a place where one should be heavily armed....

[Blandocyte]

19. Must not have retreated far enough

But seriously, what the heck is going on with this crazy country? Look, I know that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," but guns sure do help people kill people as easy as pulling a trigger. There's way too many guns out there.

[Demeter]

21. It's Called a Depression

and we're naming this one the Reagan-Bush Greater Depression.

[Blandocyte]

25. Yep. That's a huge part of it

all that emotional distress out there now. Couple that with a device that can easily be turned on someone else and you got Satan's right hand. Unfortunately, for those in hard times looking for money, their gun will probably be the last thing they'll sell.

[knixphan]

95. good point.

[redqueen]

40. The Reagan-Bush Greater Depression...

I like that.

[Soylent Brice]

26. what the hell is slater doing on the highway patrol?

seriously though, wow.

lotta nuttery religious shootings lately...

[xchrom]

27. another day -- another mass shooting. nt

[sythe200]

29. Ban of guns

If all the guns get banned, we'll just end up banning knives and swords and other such items like the British have been doing. People who are crazy will find a way to hurt other people even if all they have is their bare hands. Granted mass shootings would go away if we could actually keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but muggings, rapes, and other violent crimes would be unaffected. We need to find a more effective way of trying to prevent crime than just trying to ban more and more guns with little to no effect on actual crime rates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/4788881.stm

[Dr Fate]

59. "We" need to find a way to prevent crime? You mean the NRA doesn't have an alternate solution?

Besides more guns and more prisons?

How much lobbying money does the NRA put forth for crime prevention initiatives, I wonder. My guess is none and none.

The message I get from your post is that under the current situation- crazy people will find a way to kill and rape the same amount of people, no matter what the situation or what society does to protect itself.

I need to see more solutions & more compromise from gun absolutists- why is it that people who want no part of the gun culture the ones who have to come up with the alternate solutuions and make all the compromises?

[sythe200]

72. Solutions

Well, I'm sorry that you got the impression that crazy people will kill and rape no matter what. That is not what I intended to say. My intent was to say that merely banning guns will not have the desired effect if, in fact, the desire is to reduce rapes and murder. If gun control alone could do it that would imply that prior to the invention of firearms there would have to have been no rapes or murders because there were no firearms. And yes, the solution does lie on us because we are the ones trying to justify removing a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Also, it is silly to imply that people who want to have a part in the gun culture do not desire to minimize crime. A person owning a gun does not mean that they condone or don't care about violent crime. Now if you want a few solutions, I have a couple of possibilities:

1) Decriminalize drug use, which will immediately reduce the prison population by about 40% and allow the police to spend their time a little more productively. (Investigating and preventing real crime.) Also, the violence that is associated with drug wars and gang violence would likely decrease as a result of repealing drug laws, similar to the demise of organized crime after the repeal of prohibition.

2) Emphasize a self-defense culture by promoting either martial arts training in schools and for adults as well as allowing people to arm themselves for self-defense is desired.

A combination of these two would likely have a dramatic impact on the violent crime rate in America. The availability of more police to be on the alert for violent crime as well as the greater likelihood of the people defending themselves until the police arrive would have very positive benefits to the people.

[Dr Fate]

74. The NRA & conservative pro-gun movement supports decriminalization of drugs? Since when?

Until the powerful & influential lobbyists & congressmen who fight gun regulations with millions of dollars support these things, I dont see how you can present this as a viable counter-balance to gun violence.

All you present is a hypothetical.

"If and when" the NRA or some comparable multi-million dollar funded lobby supported drug decriminalization and Karate classes to counter balance guns, then you might have a point. Problem is, they don't- and have expressed no interest in fighting for such things.

I didnt ask for "if and when" hypotheticals- I asked for acutal, viable solutions that the Gun lobby and their allies have fought for.

[rl6214]

103. If we werre to decriminalize drugs

How would we handle things like driving while impaired? I sure as hell know I don't want to be on the road with someone that is stoned or high. Is it going to be treated like driving under the influence? Will we continue to have drug dealers or will it be sold at your local pharmacy? Will a prescription be required and will insurance cover it, like some cover viagra now?

[crim son]

30. ENOUGH ALREADY!

Get rid of the fucking weapons. This is getting frightening.

[RamboLiberal]

32. Banning sure worked well in the drug war didn't it

And prohibition sure worked in the late 20's/early 30's.

You can't legislate safety by a ban.

While we're at it, let's rewrite the first amendment so we can ban Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, but also progressive talk. Any hate speech against the government or individuals.

Let's be unarmed all the way. :sarcasm:

[crim son]

36. You know, drugs and guns are not the same deal.

I'm pretty sure you know that but let's definitely keep pretending, shall we?

I am truly sick of the gun-toters. I just am and you can throw your sarcasm at me until you're blue in the face, it won't change my mind. We've done it your way for over two hundred years and it's time to try something new.

[boilinmad]

37. Copy that!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: GUNS FUCKING SUCK

[Celeborn Skywalker]

39. The bill of rights isn't up for debate.

Sorry.

[Dr Fate]

67. Tell that to NRA supporting conservatives who apply community standards to the 1st Amendment.

Yet refuse to even consider similar community standards when it comes to the 2nd.

Tell that to the Supreme Court that applies time, place and manner RESTRICTIONS on the right to free speech as well.

Even content (not merely just the time, place and manner) of speech can be reasonably regulated when it poses an immediate danger to life & limb.

To most NRA conservatives, The Bill of Rights certainly is up for discussion, flexibility and compromise when it comes to everything but the 2nd Amendment.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

69. I have never defended the NRA.

I believe they're essentially a fascist right wing organization.

I believe that there can be some sensible restrictions on ownership i.e gun locks, psychiatry tests, machine gun bans,etc.

[Dr Fate]

71. So my argument stands. Our society does allow some flexibility as to regulating our Rights.

Also, if we are going to be trumpeting NRA type talking points and tactics as gospel on this thread, then the NRA and similar groups remains a germane part of this discussion.

If we are going to take the "good" NRA arguments seriously, then we need to look at their bad stances or lack of stances too.

Many gun absolutists wont budge, compromise or even make consistent arguments when it comes to "regulated" fire arms- it's very frustrating, and I think it's going to end up turning most of the public against them.

[Pavulon]

84. Define regulate

what are you proposing?

[Dr Fate]

87. Hold on-we were not done yet. First, define "solution". Two can play at the NRA style sematics game.

You have yet to propose any viable "solutions" to counterbalance gun violence.

Perhaps the problem is that you and I have different definitions to what a "solution" is.

For me, it means something viable, that will actually happen.

I still have not heard what the gun lobby is proposing as a counter balance to gun violence- you know- the guys who can actually propose things and actually make it happen.


ON EDIT- whoops- wrong sub thread!!!!!

[rrneck]

107. I understant that the NRA

has for years been the gold standard for firearms safety training. You might look into that if you want.

[Dr Fate]

89. Sorry- I responded to the wrong argument above!

To answer your question, I'm not really proposing anything- I'm establishing that the Bill of Rights is indeed flexible according to conservatives and others- just not as to the 2nd Amendment.

1st amendment Free speech is regulated under current judicial review- you are the constitutional expert here- so you know what I'm talking about. It's not about how I define regulation, but how SCOTUS defines it.

I'm not proposing this at all- but it would be interesting to see if a community standards model (similar to that applied to the 1st Amendment) could reduce gun violence...

[Pavulon]

92. You are a bit hostile...

sure the 2nd is not absolute. You approach is a bit strange though. SCOTUS sets a broad horizon, ownership is a basic rights. The laws are filled in by congress and states.

[Dr Fate]

96. I don't feel hostile- perhaps you are not used to people who are just as passionate as you.

I find the NRA/Gun absolutist approach a bit strange as well- all analogies, all gotcha logic tricks-but no viable solutions.

I thought you or someone else was originally arguing that the bill of rights was "not up for debate"- now we are agreeing that these rights are debated over by the courts, for better or for worse.

I'm not sure where we disagree as to SCOTUS having the power of judicial review to determine what is constitutional and what is not. It is certaily not the NRA, not Chuck Heston, nor me, nor you.

We both know that SCOTUS allows for the "regulation" of speech under the 1st Amendment- if congress or the states over step in their regulation, then the court might step in. As I said, how *I* define regulation isn't really important.

The Community Standard test was set by SCOTUS- the standards themselves are set by local govt. There is no Federal Community Standard. I often wonder what howling and gnashing of teeth we would hear from the NRA and their allies if someone dared to suggest that such local community standards should be applied to the 2nd as they are the 1st.

[sythe200]

50. Actually...

If you look at actual facts and statistics instead of relying on a visceral fear of guns for your arguments, you would see that attempts to ban guns always lead to greater incidences of gun crime. There is the exhaustively documented example of gun control in the UK, as well as the statistics from Australia in which they banned nearly all guns including .22 rifles(for which I have anecdotal evidence that a .22 will not kill a chicken at point blank range without multiple shots) and shotguns. The statistics there show that assaults and other violent crime including robberies were unaffected by the gun ban and that gun related crime specifically actually increased after the ban was put into effect.

So, should we decide to violate constitutional rights (it doesn't matter if we like them or not. If it's in the Constitution that's just how it is) and continue down the road that leads to the destruction of all our civil liberties (including the ones that we like), just so that we can have zero effect on violent crime? It doesn't seem like a winning proposition to me.

I know that this probably sounds like conservative talking points but truth is truth. Gun bans don't work for reducing violent crime and if we want to get rid of guns just because we don't like them we need to do it legally, i.e. a Constitutional amendment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. Amen

[fascisthunter]

82. Thank You for pointing out what should be obvious

[slackmaster]

43. Let's see your plan

Details, son, details.

[Dr Fate]

60. Let's see the NRA's plan to solve the problem- one that does not involve more guns and more prisons.

If the NRA is going to force everyone to embrace the gun culture, then I need to hear their crime prevention plans. I'm not talking about putting a killer in prison after he shoots me, I'm talking about the NRA's plan to keep me from being shot.

We have heard the NRA talking points on why we can't lay a finger on the gun culture- now we need to hear the NRA talking points on crime prevention.

What are they? Do they back it up with as much cash as they put forth to stop gun regulations? Do they even have a solution that does not involve more violence or more prisons?

Details,son, details.

[Pavulon]

80. Look to Switzerland, sweden, finland, israel...

lots of guns, few shootings. Lots of mental health care available. Say Canada, just a bit north, lots of guns, fraction of the murder rate.

Ever wonder why?

I am right now having a moral debate on drinking a beer. All the DWI deaths, all because of a product I am creating a demand for. If they just banned it, that would all go away..Fuck it, beer is tasty.

[Dr Fate]

81. The NRA & other conservatives will never look to Switzerland, sweden, finland, israel...

...as to mental healthcare, etc.

They certainly wont pour millions or billions of dollars into fighting for these things, and you know that.

You raise a great point though- if the same powerful conservatives were really fighting for these hypothetical counterbalances you propose, we would have less to worry about.

As it stands, the top, conservative groups who agree with you on not regulating guns have not lifted a finger to fight for the counterbalances you bring up.

[Pavulon]

83. The NRA is conservative, legal firearm ownership is not conservative

there are PLENTY of firearm owners who are not conservative, not nra members who follow all the rules. People who follow the rules should not be impacted by people who are going to break them.

We have common sense laws (for the most part now). If you are into bans look to DC, should be crime free...Not so much.

This is dangling bait, if we (the Democratic majority) take it we are FUCKED right out of power. I would like to see some good things happen over 8 years, not a disaster in 2 or 4.

[Dr Fate]

85. You are vering away from our sub-topic- which is viable counterbalances & solutions to gun violence.

As it stands, we have powerful groups that will fight for guns, but no where near the support or power in implementing the counterbalances you propose.

If I follow your plan, I end up with what the NRA wants but none of your wholly hypothetical counterbalances.

If people cannot get the counterbalances you propose, then they are going to look to other counterbalances to gun violence that you won't like.

Again, we agree that DEMS should lay off gun control talk for now-that is not the point of my posts in any event.

[Pavulon]

86. Not counter balances, root cause

untreated mental illness is root cause when a guy cuts his junk off with an razor. It is not a razor control issue.

The things I am talking about cover the vast majority of gun crime.

DEMS should lay off gun law because stupid gun laws piss people off and don't work. We have plenty of laws now.

[Dr Fate]

88. And again, the conservative gun lobby doesn't give a rats ass about absolving these root causes.

There in no viable counterbalance to gun violence being offered with equal funding and intensity- and thus the violence will continue.

At some point, people who do not want to be part of the gun culture are going to find and implement quick & easy coutnerbalances that you wont like.

[Pavulon]

93. You have to have power to do that. Anything like a ban is instant death

to political majority. That is as real is it gets. Bodies are stacked by suicides and drug violence. Gang bangers and soldiers in a drug war are the norm.

Quick and easy is generally wrong.

[Dr Fate]

97. In other words, the Gun absolutists are not going to do anything to counter-balance gun violence.

But we already knew that.

And no, I don't have the power to implement the solutions you raise. I dont have billions of dollars worth of gun money backing me up. You guys do.

Powerless people with no lobby backing them up and who have no interest in the gun culture are going to have to fight for the counterbalances you raise. In other words, it aint going to happen- your solutions are not real solutions that will actually occur.

You would think that the NRA and others would want to fight for these counterbalances- but they wont.

You are right- quick & easy is usually wrong-and that is where I see this going.

If the gun advocates with all the power wont fight for the long-term counterbalances, they will make it that much easier for the reactionary anti-gun advocates to convince people that taking away rights is the best short-term solution.

You are correct that this will not happen in 2010 or even 2012- but give it time- as long as there are no real solutions being offered, more people will be killed with guns and more & more people are going to be fed up with gun violence.

[slackmaster]

101. I think we have too many people in prison, Dr Fate

But we are putting the wrong ones in, and letting too many dangerous people out.

[FudaFuda]

46. Avg. 36 people have been killed in the USA every day by drunk drivers in 2009

http://cognac.com/2670-drunk-driving-deaths-so-far-in-2009/

Why don't we show a little outrage about that?!?

Imagine if the MSM ran the frontpage headline "Another 36 or so dead again today in DUI crashes, just like yesterday."

Imagine if they ran that headline every single day.


Well, that's kinda what they're doing with guns right now. They want to make it a crisis. They've got no problem with the possibility that glorifying the shooter and publishing his manifesto might encourage others to kill. You might be okay with that, but I guess you can see not all democrats, or even DU'ers, believe disarming the US citizenry is a good idea.

I'm not saying homicides involving firearms aren't news. I'm just saying that such incidents are disproportionately reported as compared to DUI, which actually kills more people. And the outrage is diproportionate as well. What is it you care about - saving as many lives as possible, or just banning guns?


According to the CDC, homicides by firearm are drastically lower now than they were 15 years ago. It is not 'crazy' now, it is actually much better now than it was in the early 90's. Steady progress towards a more peaceful society is happening despite what msnbc is telling you, and it is happening without passing additional gun control laws. (Actually it is happening with the passage of shall-issue concealed carry laws).

As noted above by another member, the Bill of Rights is not negotiable.

[Dr Fate]

63. For some reason, there is no powerful, multi-million dollar Pro-Drunk Driving lobby.

That is comparable to the NRA.

I wonder if there would be more DUIs if there was.

[sythe200]

73. Your argument is fallacious. The NRA is not a pro-violence lobby, they are a pro-gun lobby. The NRA

does not promote violence and lobby for the right of people to engage in unjustifiable and rampant killing. The NRA works to prevent the (unconstitutional) violation of the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

[Dr Fate]

75. You were the one who thought we should compare shooting violence to drunk driving violence- not me.

Now that I have punched holes in that analogy, you want to split hairs and turn to semantics.

If you guys are going to use an analogy, you should be prepared to take it all the way- not just the parts of the analogy that you are comfortable with.

It's like conservatives who wanted to compare invading Iraq to WWII, but refuse to allow bringing the draft or other factual elements of the comparison into the argument.

The fact is that the multi-million dollar, very powerful NRA says it's mission is to protect the rights of gun owners - while there is no comparable lobby- or any lobby at all- that fights to protect the rights of people who drink & drive.

That statement stands as correct.

[rl6214]

104. No

You've got Budweiser, Miller, Heineken, Corona and any of a number of beer vendors out there with their millions of dollars doing the job just fine.

[Pavulon]

78. Make me rich, please.

I have set up first rate machine shops in Latin America and APAC for aerospace and petroleum companies and their contractors. Even if your ilk were able to pass a ban and retain political power, I would be helping those shops supply the country with newer better weapons. Well maybe not me, but someone who wants to get filthy fucking rich and piss allover stupid law, would make a killing.

You know what percent of coke makes it over the border? Now you created a market for the real deal, not replicas. M4s, G36s, modern battle rifles. Whatever, because non criminals will now start to demand a product.

I believe coke is banned but yet still snorted. A nice haas / hardinge shop (even some shitty Chinese kit) mill and a injection molder can create thousands of weapons an hour. All to aerospace spec, far beyond milspec.

The gcode for the AK (47,74,M 10x) is in public at this point. That means you can transfer the information to a shop over a secure link and start cranking out parts. M4 probably is too, would probably piss colt off but who cares at that point.

Get the picture..Ban napster, no one will ever download more free music. Never mind build a more sophisticated distributed system.

You guys have lost your MINDS.

[Barrett808]

35. Wonkette: Our Nation’s Murder-Suicide Spree

Just in '09:

* 7 residents, nurse die in NC nursing home shooting.
* Man kills wife, five kids, himself after being fired.
* Six dead and one critical after Santa Clara massacre.
* Ohio family found dead in suspected murder-suicide.
* Funeral for four slain Oakland police.

http://wonkette.com/407539/our-nations-murder-suicide-spree

[CountAllVotes]

38. you forgot about the policemen in Pennsylvania

probably many many more to add to this list.

BAN ALL GUNS NOW!

:kick:

[immoderate]

41. Why not get at the root of the problem?

Let's ban mental illness.

--imm

[slackmaster]

44. Do you mean all guns, or just all guns not in the hands of government employees?

:hi:

[Kablooie]

42. So I guess the shooter was part of a well regulated Militia.

They are the only people that are constitutionally protected for owning guns.

[slackmaster]

48. The militia is the people - The shooter was a fucking asshole

United States Code

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

[jberryhill]

61. So, if you are 45 or older, you turn in your guns?

That definition is significantly narrower than "the people".

[slackmaster]

65. That part is probably unconstitutional

As is the part about it being only males.

The California state militia consists of all able-bodied citizens.

But in reality, there is no requirement to be a militia member for a person to have the right to own a firearm. (See the Ninth Amendment.)

[Dr Fate]

66. Which Supreme Court case are you refering to?

Just curious. I was aware that the 9th Amendment basically allows engrained traditions to become rights, but was unaware that the 9th Amendment could essentially strike out the specific wording in other amendments- ie "well regulated militia." I could be wrong- that is why I'm asking.

Could we strike out, disregard or ignore certain wording in the 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment via the 9th? I hope not.

On one hand, I'm told that "every able bodied citizen" is a potential militia member- ie the American Revolution model. On the other hand, I'm now told the militia wording is essentially meaningless.

Who makes up a well regulated militia or whether we are going to strike the "militia" portion from the Bill of Rights seems to change depending on the argument.

Which is it?

[slackmaster]

100. The Ninth Amendment means you have a right to say, do, or own anything that has not been proscribed

Through due process.

I don't understand your reference to the Supreme Court. I wasn't referring to any case.

Who makes up a well regulated militia or whether we are going to strike the "militia" portion from the Bill of Rights seems to change depending on the argument.

It seems pretty clear to me. The militia means the people.

[No Elephants]

58. The Roberts court ruled otherwise about a year ago. It's a personal right, say they. But the

decision was nowhere near as broad as some gun goons claim.

[mainer]

49. Shooter is in his 70's? This is very weird.

Certainly on the outer limits of the bell curve of shooters.

[dustbunnie]

79. The story says one man was shot and wounded, and a woman was shot and killed.

Is there some other link that says 4 people were shot?

[firedupdem]

90. The story has changed since I posted it. I noticed when I clicked on

it, that it's different. I guess it was really "breaking news" when I posted it last night.

:shrug:

[dustbunnie]

91. Yeah it seems there was confusion at first.

But I'm happy the story turned out marginally better than the original one you posted. Small blessings.

[applegrove]

98. "What going on" is all I can say.

[Jackson1999]

108. These things tend to happen in clusters

But it is scary how many there have been lately. And for the record, NO gun laws (short of total confiscation) would have prevented these killings.

[Jackson1999]

109. California??

Good thing Californians are protected by some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and are ranked #1 on Brady's list of states that "get" gun control. Oh, wait.

[baldguy]

111. If only Jesus had his AK handy.