Radio host to CA shooting victim’s dad: ‘Stupid son of a b*tch’ should give your kid a gun

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Raw Story

Radio host to CA shooting victim’s dad: ‘Stupid son of a b*tch’ should give your kid a gun
By David Edwards
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 15:13 EDT

Conservative radio host Stan Solomon recently blasted a father whose child died when a 22-year-old woman-hating shooter killed 7 people including himself self near UC Santa Barbara last month because he had not given his kid a gun.

Larry Pratt, who is executive director of Gun Owners of America, told radio host Stan Solomon in an interview last week that liberals were calling for more gun control after Elliot Rodger’s shooting rampage because they were “emotional.”

“They instinctively don’t like people carrying guns, they think it’s dangerous,” he explained. “And when you present the facts to them, that actually, it’s rather more dangerous to do it your way, they just look at you in disbelief, like you’ve just landed from Mars.”

Solomon argued that gun control advocates were protecting an “investment in stupidity.”
He continued: “The father of one of the girls who was killed blamed the NRA, and my response is, ‘You stupid son of a bitch, what the hell is wrong with you? If you had taught your daughter how to have and use a weapon, she might still be alive.’”


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/04/radio-host-to-ca-shooting-victims-dad-stupid-son-of-a-btch-should-give-your-kid-a-gun/

[truthisfreedom]

1. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun

is to move to another country.

[valerief]

2. Sadly, I think you've nailed it. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Wrong.

Lots of ways, but none of them perfect. It is an error of binary thinking to demand perfection. "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

1) Arrest the bad guy, prosecute them, lock them up, and (this is antithetical to law&order Rs and Ts) rehabilitate them. Help them get an education, a job, anger management skills, substance abuse help. Help them have a stake in the community as as productive member in some capacity, not as a jackal / hyena circling in the shadows.

2) Don't sell guns to bad guys.

3) When guys (and gals included of course) turn bad, take their guns away. Sorry, but when a person is not well-regulated (which means not well self-regulated) the Second Amendment does not protect their gun ownership. This includes (in my opinion) anybody who commits a crime of violence or makes serious threats (for example enough to get a restraining order to protect an ex-spouse) or has a mental problem that has a reasonable chance of harming themselves or somebody else.

I'm sure there are more ways that apply.

[upaloopa]

10. When you arrest the bad guy somebody is

already dead. That shooter needs to be removed from society for life.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. No. There are plenty of bad guys to arrest before somebody dies.

Don't expect perfection.

[upaloopa]

12. The shooters we talk about were not bad guys until

they shot someone. That is the problem. How do you stop a good guy before he becomes a bad guy? Especially in today's climate of the gun lobby money.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. That guy in Isla Vista had lots of signals that almost everybody missed.

He fell through the cracks.

Quit expecting perfection!

There is a lot more that can be done even in the face of gun lobby money but there is always the option to throw our hands in the air and wring them.

[upaloopa]

22. I work for the Santa Barbara County Alcohol

Drug and Mental Health Services department and I can say unequivocally that you don't know what your talking about!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. You would be more helpful if you didn't merely trumpet your credentials.

I thought this was a discussion.

It is entirely possible that I don't know facts that I should know or at least might know if you wished to explain. Perhaps you had contact with the shooter personally. Perhaps you have seen his file. Perhaps you have spoken with people who have one or the other.

I have read that the family was seeking mental health services for the shooter and he was refusing that help. I have read that the police visited him perfunctorily and thus didn't get a real idea of his state of mind. I have not read of any involvement by the Santa Barbara Alcohol Drug and Mental Services Department. If there is more information that adds to or modifies or corrects that, I will read what you have to say.

As to the points I made, do you not agree that:

1) There are mentally ill people who obtain access to guns who should be denied? Isn't that a kind of "falling through the cracks"?

2) The shooter might have been stopped if he was monitored more closely after his parents notified the authorities? Maybe even confined for treatment? Wouldn't one or the other have been helpful? Is that not a kind of "falling through the cracks" that he was not?

3) If people who saw the YouTube video posted before the attacks occurred had alerted the police, wouldn't that have helped? The family got wind of it somehow at the last minute and I think they tried calling the police on their way to the area but the shooting had already started. Isn't the fact that people didn't immediately call the police after seeing the video a kind of "falling through the cracks"?

4) Does the SBADMSD have all the funding and staff that they need? Could they not do more if they had more?

5) Even if there was all the funding and staffing requested, wouldn't bad things happen some times? Do you agree that we can't expect perfection?

[upaloopa]

28. This is a waste of time

You have your talking points and you think this is some kind of contest.
Well I don't want to play

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. It's a discussion. I know you have some insight & experience and

I thought you would agree with the numbered points I raised, or at least disagree with some in an informative way.

Social work and psychological work is difficult and can be frustrating but it is important work.

This is not a contest. Too bad you want to diss it as "talking points". So be it. I'll try to express myself better in the future.

[upaloopa]

42. This isn't worth my getting out of a good mood for

It's a contest and I don't care to be involved

[Ecumenist]

36. Funny, his parents seemed to see the signals and know...even ALERTING the Authorities

So, EPIC FAIL about NOT knowing before hand.

[beevul]

38. So Rodger was still a good guy after he stabbed and killed 3, before shooting anyone?

That's one fucked up viewpoint.

[upaloopa]

41. You gunners make shit up then argue against it

Last edited Thu Jun 5, 2014, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

What a fucked up thing to do
You win I don't want to play anymore!

[beevul]

45. You stated, and I quote:

You stated, and I quote:

"The shooters we talk about were not bad guys until they shot someone".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014818916#post12

I made up nothing.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Debate civilly, don't attack personally. A difference in opinion does not make a person a liar.

I am arguing for a much stricter interpretation of the Second Amendment than you are. You have simply made no argument at all, just personal slams.

Further, I am arguing for a much stricter interpretation of the Second Amendment than is common because I would tighten up the rules that would deny more people from acquiring guns in the first place. Read what I wrote carefully. I wrote it carefully.

And more, I advocate actually taking guns away from some people.

Which you would have seen in my post if you actually read instead of reacted.

You are new here (only your fourth post), so it would be a good idea if you read the DU Community Standards so that you can debate the ideas, issues, and facts without devolving into over-the-top personal attacks.

[Divernan]

29. You are unrealistically idealistic

The reality, as to your first two points, is that:

1. Funding correctional systems is at the bottom of the priority list for all levels of government. Politicians budget money on feel-good items that will generate votes. Care and feeding, let alone rehab of prisoners, does not match that criterion. Local jails, state prisons and federal prisons have not demonstrated the will nor capacity to rehabilitate prisoners. While a small percentage may complete GEDs or even get a college degree while incarcerated, the great majority emerge from prison with greater criminal skills then they entered with. You cannot force employers to hire ex-cons, and with the huge pool of unemployed, skilled workers, there is little likelihood someone with a criminal record will be hired. State centers for the mentally ill have been closed down, and that is why such a high percentage of our prisoners are categorized as mentally ill. Privatization of prisons means it is more profitable to keep prisons full - and that translates into a profit margin based on recidivism. That is why the US imprisons far more citizens than any other country.

2. You call for self-regulation, but then espouse "don't sell guns to bad guys". That is so simplistic and unworkable. What is the legal definition of "bad guy"? Have never seen that in any of the law books or state regulations I've studied. How on earth can a clerk tell who is a "bad guy"? Well, a criminal background search is a good start, but that is required by governmental regulation, not self regulation.

3. I agree with you that the 2nd Amendment does not protect gun-ownership for everyone. but again, government regulation is required to legally justify and enforce any screening. Mentally ill people don't typically self-diagnose.

I suggest idealism is the enemy of the possible.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. I agree with your three points, which makes me realistically idealistic

The lack of funding is for rehabilitation in correctional systems. The prison-industrial-complex is quite large but Republican attitudes are almost always "lock 'em up and throw away the key".

The problems around rehabilitation are immense, but we have policy as Democrats that differs from Republican policy because we know that rehabilitation and true "correction" at a deeper level of self-understanding and self-advancement is better than their policies of revenge and retribution and cruelty.

When I speak of self-regulation, I don't propose it as the solution because that is not realistic. Rather, I refer to it as a line that gets crossed. I purposely used the term "self-regulate" to echo the term "well regulated" from the Amendment in an ironic way, but probably I didn't make that clear enough. When people are unable to self-regulate (own guns responsibly), whatever the cause whether it is biochemical imbalance mental illness or some kind of emotional and psychological illness, then they need external regulation of their gun ownership by law and police working with medical and social professionals.

Criminal background check is a good start, but I think we agree there need to be more kinds of checks.

Being unrealistic is the problem, not idealism. Idealism motivates wonderful progressive people, but it is only effective when coupled with pragmatism. Then things become possible.

[Divernan]

34. "On Prison Reform, Democrats and Republicans Bond"

You may find this article of interest

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/19/opinion/liu-prison-reform/
You may not have noticed it, but in the midst of all the usual finger-pointing and polarization, a bit of actual problem-solving is underway in American politics.

A coalition of unlikely allies has coalesced in recent months to advance criminal justice reform. These strange bedfellows -- from liberal Democrats such as Sen. Dick Durbin to tea party darlings such as Sen. Mike Lee, from the NAACP to Americans for Tax Reform -- are all proposing reductions in mandatory minimum sentences.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's calls for such reductions have been cheered by some of the same Republicans who otherwise want to impeach him. In Texas, a conservative group called Right on Crime has led the way on prison and sentencing reform -- earning plaudits from, among others, California progressives.

Why this rash of consensus? Well, for the right, it's mainly about getting control of big government -- prisons now consume a quarter of the Justice Department's budget, and state prison spending has been on a multidecade boom with little corresponding "return on investment."

For the left, it's mainly about social justice -- the disparity in criminal sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine has a long-documented racial dimension, and blindly filling the "school-to-prison pipeline" has seemed misguided and cruel

.

Back in the 90's, when I was a staff attorney for the Democratic caucus of the PA. House of Representatives, and we had a majority in the House, both the Dems and the Republicans enthusiastically voted bill after bill to turn misdemeanors into felonies and throw in mandatory sentences or extending minimum sentences for many kinds of crimes. Why? Because they were ALL running on a "I got tough on crime" platform. Similarly, they joined together to vote to close down the state centers for the mentally ill and mentally retarded. That was an unholy alliance indeed. The Dems did it to "integrate" all those residents back into the community. The Republicans did it to privatize care to "group homes". When folks simply walked away from group homes and stopped taking their meds, the results you see are the huge percentage of prison inmates who are mentally ill or retarded, and of course many of the homeless population.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. Good point that mandatory sentencing may be dying a deserved death.

I agree that there are lots of Democrats who bear responsibility for siding with anti-progressive Republicans on too many issues. But there are sides, even if there are no perfectly bright lines.

[randys1]

3. Larry needs a good slapping and a real hard one too...

Until these filthy disgusting PIGS are SHAMED we can expect more

[nomorenomore08]

49. I think of what happened to Alan Berg back in the day and, well... IMO there are far more worthy

candidates for that sort of treatment. And I'll say no more lest I get a hidden post.

[randys1]

50. If not slapping, what the rove and hannity and scalia and ryan and rick scotts need is shaming

public shaming, their actions kill people and we do nothing

[nomorenomore08]

54. Agreed. n/t

[arcane1]

4. I love how these idiots think guns are a magic shield that protects them from bullets

It's like they think every time someone aims a gun, they give the target a 5-minute warning before pulling the trigger.

[Skittles]

15. that's how cowards think

they're pathetic

[LibDemAlways]

6. These gun nuts are certifiable. The young man

killed in the market was shot in the back. And it is his dad who has been a vocal proponent of stricter gun control. To my knowledge neither of the families of the two girls who died have made any public statements. And, speaking at the memorial at UCSB, the dad, Richard Martinez, made it clear that not all of the other families agree with him. He has, by the way, already met privately with the father of the shooter. Imagine the strength of character that took.

I hate right wing idiots who have a public forum and no idea what they are talking about. It's shameful that we live in a nation peopled by such hateful, ignorant morons.

[SoapBox]

7. Is that Stan Satan?

...seems evil enough

[BrotherIvan]

8. Where are all the "responsible" gun owners telling this guy to STFU?

"Your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights."
---Signed, The Gundamentalists

[Paladin]

13. Nowhere to be found, as usual. (nt)

[frylock]

9. some stupid fuck broadcasting via shortwave radio looking to break into the big leagues..

a week from now people still won't know or care who this fuckstain is.

[Xyzse]

39. This +(some arbitrary large number)

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Even the Pope travels behind bullet-proof glass, just in case God gets distracted...

[lib87]

17. Lol

Seriously, how horrible of a human being do you have to be to ostracize a man who just lost a child to violence? Coward.

[ThoughtCriminal]

21. Pope John Paul II should have had a gun

Having a security detail is no excuse. Also, the Pope should always open carry and point the weapon at everyone who might be a threat.

Getting shot in the back is no excuse. Real patriots always keep their back to a wall of sufficient height and thickness to stop even armor piercing rounds.

[manu]

25. I like it!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. Longing for the days when you could got to your local radio station to protest.

[Fred Gilmore]

20. Hey Solomon:

If your mommy hadn't dropped you on your head while you were a baby, then you might have had a brain in your head instead of the shit that lives there now.

[passiveporcupine]

23. Bernardo...you will never take guns away from the bad guys

Until you take them away from everyone.

And I'm not even asking you to do that...but taking away some of the guns (like maybe all the semi auto ones) would not be a bad start.

The girls in question never had a chance to defend themselves with guns. They were dead before they knew what was happening.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. Exactly. It wouldn't be a bad start.

You can take some of the guns away from some of the bad guys. You can never take all of the guns away from everybody.

It is not all-or-nothing. Avoid binary thinking. We could never achieve perfection (a non-violent gunless society or perfectly responsible gun ownership), but getting part way would help.

I almost missed your post because it wasn't a reply to one of mine.

[ltheghost]

24. The

Only way to really end gun violence in America is to seriously regulate it. Increase the age of gun ownership to 35 or 40. For all the hunters out there...Bow and Arrows are still legal. That is the only way or just outlaw handguns entirely. There is no other way around it. Even if they find a way to increase the laws (such as possession penalties) the guns will still be out there for nut cases to use on human beings. You want to end gun violence....end guns....but if I guess in America I'm better off asking the South to give up Jesus than even dream about taking their guns!

[Brigid]

33. So let me get this straight . . .

Last edited Thu Jun 5, 2014, 11:02 AM - Edit history (1)

This idiot is saying that anybody who doesn't pack a gun around everywhere they go deserves to get shot? No wonder my favorite daydream is to leave this evil, violent, selfish, materialistic society and never come back.

[Ecumenist]

37. Isn't it interesting that POLICE are armed and are aware of the danger and yet, HOW MANY COPS

are killed in Ambushes or shootouts with ARMED suspects? They HAVE guns. That stupid assed idiot makes NO sense at all. But I guess my thinking is TOO much like right?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. Like many gun nuts, the radio commentator over-esteems his skills. He's not that good. nt

[raccoon]

40. I hate any idiots who have a public forum and say things as horrible as they can come up with

for the shock value.

I think that's what this creep is doing.

[antiGOPin294]

43. What a heartless, sorry excuse of a human being!

Sadly, this is par for the course for these psychotic gun nuts. They really are madly in love with their metallic penile extensions, and couldn't care less about the victims of such weapons. Why can't these a-holes just go away?

[agentS]

46. Time for psych tests for gun owners

and random drug tests for radio talk show hosts because this guy has clearly failed the sanity test.

[mackerel]

47. I'm not sure I follow this guys logic. How would any of the victims been more prepared if they

had a gun? I mean I don't go out at night with my friends, especially in Santa Barbara, thinking someone might randomly shoot me so I better come out with guns blazing at all times.

[IronLionZion]

48. Yeah! Then we can have more accidental shootings

and stand your ground fights that get out of control.

[3catwoman3]

51. The heartlessness and...

...insensitivity of statements such as these is truly astonishing. i cannot imagine ever even thinking this, let alone saying it.

[billh58]

52. The right-wing gun lobby

will continue to blame the victims of gun violence, and attempt to downplay the impact of too many guns in too many hands, in order to market guns for its masters, the gun manufacturers (read death merchants).

Larry Pratt, Wayne LaPierre, and Ted Nugent: the faces of the armed American Taliban.

[Initech]

53. Keep talking gun nuts.

The more you try to justify murder, the more it hurts your cause.