One More Massacre

I believe that the authorities should immediately have medical tests to ascertain whether or not this shooter has a brain tumor. To earn the degrees that this fellow received and his acceptance into a PhD program attests to the fact that he was dedicated, hard working, and focused upon his education. Something drastically altered this. He may have a medical condition that would totally change his personality.

CinnamonGirl wrote: I am going to just go back to the OP. It is despicable to draw a line between a nutcase person that just mass murdered and hurt hundreds of people directly and most likely hundreds of people indirectly (families) and thousands /millions indirectly (the city, state, county and world). I am telling you that no person left or right would in their right mind EVER advocate this or want it and it is not their fault.

I am going to go back to Paul Krugman in the NYTimes last September. He was despicable in what he did on that actual anniversary he attacked Bush. No caring about the victims in any way. That is what you are doing here. If you have to use current events before all the facts are known you are taking capitalizing on someone else's pain. This is not the time. The facts are not out and I would like to remind you that if guns were not available he easily could have bombed the place and killed more. So, this argument make no sense.

Point taken. This thread should have stayed focus on the victims and tragedy rather than be hijacked into a partisan political debate. Sorry.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

CinnamonGirl wrote: I am going to just go back to the OP. It is despicable to draw a line between a nutcase person that just mass murdered and hurt hundreds of people directly and most likely hundreds of people indirectly (families) and thousands /millions indirectly (the city, state, county and world). I am telling you that no person left or right would in their right mind EVER advocate this or want it and it is not their fault.

I am going to go back to Paul Krugman in the NYTimes last September. He was despicable in what he did on that actual anniversary he attacked Bush. No caring about the victims in any way. That is what you are doing here. If you have to use current events before all the facts are known you are taking capitalizing on someone else's pain. This is not the time. The facts are not out and I would like to remind you that if guns were not available he easily could have bombed the place and killed more. So, this argument make no sense.

Point taken. This thread should have stayed focus on the victims and tragedy rather than be hijacked into a partisan political debate. Sorry.

Listen, I think I may have posted in the wrong thread. I was thinking of the line drawn between tea party and shooter but really I can see talking the gun law but don't use this monsterous event as your evidence. One year ago today a man in NORWAY shot and killed 77 people (most of them children). OP was starting discussion but these mass murderers are going to use what ever they can. Gun laws are not going to stop this stuff and we are all too emotional right now to discuss this rationally.

Nope. Guns are for killing. They don't exist for any other reason. What's the problem?

Raess?
Know why the NRA has been successful? Because it is the peoples's will. If Americans wanted to ban guns, they would be sending money to the Brady Campaign instead of the NRA.
Want to know why the assault weapons ban sunsetted? Because politicians realized an anti-gun platform is a good way to become unemployed.

Yeah, there are enough Bubbas around to make it difficult. I'll give you that.

The NRA isn't really for gun owners. It's for gun manufacturers. The NRA is their lobbyist.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) receives millions of dollars directly from domestic and foreign gun manufacturers.

The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.

They want more gun owners so they can sell more guns. Simple as that.

http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm

The NRA as Astroturf? There is some Astroturf, but also millions of people who pay $35 a year in order to maintain their gun rights.

A pittance, compared to what the gun manufacturers contribute.