UCSB Victim’s Father Delivers Powerful Rebuke to the NRA: ‘Stop This Madness!’ (Video)

ucsb-shooting-victims-fatherMass shootings in this country are becoming far too common.  Another tragedy spawned by some sick individual who had easy access to a firearm.  Every time one of these tragedies happens it inevitably brings about the “gun debate” which gets us absolutely nowhere in this country.

And following the comments made by shooting victim Chris Martinez’s father, you can bet gun nuts will be out in force spewing the same old crap about how guns have nothing to do with gun violence, the only way to stop a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun and blaming a gun for a shooting is like blaming a spoon for obesity.

They’re all lines that I’ve heard countless times.  They’re also lines that make absolutely no sense.

The one that I think infuriates me the most is the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  To me, what that says is that a few victims are acceptable.  Because a “good guy with a gun” can’t stop a “bad guy with a gun” until that bad guy opens fire.

I say the best way to stop a bad guy is to do everything we can to ensure bad guys don’t get guns.  But that’s just me.

Though I think Richard Martinez might agree.  During an emotionally charged short speech following his son’s death he lashed out at the NRA, politicians and gun nuts in general.

“Our son Chris Martinez and six others are dead,” Martinez said. “Our family has a message for every parent out there: You don’t think it will happen to your child until it does.”

“Why did Chris die?” he asked.  “Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA.  They talk about gun rights.  What about Chris’s right to live?  When will this insanity stop? When will enough people say, ‘Stop this madness!’ Too many have died. We should say to ourselves, ‘Not one more!'”

Now I’m not going to try to say that Chris died solely because of guns.  The alleged shooter clearly had some serious mental issues and shouldn’t have had access to any kind of gun in the first place.  That’s a huge part of the problem.

But I think the context behind what he was saying is that we have to stop pretending that guns aren’t a problem and there’s nothing we can do to reduce gun violence.  How many mass shootings have to occur before we finally take measures to ensure bad guys don’t get guns?

A gun nut’s answer is usually “more guns.”  Again, how would that save initial victims?  They’ll also say this is all about mental health.  And they’re right about this being partially a mental health issue.  But these shootings are also related to how easily accessible guns are in this country.  How we glorify guns.

Will regulations solve all gun violence?  Of course not.  But you have to start somewhere.  And what’s the real alternative?  Start denying the ability to own guns to those with any kind of mental illness?  If that’s your argument, that’s a very slippery slope.  Who defines what “mentally ill” is and who determines who’s “too mentally ill” to own firearms?

And if you really honestly believe more guns is the answer, you’re insane.  Many of these mass shooters end up killing themselves.  If they don’t value their own life, why would the possibility of being killed by a “good guy with a gun” after shooting a few people first deter them from planning their killing spree?

What’s the answer to solving the issue of gun violence?  I’m not completely sure.  But I think it’s clear that we can’t continue doing absolutely nothing of substance.  The fact we haven’t even been able to pass universal background checks should disgust each and every one of us to the point of being sick to our stomachs.

Watch Richard Martinez’s emotional comments below, via CNN:


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Pj

    My heart breaks for him and his family. I can’t imagine his pain and I don’t want to. That being said, I hope in this election cycle we can get rid of these worthless politicians. Maybe then we can get background checks into place. At least might save some lives.

    • strayaway

      To put some perspective on this tragedy, here is a list of jus the preventable deaths in the US not including military deaths overseas. 29% of the firearms related deaths are homicides. I don’t see anything about knifings or clubbings either. Surely, you grieve as much for all these other deaths too and also want to get rid of politicians allowing needless and significantly more numerous hospital and obesity deaths to continue.
      Annual number of deaths in the United States and causesCauseNumberPercent of totalNotesPreventable medical errors in hospitals210,000 to 448,000[8]23.1%Estimates vary, significant numbers of preventable deaths also result from errors outside of hospitals.Smoking tobacco435,000[5]18.1%Being overweight and obesity111,909[9]4.6%There was considerable debate about the differences in the numbers of obesity-related diseases. The numbers reported in the referenced article have been found to be the most accurate.[10]Alcohol85,000[5]3.5%Infectious diseases75,000[5]3.1%Toxic agents including toxins,particulates and radon55,000[5]2.3%Traffic collisions43,000[5]1.8%Firearms deaths31,940[11]1.3%Suicide: 19,766; homicide: 11,101; Accidents: 852; Unknown: 822Sexually transmitted infections20,000[5]0.8%Drug abuse

      • SandyTodd

        The Affordable Care Act is addressing every issue you posted. I would like to get rid of the worthless politicians who oppose it too.

      • strayaway

        The medical establishment has always fought these things. While it is too early to expect the societally (un)AFA to have yet accomplished any improvements, by when do you expect to see the results? Is the VA a template?

    • Bine646

      What about the psychiatrist who deemed him to be ” a wonderful human?” Maybe we should make the accountable?

    • Falcon D. Stormvoice

      Or it might not.

  • Len

    Sorry to say. There is no fixing this. The American people, when it comes to guns and anything related to the right to own them, are just simply too stupid.

    • Bine646

      I say we outlaw BMWs too

  • Sandy Greer

    I understand the author’s reluctance to travel the ‘slippery slope’ of guns and mental illness. I share it, to some extent.

    But what is the alternative? No guns for anybody?

    ^^^Good luck with that. If Sandy Hook wasn’t enough, I don’t know what will be.

    I think we do need to look at the ‘mental health’ issue. I wish other gun owners would speak out more about it.

    Instead of getting all defensive, every time there is a mass shooting. And deflect – by pointing fingers at BMWs. Insinuate we cannot spare even condolences to the victims – unless we first take ‘issue’ with hospitals, and smokers, and fat people.

    How are we to have an honest convo, when it is more important we defend our own turf?

    Now, where’s Charles? Can’t have a proper gun debate without him.

    • Edward Krebbs

      Sandy, one central problem is the terminology. Most people with even severe mental illness don’t represent any risk to those around them. OTOH – most people you meet display some forms of mental illness. Need to use terminology that denotes a mental illness making one prone to violently use a gun.

      Of course, that would include almost anyone at the Bundy Ranch or carrying an assault rifle into Chipotle’s. So even with suitable terminology it isn’t going to be easy to convince the violently mentally ill to not apply their 2nd Amendment.

      • Sandy Greer

        You could be right about terminology. I should have been more specific.

        I think we need to get better able to identify ‘at risk’ individuals – prone to violence, of any kind (guns, or any other means) I’d like to head ’em off at the pass – to the extent possible.

        But I’m curious what you mean here:

        >most people you meet display some forms of mental illness.

        Clarify? I’ve met some (few, thankfully) set off my Creep Alert – one reason, or another. Met others (more, in quantity) I suspect are unhappy, and troubled.

        But most? Cries out for an explanation… Are you a doctor? Therapist?

        Agree your Bundy Ranch/Chipotle examples are not folks I’d want living next door to me. Hotheads, pumped on Manufactured Outrage, with chests puffed and muscles flexed, on the hunt for Testosterone Wars – do the vast bulk of American gun owners (who are reasonable and responsible) – no favors.

        I just wish more gun owners would speak against the extremists – ‘crazies’, in their own right.

    • Charles Vincent

      You’re barking up the wrong tree with gun laws sandy. Guns aren’t the problem people are and well a few other things been looking at something that’s compelling from our last conversation on the topic of guns and such.

      • Sandy Greer

        *I’m* barking up the wrong tree? You read gun laws into my
        post.

        I said we need to get better at identifying ‘at risk’ individuals. At risk of losing it, and acting out their craziness. And we do.

        Every single time a ‘crazy’ acts out – it puts the rest of us (gun owners, too) in danger. Not from dying – none of us get out of this world alive.

        But because we condone that behavior as acceptable. A certain number amount of victims is tolerable (maybe, an unlimited amount?) so long as I get to keep my guns. And you. And everybody else who wants them. Even the ‘crazies’.

        That’s the message. We’ve hardened our hearts to it.

        But maybe you’re right, and I’m just barking up the wrong tree. ‘Cause ain’t nobody listening.

        WRT link: I don’t carry. Not opposed to concealed (open is another story) But I’ve always said ladies need to take care, when refusing a man’s attentions – that we leave him standing, with his dignity intact. And not cut him off at the knees, just because we can.

        /Nice here, too. After 10p, and still 80 out. Heat’s on.

      • Charles Vincent

        Was referring to;
        “Now, where’s Charles? Can’t have a proper gun debate without him.” :~)

      • Charles Vincent

        I want to broach the subject that guns are not the problem but the disintegration of the family household unit and the use of SSRI drugs by people are the problem.

        Watch this video sorry it an hour long but its the basis of my theory that what I consider the problem to be;

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=g9bRDNgd6E4

        Here are his links to the sources he used for the video;

        https://board DOT freedomainradio DOT com/topic/35076-violence-in-america-the-history-of-a-catastrophe/

        And here is some of the data I have compiled so far on the correlation of SSRI use and mass shootings both of which started in the 1980’s;

        https://www DOT dropbox DOT com/s/inlwan5f54yg7ao/School%20shootings%20data%2018-21st%20centuries DOT xlsx?fb=1&fb_action_ids=772737152760625&fb_action_types=dropboxdropbox%3Aupdate

        There are 5 tabs on that spreadsheet. This spreadsheet also shows the gun laws and how they were ineffective at doing what they were designed to do.

        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        An hour? You’re killing me. I have a problem when told to go to this source, or that, to see what one thinks, about a given subject.

        What we believe – we should be able to explain ourselves. Not leave it to others.

        If I go to a video, I get the feeling I’m being indoctrinated, instructed. Especially when I disagree with basic tenets (who do I disagree with – you? him? how is it even possible to disagree?) But even if I don’t disagree – Part of me just rebels against that. Because I’m being talked ‘at’. Not talked with, or to (as you or I might do) – but ‘at’, by a video. I probably should have told you last time. That’s on me.

        Out of respect for you, I did listen, as best I could, in its entirety. But didn’t ‘retain’ much – for reasons
        stated. I would have done better to read your second link. But I’m so discombobulated I cannot give it serious attention.

        I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be rude. I like you. But I just can’t be talked ‘at’.

        There is something to SSRIs. Don’t know it’s an explanation for all our ‘crazies’ – but there’s definitely something there. And family breakdown, yes. Mass shootings accelerated (strongly) after the 1980s. But existed prior to that – I illustrated some few in our last gun debate.

        I couldn’t get your last link to work. I might try again tomorrow, when I feel better.

        Again, my apologies. I wouldn’t offend you, if
        at all possible.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Especially when I disagree with basic tenets (who do I disagree with – you? him? ”

        he is presenting an argument for why he thinks violence is linked to single parents etcetera. which is why I also linked the sources to the data he used to back his argument. So you could look at the research data he was founding his argument on.

        “Just now saw your question (leave problems alone vs treat symptoms – worse or not?) Depends on the problem:”

        Picture the problem of violence being equated to the black plague. Then think of what actually cured the plague and what happened when one tried to lance the boyles or bleed them with leeches etcetera the patient died because they were not treating the root cause they were treating the symptoms or just guessing randomly what they should do.

        “What about you? What’s your approach to problems?”

        Well if its out of my realm of knowledge I ask people that might know or I try different things(usually after I read up on what the problem is) if what I do doesn’t work or makes the problem worse I try something different I don’t keep doing the same thing. likewise if it works or has some positive effect I tweak the course of action to see if i can get better results.

      • Sandy Greer

        >So you could look at the research data he was founding his argument on.

        But I don’t WANT to argue points a 3rd party made. Hard enough arguing your points. I present my own arguments: If you dispute, I back up, or clarify, best I can. Make your own arguments, and if I question – I will look at any evidence you present.

        But I’m NOT going to argue assertions of 3rd parties. Not going to 3rd parties to understand your ‘philosophy’. It’s just too much damn work, and no fun.

        Violence & Black Plague = False Equivalency, but I’m sure you knew that. Still, I see where you’re going, and your reasoning: No bandaids!

        An interesting and unexpected answer to problem solving. Am I correct, that you see problems as challenges? To be faced (even difficult ones)? And not avoided?

        ^^^If so, you can see why I prefer to glean one’s ‘philosophy’ from what they themselves say – rather than go through 3rd parties, in search of it. 😉

      • Charles Vincent

        “But I’m NOT going to argue assertions of 3rd parties. Not going to 3rd parties to understand your ‘philosophy’. It’s just too much damn work, and no fun.”
        Duly noted I will sift through his data and pick out what I consider to be relevant to the argument as it pertains to overall violence, and where applicable to mass killings.

        “Am I correct – that you see problems as challenges? To be faced (even difficult ones)? And not avoided?”

        I see problems as things that need fixed, some are easily fixed some are not. We should never avoid these things I think that is one lesson we should take from the people that founded this country and that is to meet those tribals head on and with tenacity and resolve. There are only a few things that are constant in life
        1) death
        2) taxes
        3) life will do its level best to kick you in the teeth and lagh at you when it knows them out.

      • Sandy Greer

        Mind if I ask: Are you Pessimistic, by nature? Or an Optimist? I ‘get to’ ask. But you don’t have to answer. I ask because:

        3) life will do its level best to kick you in the teeth and laugh at you when it knocks them out.

        I’m an Optimist. I’ve had bad things happen: At times, I was lost and alone and afraid, unable to see my way clear. But never did I see it that way. And always, things worked out. So much so, I consider myself fortunate. My life hasn’t turned out as I thought it would – but I wouldn’t trade anything.

        I’ve a friend who’s a Pessimist. He would say the same as you. If a meteor fell out of the sky, it would fall on his house. I SMH at how ‘unlucky’ he is, and even how he keeps going, sometimes.

        I wonder, sometimes, if – like the Laws of Attraction – Optimistic good vibes assure one keeps their head above water. While Pessimism – not so much.

        So that’s why I ask. But you don’t have to answer. Only if you’re comfortable. Some questions are best rhetorical.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I wouldn’t call myself a pessimist. Skeptical yes and a realist yes I just realize that life is not for the faint of heart. Sort of like that saying freedom isn’t free and it isn’t safe.

      • Sandy Greer

        I feel better. I was afraid for you there, for a minute.

        I like to laugh my way through life.

        Worst thing was when a husband died, suddenly. A shock. It was two-three weeks before I laughed again. First, I felt a tinge of guilt – laughing so soon, after he died – but that’s when I knew I was going to be OK.

        When I was able to laugh, again.

        Probably TMI, but you answered a personal question. So there it is. Good night, Charles.

        You be sure to have a good day, tomorrow.

      • Charles Vincent

        Pipercat says I am affable.
        Good evening to you as well.
        /tips hat

      • Sandy Greer

        Charles

        I got to dropbox. Saw your spreadsheet (4 tabs only) = 18th,19th,20th,21st centuries. Can’t click tabs & there’s no scroll down. All I see is one page (cover?) graphic & 4 tabs.

        I downloaded it to my comp (hoped it’d work there?) = it’s in my Local Disk (under Computer)

        But I can’t open it. I’m frustrated: Not tech savvy & out of my element.

        Would it work (open) if you sent it to me, via FB? Or via email? If you think yes to either – contact me via FB.

        Otherwise, the only thing I can do is give you an A for effort. It appears to be something I’d have liked to see.

        And I told you before, I’m ‘open’ to arguments ineffective laws be repealed (5th tab?) or at least – not compounded by more (if I catch your ‘drift’) 😉

        Have a good day.

      • Charles Vincent

        When you open the spreadsheet in the bottom left corner there are links that say sheet 1 sheet 2 sheet3 etcetera if you click them you can see the different sheets.

        “does not exclude guns from ALSO being a problem.”

        When a murder is committed who is named as the defendant, the weapon that was used or the person that used the weapon? Is it the gun/knife/bat/etcetera, or is it the person. The problem isn’t the tool its the person using the tool, tools are inanimate and have no control over the people that use them.

        Yes problems have many facets, and I think ssri’s and family breakdown are two the other big one is the human condition. the data on both mass shootings and school shootings and the dates that gun laws were enacted to “protect” people from guns clearly show that banning guns is both ineffective and in my mind shows that it isn’t guns that are the problem. The fact that after the laws of the 1990’s were passed we see a rise and not a decrease indicates that we are on the wrong road.

        School shootings by decade 1764-2014;
        1764 – 1 in the whole century then 86 years without one recorded shooting.
        1850’s – 5
        1860’s – 6
        1870’s – 12
        1880’s – 16
        1890’s – 11
        1900’s – 26
        1910’s – 9
        1920’s – 3
        1930’s – 12 NFA 1934
        1940’s – 13
        1950’s – 21
        1960’s – 17 OCCSSA 1968 and GCA 1968
        1970’s – 24
        1980’s – 30 UFA 1988
        1990’s – 35 GFSZA 1990 and BHVPA 1993, AWB 1994-2004(expired)
        2000’s – 48
        2010-2014 – 100; 103 if we include the ones you mentioned.

        Mass shootings since 1900;
        1900’s – 0
        1910’s – 2
        1920’s – 2
        1930’s – 9
        1940’s – 8
        1950’s – 1
        1960’s – 6
        1970’s – 13
        1980’s – 32 note SSRI’s started being prescribed to population in 1980
        1990’s – 42
        2000’s – 28
        2010-2013 – 14; this number is larger if you include 2014 numbers.

      • Sandy Greer

        LOL re: spreadsheet tabs bottom left. Never even saw them! I just have to laugh at myself, sometimes.

        Printing is miniscule; can only view online:

        a) Graph page 3 cuts off lower half when printed (all the years are gone)
        b) Graph page 4 is especially enlightening (good job, Charles! I’m impressed)

        >This spreadsheet also shows the gun laws and how they were ineffective at doing what they were designed to do.

        ^^^I don’t see spreadsheet shows that. You argue the existence of shootings (and rise) proves ineffective laws. I can blow holes in that. Virtually all laws are broken; we can argue they are all ineffective. From laws against murder, to laws against speeding… Shall we do away with them all? You’re not an Anarchist, are you?

        Page 5: 65 of 67 shooters had mental health issues and 55 of 67 obtained the weapons used legally

        ^^^You made my argument: We need to look at mental health (slippery slope and all) Need to restrict ‘easy access’ to guns by those prone to violence. Repugnant, but there it is.

        Again, I’m impressed with what you’ve done here. You said you were working on something after our last gun debate. You took something said, and ran with it – farther than I could have imagined. I’m proud of you, Charles.

      • Charles Vincent

        “You argue the existence of shootings (and rise) proves ineffective laws. I can blow holes in that.”

        Before you commence with the hole making consider this.
        When these laws(gun laws) were proposed and summarily passed the line was that they would prevent these thing from happening or significantly reduce these incidents. This has been demonstrated as false. I also don’t recall people promising that laws against murder would stop or reduce the number of people being murdered. Just saying.

      • Sandy Greer

        I understand. But I just don’t see gun laws being loosened anytime soon.

        I think we’d be better off approaching it from the ‘mental health’ aspect. Most everybody knows that’s what’s really wrong.

        You’re right too – about SSRIs and family.

        But gun owners worried about ‘infringements’ – have to be able to look at mental health. Because your spreadsheet clearly shows shooting increases. It’s just not realistic to think American public will stand for loosening gun laws.

        It’d be interesting to see how mass shootings compare against population increases. And how violence (of all kinds) relates to population increases.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I think we’d be better off approaching it from the ‘mental health’ aspect. Most everybody knows that’s what’s really wrong.”
        It’s one of a few things we should look at.

        “But I just don’t see gun laws being loosened anytime soon.”
        Not saying loosen them per se, I am saying stop trying to pass new ones.

        “It’d be interesting to see how mass shootings compare against population increases. And how violence (of all kinds) relates to population increases.”
        Considering how probability works you would see a correlation. Pipercat commented on this when he was looking at my spreadsheet and it’s true more population bring more opportunity for violence. Not to minimize the deaths of people but you will also find that these things are statistically very rare when gauged against population.

      • Sandy Greer

        >Also I think mental health is part of the problem but I think the mental health’s big tie in is the use of SSRI’s

        ^^^One way to know for sure. You’d have to ascertain if every shooter took SSRIs. Or was tied to them, somehow.

        I suspect it’s part of the problem – but not the entire explanation.

        I admire your diligence, and definitely will be interested to see what else you dig up.

    • Charles Vincent

      P.S. Join beyond the obvious and you can see the work in progress.

    • Charles Vincent

      Two page article for you.
      http://www DOT concealednation DOT org/2014/05/the-gun-debate-is-never-cut-and-dry-except-this-time-here-is-why-guns-are-absolutely-not-to-blame-in-this-weekends-ca-shooting/

  • Matthew Reece

    http://www DOT christophercantwell DOT com/2014/05/24/elliot-rodger-liberalism-personified/

  • SandyTodd

    Don’t let them get away with changing the subject by pretending they care about mental health. If they cared, they would make sure medicaid is expanded to every state. That would help a lot of people get the mental health care and medicine they need. The problem is our gun crazed society. Other countries have mentally ill people too. They are cared for so they don’t have the need to act out violently.

  • prestige

    While we’re at it, lets make sure the bad guys don’t get a hold of any drugs either. We should make them illegal, oh, wait…duh! Making something illegal is only ensuring law abiding citizens will comply. What about the idiots that are responsible for 99% of all gun related homicides? Yeah, they’re not law abiding. You’re not just delusional if you think making guns illegal will actually stop gun violence, you’re a fool.