Fuck this guy (Santa Barbara shooter)

[cococ173]

I just read that his roomates were going to move out for next semester. Rejected, again.

[Rick]

@BrightNShiny

You know why we’re not blaming minimal car laws? Because we don’t have minimal car laws. Cars are one of the most heavily-regulated consumer products in this country. Everything, from who can operate them, to insurance requirements to safety features is regulated. If a legislator seriously proposed regulating guns the same way we regulate cars, the NRA would throw a fit. Your post is stupid and immoral.

Need a little more straw for that man you are building?
Here on California there is a 10 day waiting period on gun purchases. Not so for cars.
You have to undergo a background check to buy a gun, but not a car.
As an individual you can’t sell a handgun to another individual without that sale going through a FFL holder with a background check. Not so for cars.
To buy a handgun you have to pass both a written and practical test before the purchase is allowed. Not so for a car (drivers license yes, car purchase no)
If a handgun is kept in a home with minors it must have a lock or be kept in a safe. If a minor gets a hold of it the owners faces criminal charges. Not so with cars.
California has limits on magazine size. California does not limit the size of the gas tank on your car.

[Terr]

@BrightNShiny

No, it wouldn’t, and your reasoning is so stupid, that I’m not going to bother to respond to it. You’re a disgusting asshole.

Oh, but in case anybody (who’s not lying scum like Terr) is interested, here’s another car regulation: the hoods and bumpers on modern cars deform on impact. Which means if a pedestrian gets hit by a car, their rate of injury and the severity of injuries is going to be lower (as compared to older cars, which you could run through pretty much anything without any deformation). This is basic physics. It also means that if someone decides to use a car intentionally to kill someone, then their ability to do so is lessened compared to older car designs.

LOL - sure. At 30mph, that deformation is really going to save someone. The deformation, together with the airbag, seat belts, car frame etc, is designed to prevent injuries to the driver. Not to deliberately-hit pedestrians. No one designs cars with the thought if minimizing deliberate killings using the car as a weapon in mind. Your idiotic claim that they are doing that is ridiculous.

[Kimstu]

Serious question: has any vocal misogynist yet put forward the (nutty) hypothesis that this terrible event might have been some kind of “false flag operation” to discredit MRA misogynists?

Because this guy’s language is such a note-perfect rendition of things that anti-women groups maintain, and he’s so manifestly despicable. There’s got to be some jerk out there vociferously protesting that the killer was obviously some undercover “mangina” who orchestrated a murder spree just to make him and his ilk look bad.

[BrightNShiny]

@Terr

LOL - sure. At 30mph, that deformation is really going to save someone. The deformation, together with the airbag, seat belts, car frame etc, is designed to prevent injuries to the driver. Not to deliberately-hit pedestrians.

Uh, no, and you’ve again proven that you don’t actually know what you are talking about. The hood deformation (and the gap requirement between the hood and the engine block) is specifically designed to reduce the impact of blunt-force head trauma from a pedestrian striking the hood. You are an ignorant buffoon who does not know what he is talking about. Making definitive statements about a topic you’ve never studied is a form of lying.

Now, the collapsable engine block, car frame and steering wheel are designed to protect the occupants. Of course, you’re such an ignorant moron that you can’t distinguish between the two.

No one designs cars with the thought if minimizing deliberate killings using the car as a weapon in mind. Your idiotic claim that they are doing that is ridiculous.

I didn’t claim that, moron. The regulation is designed to protect pedestrians. It protects them whether the impact is intentional or accidental. It is designed to offer protection in both cases. Keep lying. You’re not convincing anyone.

[BrightNShiny]

@Rick

Need a little more straw for that man you are building?
Here on California there is a 10 day waiting period on gun purchases. Not so for cars.
You have to undergo a background check to buy a gun, but not a car.
As an individual you can’t sell a handgun to another individual without that sale going through a FFL holder with a background check. Not so for cars.
To buy a handgun you have to pass both a written and practical test before the purchase is allowed. Not so for a car (drivers license yes, car purchase no)
If a handgun is kept in a home with minors it must have a lock or be kept in a safe. If a minor gets a hold of it the owners faces criminal charges. Not so with cars.

First of all, I didn’t build any strawman. It is possible that you don’t know what a strawman means. I pointed out correctly that cars are one of the most heavily regulated consumer products, and that we do not have minimal regulations for cars. I suppose I could go through your entire list, and show you the car equivalents, but let’s just take this one, because it’s kind of stupid:

California has limits on magazine size. California does not limit the size of the gas tank on your car.

Nobody places a per-se size limit on gas tanks, because gas tanks are regulated for safety in very specific ways (including the location on a car, etc.) But, yeah, if you were to place a gas tank in a vehicle that was too big for the vehicle to be used safely or if you were to place a gas tank in a vehicle that was so big, that absent any other safety precautions, it would be a hazard on impact, you would certainly run afoul of NHTSA regulations.

[zweisamkeit]

Apologies to Dopers for the extremely long length of this post. I’ve included quotes from A Voice for Men’s posts that are pretty illuminating, IMO.

@blindboyard

Okay, it was so he would have a monopoly on the world’s women, but this is at least as much hatred of men as women. Those of you who like to pretend the majority of the victims don’t exist or don’t matter because they’re men are making a very good case for the MRAs.

See also: https://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/murderer-kills-6-men-and-2-women-cause-misogyny/

Ahhh, A Voice for Men. Fantastic website, that. Paul Elam, Founder and Publisher, certainly has some interesting points of view that aren’t misogynistic at all. Here are just a few:

“Challenging the Etiology of Rape”

I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shitfaced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m… Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

**But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.**

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that** there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.**

In my opinion their plight from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended.

“Jury Duty at a Rape Trial? Acquit!”

Recently here in the comments section, the subject of jury duty at rape trials has come up.** One of our readers commented that he voted “not guilty” while sitting on the jury at a rape trial simply because he could.**

Another reader called that irresponsible. I imagine at least a 98% of the society would agree with her.

Well, 98% of society has been wrong before.

With this important subject in mind, I make the following pledge as an activist, and as an American that believes fully in the rule of law. Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

Elam has received criticism for the website “Register Her” that he created to be an “offenders registry”, which ostensibly was a registry of female criminals but also included feminist writers/activists who were guilty of “bigotry” because AVFM found their positions offensive (aka they were not criminals). The site included photographs and personal information of these women. The site was taken down just this past April. In “The Fembots Are Already Bent Out of Shape”, Elam addresses the “fembots” who are against the site posting telephone numbers, addresses and workplaces with

Do you think I am going to stop?

It’s a serious question, because the answer to that question, again if you are not too stupid to grasp the impact of it, should inform you of what will work for you or not work for you in dealing with me.

And the answer is, of course, no, I am not going to stop. ** You see, I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.**

In this post, Elam refers to feminist bloggers in the blogosphere as “cuntists across the cunt-o-sphere”

Guest contributor Russ Lindquist, in “MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] Re-Understood”,

Let it be clear that a man has a right to go his on way. Therefore, let modern men acknowledge and accept – as tearfully as they might – that** far too many women, for far too long, have far too well assumed the role of nothing but shined, shaven social-succubi who reflect all of mens vices yet none of mens virtue.** Further, these succubi (desirous of everything and deserving of nothing) can offer men nothing but the role of a masochistic self-indentured-servant: he is to work a job he hates; he is to earn money that she spends; he is to live far less comfortably; he is to die far sooner.

But back to Paul Elam! He penned this loving tribute to [del]mothers[/del] all women in “This Mother’s Day: Daffodils for Dumpsters”

To all you mothers of the world, please give your Mother’s Day flowers and give them all generously. Most importantly, give them where they will do the most good.** Place a bunch of daffodils at a dumpster near you, perhaps one in which one of you, or one of your kind, has tossed an unwanted baby, leaving it there to slowly die alone in a pile of trash.

Perhaps you could lay a single rose at the base of a bridge that has been used by a mother to throw her baby into an icy river. Perhaps you can lay it there with hands that have beaten or shaken a baby to death.**

[snip]

Inspired? Good. Now perhaps some of you could place large, colorful arrangements at the abortion centers where women go to have children cut out and laid to rest in those colorful and attractive biohazard containers that are all the rage in the clinics. Perhaps while you are there you could encourage them to quit calling the procedure an abortion, and start calling it what it is for most of those wonderful mothers that go there…birth control.

Maybe you can** lay virtual flowers at your computers to honor all the children that you and your sisters have pimped out to pedophiles, or perhaps the blossoms could be placed in your child’s room, which also doubles as your preferred place to abuse your own.**

Perhaps you could place some geraniums at your local fire stations, where the babies that managed to dodge the dumpster get dropped off for whatever life awaits them at the hands of strangers.

This is not a request for some mothers, or a percentage of them, but all of you. In fact, you don’t even have to be a mother. If you have a vagina, the blood of all those children, who are abused far more at the hands of women than men, has stained your skin and caked around the cuticles of your fingers.

What a charmer, he is!

[BrightNShiny]

Ew. zweisamkeit, that’s pretty disturbing. I’ll never figure out what is wrong with some people.

[boytyperanma]

While you guys can offer theories on him being misogynist even offering data points for your arguments. Why not just take the FOX News approach and throw out wild theories with no data to back it up.

Clearly this incident was caused by his homosexual impulses

[BrightNShiny]

Getting back to the bumper, one of the purposes of the bumper design is to protect pedestrians (some features can have dual purposes, you know). And there is a discussion going on at the NHTSA right now as to whether or not the bumper regulations need to be revised in order to provide greater pedestrian protection. They are conducting studies and everything:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0318.pdf

We’ll probably get new regulations on bumper design within the next five years.

[Rick]

@BrightNShiny

First of all, I didn’t build any strawman. It is possible that you don’t know what a strawman means. I pointed out correctly that cars are one of the most heavily regulated consumer products, and that we do not have minimal regulations for cars. I suppose I could go through your entire list, and show you the car equivalents, but let’s just take this one, because it’s kind of stupid:

Nobody places a per-se size limit on gas tanks, because gas tanks are regulated for safety in very specific ways (including the location on a car, etc.) But, yeah, if you were to place a gas tank in a vehicle that was too big for the vehicle to be used safely or if you were to place a gas tank in a vehicle that was so big, that absent any other safety precautions, it would be a hazard on impact, you would certainly run afoul of NHTSA regulations.

Yeah you did. Car design and manufacture are regulated, car sales are basically unregulated.
Gun design is also regulated but as I have shown you gun sales are way more highly regulated than car sales.
You are comparing car design regulation with gun sale regulation. You are comparing apples to Kumquats.
If you think I am wrong go find one single law in the State of California that restricts car sales more than gun sales.
As far as the gas tank size, there are no laws in California regulating tank size.

[BrightNShiny]

@Rick

Yeah you did. Car design and manufacture are regulated, car sales are basically unregulated.

Now you’re just making crap up. Car sales are not “basically unregulated.” All car sales are thoroughly regulated by the state. Dealer sales have a whole slew of regulations. For private party sales, you’re covered by basic California law regarding sales generally. There’s no magic exemption for cars. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Gun design is also regulated but as I have shown you gun sales are way more highly regulated than car sales.

What you’ve shown is that you don’t actually know anything about car sales.

You are comparing car design regulation with gun sale regulation. You are comparing apples to Kumquats.

I was asked by another poster about safety regulations, I provided safety regulations.

If you think I am wrong go find one single law in the State of California that restricts car sales more than gun sales.

Interesting challenge, but before I get to that, I’m going to follow up this post by showing how you’re just pulling things out of your ass.

As far as the gas tank size, there are no laws in California regulating tank size.

Hey, idiot. Gas tanks are regulated by the Federal government.

[guizot]

@cococ173

I just read that his roomates were going to move out for next semester. Rejected, again.

Yeah – apparently he killed his roommates (both males) because he needed to use the apartment as the first step in an elaborate plan to first torture men who had girlfriends, whom he envied and viewed kind of like accomplices to women’s evil way of rejecting him. He had to use a knife so that the plan wouldn’t be discovered before it was finished. The next step was the grand finale, when he would shoot all the residents of a nearby sorority. Somehow he also ended up shooting into a convenience store.

[BrightNShiny]

@Rick

. If a minor gets a hold of it the owners faces criminal charges. Not so with cars.

Ok, so let’s tackle this one. What you’ve posted about cars is flat-out wrong. It is illegal to knowingly let a minor drive a car, and if you do so, you can be charged with contributing to deliquency. And, if you are so reckless that your behavior indirectly allows a minor to drive and he kills someone, you can also be charged with a crime as well. You simply have no idea what you are talking about with cars.

Now, as for the gun, are you referring to the “criminal storage” section of the code? They only apply if the child harms someone, and you get an exemption if your gun was under lock and key.

There’s really not much functional difference.:rolleyes:

[cococ173]

Hey Rick- how are all the California gun regulations working out for you? Elliot Roger legally bought and registered his guns there.

[splatterpunk]

@boytyperanma

While you guys can offer theories on him being misogynist even offering data points for your arguments. Why not just take the FOX News approach and throw out wild theories with no data to back it up.

Clearly this incident was caused by his homosexual impulses

As much as I despise FOX News and any “expert” they care to give air time to, I don’t think this theory is out of the question.

[BrightNShiny]

@cococ173

Hey Rick- how are all the California gun regulations working out for you? Elliot Roger legally bought and registered his guns there.

Obviously, the current regulatory regime is not working, so the United States needs a better, more thorough one.

I will point out that none of the people Eliot struck with a car died.

ETA: I don’t like the new rolleyes. Their too nice and smiley.

[Rick]

@BrightNShiny

Ok, so let’s tackle this one. What you’ve posted about cars is flat-out wrong. It is illegal to knowingly let a minor drive a car, and if you do so, you can be charged with contributing to deliquency. And, if you are so reckless that your behavior indirectly allows a minor to drive and he kills someone, you can also be charged with a crime as well. You simply have no idea what you are talking about with cars.

Now, as for the gun, are you referring to the “criminal storage” section of the code? They only apply if the child harms someone, and you get an exemption if your gun was under lock and key.

There’s really not much functional difference.:rolleyes:

Wait, what? Did I fucking read that right? Did you really just say

It is illegal to knowingly let a minor drive a car, and if you do so, you can be charged with contributing to deliquency.

So I am breaking the law by letting my child who has a drivers license take the car? Cite cite cite.
On the other hand here is my cite
From the California department of justice website:
You may be guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony if you keep a loaded firearm within any premises that are under your custody or control and a child under 18 years of age obtains and uses it, resulting in injury or death, or carries it to a public place, unless you stored the firearm in a locked container or locked the firearm with a locking device to temporarily keep it from functioning.

So you are saying that if a minor in my house borrows my car I could face a felony? Again cite please.

Oh and about my not knowing how car sales work, I’m a senior manager for one of the largest Mercedes-Benz dealerships in the world. I think I know way more about the automotive business than you ever will.

[splatterpunk]

@BrightNShiny

Obviously, the current regulatory regime is not working, so the United States needs a better, more thorough one.

I will point out that none of the people Eliot struck with a car died.

How about the ones he “struck” with a knife? I notice you conveniently ignored this part of Terr’s post that started this ridiculous hijack.

Jesus, can you pinheads take this guns vs. cars vs. knives crap to another thread?

[BrightNShiny]

Well, lookie what I found:

There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers.

So, apparently, California does not require registration for most firearms. But it does require registration for all vehicles. It looks like OHV’s require a registration from the DMV as well, but it’s a one-time thing, and not a yearly one. So, it looks like the vast majority of vehicles have to be registered with the state.

So, here we a firearm regulation that is more permissive than a car regulation. I found one. What do I get? Seriously, do you people do any basic research?