Richard Martinez, father of a University of California Santa Barbara student killed in the recent mass shooting that took six lives, is taking on the gun lobby. How far will this latest challenge go?
From talkingpointsmemo.com:
“Have we learned nothing? These things are going to continue until somebody does something,” Richard Martinez said in an interview with CNN. “So where the hell is the leadership? Where the hell are these people we elect to congress that we spend so much money on? These people are getting rich sitting in Congress, and what do they do? They don’t take care of our kids. My kid died because nobody responded to what happened at Sandy Hook.”
Martinez’s son, Christopher, was the last of six victims allegedly killed by Elliot Rodger before the suspected shooter took his own life. An emotional Martinez had railed against “craven, irresponsible politicians” and the National Rifle Association for their support of gun rights at a Saturday press conference. He redoubled his criticism of Congress in his interview with CNN, calling lawmakers a “rudderless bunch of idiots.”
A visibly angry Martinez expressed dismay that no legislative action has been taken since 20 elementary school students were killed by shooter Adam Lanza in Newtown.
“Those parents lost little kids. I had 20 years with my son. That’s all I’ll ever have,” he said. “But those people lost their children at 6 and 7 years old. How do you think they feel? And who’s talking to them now, who’s doing anything for them now? Who is standing up for those kids that died back then in an elementary school? Why wasn’t something done? It’s outrageous.”
This article appears in May 29 – Jun 4, 2014.
Dear Mr. Richard Martinez: I am very sorry for your loss. Your reasoning; however, is idiotic, and a major part of the problem. California has the toughest gun control laws in the country, but received an F for its mental health laws.
Mari, Are you a sloppy reporter or did you deliberately attempt to deceive readers by implying six people were killed by a gun? The TRUTH is three were STABBED to death and three were shot. About the same number Planned Parenthood kills in a single afternoon at one of their clinics.
Gene Moreland – in this case the guy was in intensive therapy, and had been for a long time. Similar to the guy in the Colorado theater shootings. Both had access to and were receiving psychological counseling. I’m not doubting your info, just that these were not necessarily people who fell through the cracks and went undiagnosed.
It’s not ‘mental health’ OR ‘access to guns’ that is the problem, it’s the combination.
Someguy: according to the Brady Institute, California is ranked an A in firearm regulations, with mandatory background checks and 10-day waiting period. My point was simply that half of those killed were stabbed, and railing against the “gun rights lobby” and ignoring the underlying mental health problems solves nothing. Especially in a state that ranks up there with NY and Illinois in firearm regulations. And especially for the people he killed without a firearm.
As is typical, the pro gun lobby is short sighted. Yes people kill other people senselessly with objects other than guns. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that the easy access of guns, semi automatic, automatic and otherwise, make the killing easier, faster, and with great quantity. Otherwise why wouldn’t we arm our armed services with knives? Guns are designed to kill with efficiency, at great quantity. I challenge a killer to drive down the street and kill as many with a knife, with equal ease. If a mentally ill patient skips his or her meds, displays good behavior as did our recent California shooter this time when the authorities visited his home, even a state that gets an A grade for it’s gun laws is just not good enough. If this is the result of an A grade, who is doing the evaluations? There are holes (bullet holes) in the criteria that vets this system. The truth is (and bring on the hate responses) is that we are NOT collectively sorry for Mr. Martinez’ loss, or the loss of those innocent children from Sandy Hook, or the victims of Gabby Gifford’s killing, or any other mass, senseless shooting in recent history. Sorry simply does not get it done. Sorry will not ease the life of pain that Mr. Martinez will visit daily, nightly for the rest of his hours on this earth. Talk is cheap and the gun lobby is too stingy, greedy, too selfish and insecure to have any affect this epidemic. Not that’s sorry.
I meant to end NOW THAT IS SORRY.
I would say addressing the gun issue before addressing the underlying mental health crisis is a bit more short-sighted. Unless, of course, you are ok with murders occurring, as long as the quantity is a smaller, more acceptable number. What about the three people that were stabbed?
The power of the NRA is due to the fact that the vast majority of its funds are provided by the dues of its 5+ million supporters. That’s REAL grass roots versus the Bloomberg top-down astroturf purchased with his 50 million dollars.
OK let’s address the mental health issue. Remember President Reagan shut down funding mental institutions. Thousands of institutionally mentally challenged people became homeless people, free to meld into society. We have enough freedom to have all the guns we want, should the mentally ill people not have equal freedom? How do we police the mentally ill? Do gun shop owners ask about one’s mental health? Do they loose a sale if one checks the proper box? What if a mentally ill person lies? Tell me how one regulates this freedom. If I were inclined to be violent and wanted to kill a lot of people fast, what would I choose, a club, a knife, or a semi automatic gun? Every culture and country has mentally ill people. Every culture will continue to have mentally ill people, sadly.
And what about people who are not mentally ill, but simply violent and and angry? Is that a question on the background check survey?
What is more important: extremely easy access to guns, or the life of an innocent child?
I wonder that when one says “I am sorry about Mr. Martinez’ son…” do they mean, “I am sorry god damn it, and I for one want to do something tangible about it. A father should not have to survive the senseless death of his child!”
Or do they mean, “I am sorry about Mr. Martinez’ son, until the next senseless mass murder happens (by gun, club, or knife). I better run out now and buy another gun in case the laws change”.
Are we as a society unwilling to sacrifice anything for the likes of Mr. Martinez? and the next Mr. Martinez? Yes the question is rhetorical, I already know the answer. Sorry does not get it.
Gee, I must have missed all of those ads from the “gun lobby” that said: “Having mental health issues? Buy a gun, it will make you feel better!”, or “Discounts for those currently receiving mental health counseling.” I suppose the “car lobby” is responsible for the drunk driver that ran into me years ago? Should I sue the AAA? That seems just as reasonable as holding the “gun lobby” responsible for the actions of a crazy person.
Well,
It seems that all the people affliated with Gun Rights come out of the closet to say “It wasn’t me”, so why berate the Gun Lobby.
Why.. because the Gun Lobby doesn’t give a flying “F” about mental issues.. it only is concerned with the sales and ownership of firearms, regardless of who owns them.. the whackos, the convicted fellons, the terrorists, they’re even against guns that cannot be fired by anyone besides the owner.
I don’t know what the answer is, or even pretend do, but I do have to ask this:
“How many of our children are going to have to die before something sane takes the place of today’s gun lobby?”
“recent mass shooting that took six lives”
Correction, mass shooting that took 3 lives. The shooting had 3 deaths. The stabbing had 3 deaths. If you want to refer to only to the shooting part then the accurate number is 3. If you want to refer to all the deaths, then you’d need to say “mass killing” or “mass murder”.
I know, pedantic…but details are important.
This nation does not have a gun problem. Out of the 31,000 firearm related deaths, about 60% of them are from suicides. So, the majority of firearm related deaths are a mental health problem. If you take out the suicide as a factor of firearm related deaths, the majority (80%) of them are gang related. It is a tragedy what happened in Santa Barbara, but a mass shooting by a lone gunman is not how most firearm related murders happen. The profile of the murder is normally a poorer young male that is involved in criminal activity.
So, how do we as a nation should prevent gun related deaths? It is not knee jerk reaction of more gun control laws. That is not going to help gang violence, since most of their firearms are illegally obtained. There we need to focus on community involvement and programs to stop people from joining a gang in the first place. When it comes to suicides, we need to push for better mental health programs to help people that are mentally sick. Which would also help with the very small percentage of murders that are mass shooters.
What we should NOT do as a nation is think passing more gun control laws will do anything to stop the majority of firearm related murders. If a person wants to kill themselves, they will find a way. Gun control laws will not stop the crime and violence that is associated with gangs. Gun Control is a nice little black and white argument that does not address the problem. Nobody wants to face the elephant of the room that it is not the gun that causes most gun related deaths, but poorer communities that are more acceptable influence of gangs, drugs, and violence.
It is easier to blame an inanimate object than fixing poorer communities. What happened at Santa Barbara happens almost on a daily basis in cities like Chicago. However, it seems the poorer the person is that dies from gun violence, the less the country takes notice.