Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States — two of them by someone who's now under investigation.
Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States — two of them by someone who's now under investigation.
Did you just deliberately take a quote out of context to misconstrue the information to be supportive of your personal beliefs that oppose the current state of legal gun ownership in the US? Because it sure looks like you did.
Here's what the ATF actually said:
Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States — two of them by someone who's now under investigation.
Meredith Davis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives says investigators are now working to make a connection to the last legal purchaser.
She says all four guns were bought four years ago but she's not saying whether they were purchased out of state or how and when they got into the hands of the two shooters.
Davis says California requires paperwork when guns change hands privately but many other states don't.
She also says the rifles involved were .223-caliber
The guns were legally purchased 4 years ago by somebody who is currently under investigation, which means that person is still alive so unless it's the third shooter (and one would think the authorities would have included that information if it was) the person who last purchased the guns is not one of the shooters. Therefore, it now appears that a fourth person lawfully purchased the guns 4 years ago and then sold them to somebody else, possibly/probably one of the shooters, or another person who then sold the guns to the shooters, even though the possession of a standard configuration AR-15 or .223 caliber AK type rifle is illegal in California. This makes it likely that the rifles used in the shooting were purchased in a private transfer that was in violation of California state laws.
If the rifles had been purchased by the shooters themselves in a legal manner in the state of California then the licensed dealer who sold them the rifles would have the paperwork on record and the shooters would be shown as the last purchaser(s) on record. Since that scenario has been officially debunked by the ATF it's clear that the shooters didn't lawfully purchase the guns in California.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Sounds like they had the gear but no training. It's not like you can just jog on down to the range with your AK and squeeze off a few mags. From what I've read firing an automatic weapon is loads harder to control than just firing a rifle or handgun.
I had not heard they had automatic weapons. I heard they were all semi-auto. You have a credible source for full auto?
Reports so far have been AR 15 style.
Where did they get them? Cali is extremely tough on "assault weapons" they still have limitations on them.
Its not all that difficult to get a rifle in California, there are just certain features that come on rifles that make them have assault weapon restrictions. I just bought a "feature-less" rifle a couple months ago. Going off memory, in order to be "feature-less" (and thus by-pass all of the dumb assault weapon restrictions, ie. 10 round magazine limit and the magazine lock aka bullet button) it can't have an adjustable stock, pistol grip, front vertical grip or any sort of flash supressors.
But there is no law preventing me from having those accessories laying around. Putting them on the rifle at anytime would make it illegal, but as you can see making an "assault weapon" isn't really hard, just a few turns of a screwdriver.
Frazzled wrote: So illegally purchased guns? Then why all the blah blah REGULATE!
I confused. This is not unusual state for me though.
Because the reason we have more gun crime in the US is because we have more freedom to own guns. Every time a particularly heinous crime is committed with guns some people want to restrict or remove those freedoms. Since the only thing the govt can do is pass more laws some politicians call for more laws to pander to the portion of the electorate that wants them. Since our freedom to own guns has strong constitutional and legal protections and the restriction of those protected rights is a divisive issue with a support in the electorate to maintain or expand those freedoms very few laws that increase restrictions on gun ownership get passed. Since we're still free to own guns there is still gun crime so the game of political football with gun rights continues.
Freedom can be scary and has a lot of associated costs but freedom is also incredibly valuable and worthwhile.
Thats not the only thing government can do. Gov can enforce the existing laws and abide by them. There'snothing keeping states from doing better at reporting items to the national database. nothing keeping the ATF from really pursuing straw purchasers, nothing from sealing the border and stopping illegal drugs and thus the drug fueled gun violence.
Is the current US population psychologically stable enough to make the Second Amendment worth protecting?
I know the Second Amendment is a sacred cow to many, but I think it's a fair question. Incidentally, I am a gun owner, and I support my own right to continue to own a gun. But any John Doe with no record....not so sure. I only trust myself with guns really, Second Amendment not withstanding.
jasper76 wrote: Is the current US population psychologically stable enough to make the Second Amendment worth protecting?
I know the Second Amendment is a sacred cow to many, but I think it's a fair question. Incidentally, I am a gun owner, and I support my own right to continue to own a gun. But any John Doe with no record....not so sure. I only trust myself with guns really, Second Amendment not withstanding.
Gun crime was less when you could order them in a Sears catalog. Lose the right, lose it forever.
Just looking at Donald trump and the Kardashians confirms one could make a better argument that the First needs to go too.
jasper76 wrote: Is the current US population psychologically stable enough to make the Second Amendment worth protecting?
I know the Second Amendment is a sacred cow to many, but I think it's a fair question. Incidentally, I am a gun owner, and I support my own right to continue to own a gun. But any John Doe with no record....not so sure. I only trust myself with guns really, Second Amendment not withstanding.
"The US can't have guns because I only trust myself with them..."
I didn't say the US shouldn't have guns. I said I don't trust anyone with guns but myself. I certainly don't trust someone to have a gun simply because they aren't in any "problem child" databases.
And I do questiton whether the ownership of firearms should be an enshrined right. Although I'm not under any delusions that the Second Amendment would ever be repealed in the current political climate.
So a gaggle folks in my gaming group have already flooded facebook with numerous posts about how this is a false flag, a goverment plot to take their toys away, and to push us into a police state.
On a lighter note I finished all my christmas shopping for them by buying a few boxes of tinfoil.
The Washington Post is saying that ATF has stated that 2 of the recovered weapons were legally purchased by one of the suspects, and two of the weapons were traced to an another person, also purchased legally.
Frazzled wrote: Thats not the only thing government can do. Gov can enforce the existing laws and abide by them. There'snothing keeping states from doing better at reporting items to the national database. nothing keeping the ATF from really pursuing straw purchasers, nothing from sealing the border and stopping illegal drugs and thus the drug fueled gun violence.
Straw purchasers are very difficult to prosecute except in very obvious cases, and in those obvious cases it would be best if the FFL stopped the purchase. If Frazzled buys a gun at a local store in the morning and then gives/sells that same gun to a coworker that afternoon how is the ATF supposed to be aware of that second transaction in the first place in order to initiate a prosecution?
There are already a plethora of laws and restriction on gun ownership and purchasing. The government could do a better job of enforcing them, the government has room for improvement in pretty much everything it does. Better budget allocations, better training and enforcement techniques and a better understanding of the laws would all be helpful. But politicians can't hold a press conference to say that they're going to try to get federal agencies to have higher job performance, that doesn't help election campaigns or fund raising.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I didn't say the US shouldn't have guns. I said I don't trust anyone with guns but myself. I certainly don't trust someone to have a gun simply because they aren't in any "problem child" databases.
And I do questiton whether the ownership of firearms should be an enshrined right. Although I'm not under any delusions that the Second Amendment would ever be repealed in the current political climate.
People who haven't done anything wrong get the benefit of the doubt. That's always been true and it extends to just about everything we regulate.
We don't give people benefit of the doubt on any number of issues. Easiest example is drivers licenses.
And even if that were true, when it comes to guns, the fact they we do give people the benefit of the doubt is sepaarate from the question of whether we should.
"We've always done things this way" is hardly ever a good answer to "should we" type questions.
jasper76 wrote: We don't give people benefit of the doubt on any number of issues. Easiest example is drivers licenses.
And even if that were true, when it comes to guns, the fact they we do give people the benefit of the doubt is sepaarate from the question of whether we should.
"We've always done things this way" is hardly ever a good answer to "should we" type questions.
Once you get a driver's license you can buy any car you want, even if its one you can't drive well. I know plenty of people who got very nice cars as presents when they turned 17 and got a license and most of them them wrecked those cars to varying degrees shortly thereafter. There is nothing stopping somebody with a DL from driving poorly or driving under the influence. We let everybody with a license drive until such time as they get in too many accidents or commit crimes like DUIs and hit and runs.
You are advocating that we pre-emptively prevent people from exercising a right (and even if it wasn't a right it's still a perfectly legal transaction) based solely on the hypothetical possibility that they might do something bad in the future. There is no precedent for that, our judicial system doesn't allow it to be done. That's why we don't do it, not because it's tradition but because doing what you're suggesting is illegal in our system. We can't punish people for something they haven't done but might do in the future, maybe.
San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said.
jasper76 wrote: We don't give people benefit of the doubt on any number of issues. Easiest example is drivers licenses.
And even if that were true, when it comes to guns, the fact they we do give people the benefit of the doubt is sepaarate from the question of whether we should.
"We've always done things this way" is hardly ever a good answer to "should we" type questions.
Once you get a driver's license you can buy any car you want, even if its one you can't drive well. I know plenty of people who got very nice cars as presents when they turned 17 and got a license and most of them them wrecked those cars to varying degrees shortly thereafter. There is nothing stopping somebody with a DL from driving poorly or driving under the influence. We let everybody with a license drive until such time as they get in too many accidents or commit crimes like DUIs and hit and runs.
You are advocating that we pre-emptively prevent people from exercising a right (and even if it wasn't a right it's still a perfectly legal transaction) based solely on the hypothetical possibility that they might do something bad in the future. There is no precedent for that, our judicial system doesn't allow it to be done. That's why we don't do it, not because it's tradition but because doing what you're suggesting is illegal in our system. We can't punish people for something they haven't done but might do in the future, maybe.
But you do at least have to take that test to get the drivers license. You dint just show up, get a background check done, and walk away with the license.
I'm not advocating anything, by the way. I am not trying to keep people from exercising their rights nor begrudging people that do so (I am one of them), I am questioning whether the right should continue to exist in the first place.
All that's required to buy a car is money. The driver's licence is to prove you have passed the training course to operate one safely. It allows you to drive any car you are qualified for. You also need insurance, of course.
CptJake wrote: What other rights are you willing to give up?
Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?
I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.
Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.
jasper76 wrote: We don't give people benefit of the doubt on any number of issues. Easiest example is drivers licenses.
And even if that were true, when it comes to guns, the fact they we do give people the benefit of the doubt is sepaarate from the question of whether we should.
"We've always done things this way" is hardly ever a good answer to "should we" type questions.
Once you get a driver's license you can buy any car you want, even if its one you can't drive well. I know plenty of people who got very nice cars as presents when they turned 17 and got a license and most of them them wrecked those cars to varying degrees shortly thereafter. There is nothing stopping somebody with a DL from driving poorly or driving under the influence. We let everybody with a license drive until such time as they get in too many accidents or commit crimes like DUIs and hit and runs.
You are advocating that we pre-emptively prevent people from exercising a right (and even if it wasn't a right it's still a perfectly legal transaction) based solely on the hypothetical possibility that they might do something bad in the future. There is no precedent for that, our judicial system doesn't allow it to be done. That's why we don't do it, not because it's tradition but because doing what you're suggesting is illegal in our system. We can't punish people for something they haven't done but might do in the future, maybe.
But you do at least have to take that test to get the drivers license. You dint just show up, get a background check done, and walk away with the license.
I'm not advocating anything, by the way. I am not trying to keep people from exercising their rights nor begrudging people that do so (I am one of them), I am questioning whether the right should continue to exist in the first place.
The DL test is just basic operations and being able to read road signs. Even if we required such a thing for gun ownership being able to clean, load and fire a gun is a meaningless test in terms of determining if the the person is going to go on to commit crimes with a gun.
All the people with DLs who have committed crimes like hit and runs, DUIs, negligent accidents, etc. they all passed the DL exam. The exam doesn't prevent them from committing those crimes in any way, shape or form.
Not sure where you're from, but here the driver's test is something you do with a person in the car with you who instructs you to do different things to judge your ability.
@ Prestor Jon: yes, I agree that a driver's license-type exam would not be a suitable prerequisite to gun ownership.
On second thought, maybe I don't. Probably alot of accidents could be avoided if people were required to display competence with firearms prior to purchase. But your correct that his type of exam would not eliminate gun crimes.
Kilkrazy wrote: All that's required to buy a car is money. The driver's licence is to prove you have passed the training course to operate one safely. It allows you to drive any car you are qualified for. You also need insurance, of course.
Only to drive on public roads. You can buy a car without a having DL, not buy any insurance and drive the car all around your property every day with no legal problems. You can also own cars that aren't legal to be driven on public roads. You can also make all kinds of modifications to your car even if doing so makes the car illegal to drive on public roads. Cars really aren't regulated very heavily from a commerce and ownership standpoint.
We as a nation have chosen to accept gun rights and regulations where they are, and that includes accepting that these mass shootings will occur with the given regularity. For those who argue in favor of more restriction on fireararms in order to reduce mass shootings, remember that you will need to prove that such restrictions will indeed reduce such crimes. For those who argue against changes to gun regulation, remember that you must either prove that there is a negligible association between level of restriction and gun crime, or admit that you accept the current regularity of mass shootings.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not sure where you're from, but here the driver's test is something you do with a person in the car with you who instructs you to do different things to judge your ability.
Not sure of your point here- in Tennessee a carry permit requires you attend a class with an instructor, followed by a trip to the firing range where you have an instructor watch you load and fire the weapon.
You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.
It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."
Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.
Kilkrazy wrote: All that's required to buy a car is money. The driver's licence is to prove you have passed the training course to operate one safely. It allows you to drive any car you are qualified for. You also need insurance, of course.
CptJake wrote: What other rights are you willing to give up?
Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?
I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.
Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.
CptJake wrote: What other rights are you willing to give up?
Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?
I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.
Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.
Translation, civil war. Bring it.
Frazz', for it to be repealed, you need 2/3rds of both parties, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. At that point, people objecting to it would be well in the minority, and those willing to go to war over it even less. Civil war would not happen, and even if it did, it would be over quickly (a bunch of civilans with semi-auto rifles, versus the US Armed Forces, who do you think would win that fight?).
You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.
It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."
Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote.
Another way to look at that is they don't have a mass shooting every day.
and why would you quote an american paper for statistics in australia?
CptJake wrote: What other rights are you willing to give up?
Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?
I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.
Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.
Translation, civil war. Bring it.
Frazz', for it to be repealed, you need 2/3rds of both parties, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. At that point, people objecting to it would be well in the minority, and those willing to go to war over it even less. Civil war would not happen, and even if it did, it would be over quickly (a bunch of civilans with semi-auto rifles, versus the US Armed Forces, who do you think would win that fight?).
Ask how it went in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Now change that number to millions, with military units defecting.
That's what a mass shooting is. You don't have to have dozens of people killed for it to be a mass shooting.
Which is disingenuous because when people think of "Mass shootings" they think of nutjobs shooting up schools or terrorism. Not a gang shootout which hurt more than 2 people. But the left-wing is more than happy to pad the numbers with those events to make people think that there some sort of epidemic.
The definition should be altered to be a better representation of reality. Both number of victims and motive should be considered.
jasper76 wrote: Why shouldn't he? American opnion writers are well known to be neutral observers when it comes to gun rights.
Read the report. Find figures that prove your view point. Dispute what it says.
Or, you know, just mock the source.
I don't have a point of view on Australia's buy back program. Kind of hard to form one when you have two articales, one touting it as a major success, the other arguing it was only a minor success. Just pointing out that American opinion writers are not well known for objectivity when it comes to gun issues....on both sides.
That's what a mass shooting is. You don't have to have dozens of people killed for it to be a mass shooting.
Which is disingenuous because when people think of "Mass shootings" they think of nutjobs shooting up schools or terrorism. Not a gang shootout which hurt more than 2 people. But the left-wing is more than happy to pad the numbers with those events to make people think that there some sort of epidemic.
The definition should be altered to be a better representation of reality. Both number of victims and motive should be considered.
'Hurt more than two people' seems like a pretty good definition of 'mass shooting' to me.
CptJake wrote: What other rights are you willing to give up?
Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?
I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.
Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.
Translation, civil war. Bring it.
Frazz', for it to be repealed, you need 2/3rds of both parties, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. At that point, people objecting to it would be well in the minority, and those willing to go to war over it even less. Civil war would not happen, and even if it did, it would be over quickly (a bunch of civilans with semi-auto rifles, versus the US Armed Forces, who do you think would win that fight?).
Ask how it went in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Now change that number to millions, with military units defecting.
Did you not read what I just said? 2/3rds majority in both houses and 3/4ths of the states. Meaning that any attempt to make a civil war will not have popular support. That's the point. It's not that an armed uprising couldn't sucseed if it was big enough, it's that it most probably won't happen, and, even if it does, will be nowhere near big enough. Were talking about something that would have to be extremely popular to do. This isn't something like a 55/45 split, we're talking 75-80/25-20 split. And even if that 25-20% rises up, they will be absolutely crushed by the other 75-80%, resulting in mindless death all round for no real difference.
I agree with Spinners definition, and I wonder why there is so much antipathy towards using the words "mass shooting". Anyone care to enlighten? And if we shouldn't use he term "mass shooting" , what's a better term to use?
That's what a mass shooting is. You don't have to have dozens of people killed for it to be a mass shooting.
Which is disingenuous because when people think of "Mass shootings" they think of nutjobs shooting up schools or terrorism. Not a gang shootout which hurt more than 2 people. But the left-wing is more than happy to pad the numbers with those events to make people think that there some sort of epidemic.
The definition should be altered to be a better representation of reality. Both number of victims and motive should be considered.
'Hurt more than two people' seems like a pretty good definition of 'mass shooting' to me.
No, its a terrible definition because it is irrespective of motive.
There is a huge difference between a gang shootout and someone shooting up a school, and they have 2 very different solutions(neither of which has anything to do with taking away guns).
Focusing on guns is like walking into a room, seeing one toddler beating up another toddler with a toy dinosaur and just taking away all the toys and leaving. You have not solved anything, all you've done is made the bully have to use his fists instead and now nobody has toys to play with.
IMO, Mass Shootings should be defined as attacks, or attempted attacks, meant to kill more than 4 people and attempting to make a political or social statement.
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
CptJake wrote: What other rights are you willing to give up?
Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?
I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.
Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.
Translation, civil war. Bring it.
Frazz', for it to be repealed, you need 2/3rds of both parties, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify. At that point, people objecting to it would be well in the minority, and those willing to go to war over it even less. Civil war would not happen, and even if it did, it would be over quickly (a bunch of civilans with semi-auto rifles, versus the US Armed Forces, who do you think would win that fight?).
Ask how it went in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Now change that number to millions, with military units defecting.
I'm fairly certain that both Vietnam and Afghanistans 'rebels' were both trained and equipped by the united states. Iraq is, well Iraq, we've made a big enough obvious mess there.
Now with that in mind do you really think the average fellow with his taticool assault rifel is going to stand much chance against our military? You know with drones and Abrahams tanks being a thing?
Even with possble military units defecting, who do you think the powers of the world are going to back? I sincerely doubt france will be opening supply lines to a bunch of guys who's rally cry is "Feth you, don't touch our guns!"
In all honesty it would probably be over very quickly and be rather embarressing.
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.
So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
Do we? I haven't noticed that. I don't think of a mass shooting as necessarily linked to ideology or a school shooting.
(Also, I was under the impression that mass shootings are ALL criminal in nature, 'cause, you know. Murder.)
Tanks are useless unless you are dealing with other tanks or entrenched positions. Fighting against an insurgency or in any type of urban setting and they become massive liabilities. You're just going to waste tons of fuel and lose most of your vehicles.
Drones are also only as good as your ability to identify the enemy. They're not better than aircraft, only having the advantage of being able to stay in the air longer.
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
Do we? I haven't noticed that. I don't think of a mass shooting as necessarily linked to ideology or a school shooting.
(Also, I was under the impression that mass shootings are ALL criminal in nature, 'cause, you know. Murder.)
By Criminal I mean they have criminal motivations, not ideological. Usually tied to the drug trade. Tons of people get murdered over drugs or in robberies all the time. But this is clearly a different problem than a nutter going postal.
But here's the point, it won't ever result in an effective civil war because a vast majority of people would have to support it for it to pass. 2/3rds of both houses of both houses and 3/4ths of the states.
Ashiraya wrote: Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?
The entire line of thinking is completely absurd. Is it worth it to risk your own life and the lives of your family and friends just to keep a hobby?
'Sorry son, but your life is worth risking if it means I get to keep my AK.'
Sweden, meet Texas.
But to be fair, gun ownership is more than a hobby. I personally live in an area where cops would take quite a while to reach, so home defense is a legit concern. Also, although I can afford food, I use a rifle once a year to bring in venison.
Ashiraya wrote: Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?
The entire line of thinking is completely absurd. Is it worth it to risk your own life and the lives of your family and friends just to keep a hobby?
'Sorry son, but your life is worth risking if it means I get to keep my AK.'
What right do they come for next? Freedom of speech? Nobody needs that, far more people are abusing it to hurt people's feelings than ever got hurt because of guns. Lets restrict that one too. And that Freedom of Religion thing, can't have the "bad religions" be allowed to remain. They hurt too many people. No freedom of the press or assembly either, they might incite riots or gather to discuss how to hurt people.
A tank can be an amazing psychological weapon in addition to being a fearsome tool of warfare in it's own right. The same can be said for drones.
I can imagine encountering a tank or hearing the rush of a drone circling overhead can and would be rather demoralizing to a force that largely lacks in anti-armor weaponry.
Which would be a large majority of american rebels at an early stage of a civil war.
Perhaps an Apache would be a more appropriate hunter?
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.
So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?
Ashiraya wrote: Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?
The entire line of thinking is completely absurd. Is it worth it to risk your own life and the lives of your family and friends just to keep a hobby?
'Sorry son, but your life is worth risking if it means I get to keep my AK.'
What right do they come for next? Freedom of speech? Nobody needs that, far more people are abusing it to hurt people's feelings than ever got hurt because of guns. Lets restrict that one too. And that Freedom of Religion thing, can't have the "bad religions" be allowed to remain. They hurt too many people. No freedom of the press or assembly either, they might incite riots or gather to discuss how to hurt people.
Slippery slopes are fun?
A more safe bet seems to be: rebel when something important is taken away, don't rebel just in case it will be later.
Besides, your tongue may be sharp, but it'll be a while before I'll consider it a weapon.
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.
So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?
A shooting.
With you so far. Now what unloaded adjective should I use to indicate "...that involved multiple victims", because that is awkward thing to have to spell out each and every time.
I can imagine encountering a tank or hearing the rush of a drone circling overhead can and would be rather demoralizing to a force that largely lacks in anti-armor weaponry.
Do you have gasoline, a lighter, some cloth, and some glass bottles? You have anti-tank weaponry.
Drones? Well you are hiding among a civilian populace. They can't just start killing everyone now can they.
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.
So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?
A shooting.
With you so far. Now what unloaded adjective should I use to indicate "...that involved multiple victims", because that is awkward thing to have to spell out each and every time.
Why does it suddenly matter that someone shot 4 people instead of 3?
I really dislike this notion of a threshold to add further labels onto a shooting. A shooting is a shooting, and is a tragic event no matter how many victims there are.
I can imagine encountering a tank or hearing the rush of a drone circling overhead can and would be rather demoralizing to a force that largely lacks in anti-armor weaponry.
Do you have gasoline, a lighter, some cloth, and some glass bottles? You have anti-tank weaponry.
Drones? Well you are hiding among a civilian populace. They can't just start killing everyone now can they.
Ashiraya wrote: Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns? .'
I dont know, half our country fought for their right to own people. Another idiot recently decided to start a civil war over his supposed land rights.
one third actually. I weap for our history classes. IN my day history was better. We just referred to what happened last week when we ambushed the Trexes, because thats all the history there was. Trexes are such wimps, coconut eating wimps.
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.
So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?
A shooting.
With you so far. Now what unloaded adjective should I use to indicate "...that involved multiple victims", because that is awkward thing to have to spell out each and every time.
Why does it suddenly matter that someone shot 4 people instead of 3?
I really dislike this notion of a threshold to add further labels onto a shooting. A shooting is a shooting, and is a tragic event no matter how many victims there are.
I'm not splitting hairs between 3 or 4 victims. Just looking for a phrase to indicate "shooting with multiple victims" that does not elicit so much unnecessary argument
Huffington Post is reporting that the suspect were carrying 1600 rounds of ammunition and three pipe bombs attached to an RC car. 4500 rounds were found at their residence, along with 12 more pipe bombs and lots of tools fit for manufacturing explosive devices.
CNN is reporting that the male suspect was in communication with known terrorists.
Kilkrazy wrote: The difference is that accidents, suicides and crimes passionelles normally only involve one or two deaths (or serious injuries.)
The death toll goes beyond three only because someone is on a killing spree.
Not at all accurate. Many of the mass shootings are horrible incidents of domestic violence/crimes of passion where some guy caps his wife/kids/who ever else is around/self. According to the following 57% of mass shootings were related to domestic violence.
That's a killing spree. It's the definition of a killing spree.
People only go and kill more than three people because they want to kill lots of people.
No-one accidentally shoots their daughter while cleaning a gun and thinks, "feth it, I may as well sand the rest of the family too, since my gun is loaded."
I can imagine encountering a tank or hearing the rush of a drone circling overhead can and would be rather demoralizing to a force that largely lacks in anti-armor weaponry.
Do you have gasoline, a lighter, some cloth, and some glass bottles? You have anti-tank weaponry.
Drones? Well you are hiding among a civilian populace. They can't just start killing everyone now can they.
I am not entirely certian a molotov cocktail would be effective against a modern tank. I'm willing to admit it might be startling and if you caught the crew at rest with the hatches open yes it could work.
Isn't the point of insurgent tactics to outlast the enemy till he gives up and goes home? To make the cost too great to continue fighting. The problem in this hypothetical tangent is that the 'invader' has no home to go too. Looking at Syria, wasn't the Assad regimes answer to simply become more and more ruthless?
Oh and Frazzeled, concerning Vietnam, look up the OSS's involvement in the region.
I am not entirely certian a molotov cocktail would be effective against a modern tank. I'm willing to admit it might be startling and if you caught the crew at rest with the hatches open yes it could work.
It might surprise people to learn that tanks aren't airtight. Burning liquid on the exterior of a hatch will actually flow into the interior. No vehicle wants burning gasoline anywhere on it.
The best part is, it doesn't matter anyway. There would be no civil war, because for a repeal to pass you need at least 3/4ths of the states on board. And politicians aren't really known for taking risky actions, so they'll only do it if they have real support. So that means a 75-80% support, to the point where stuff like that just won't happen. That's my point.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The best part is, it doesn't matter anyway. There would be no civil war, because for a repeal to pass you need at least 3/4ths of the states on board. And politicians aren't really known for taking risky actions, so they'll only do it if they have real support. So that means a 75-80% support, to the point where stuff like that just won't happen. That's my point.
Agreed. A repeal of the Second Amendment would require such a massive shift in public opinion as to render a significant rebellion highly unlikely.
Certain politicians want to say any shooting with 2+ victims is a mass shooting. Fair enough. Pad the statistics.
But why then are they never up in arms or making speeches when a drive by occurs in the hood. Or multiple people die in Chicago. Multiple gang areas have people dying every day. Yet I can't remember a big speech about from a president. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Certain politicians want to say any shooting with 2+ victims is a mass shooting. Fair enough. Pad the statistics.
But why then are they never up in arms or making speeches when a drive by occurs in the hood. Or multiple people die in Chicago. Multiple gang areas have people dying every day. Yet I can't remember a big speech about from a president. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Because nobody cares about gang-bangers. Politicians can make better political gains by posturing in the aftermath of a school shooting than they can after a drive-by.
WrentheFaceless wrote: I can understand the motivation behind targets that are political or religious points of contention, not to say that either of those reasons are justification for this sort of thing.
But a center that assists the disabled? Cmon....
Yeah...
fething sick in the head, man.
Why the disabled? Any connection made yet, that I've missed? (I have been traveling a gak ton and not following the News According to Dakka (NAD) very closely).
I truly hope that this was a lone wolf attack so to speak.
The report that there were groups of "middle eastern" men visiting their home recently causes concern. It may be a harmless coincidence, it may have been handlers who could be radicalizing others, or men preparing more strikes.
I have no doubt that our authorities are hunting these people down in order to find out. A lone wolf situation, while it was still horrible would be a much better thing over all.
Certain politicians want to say any shooting with 2+ victims is a mass shooting. Fair enough. Pad the statistics.
But why then are they never up in arms or making speeches when a drive by occurs in the hood. Or multiple people die in Chicago. Multiple gang areas have people dying every day. Yet I can't remember a big speech about from a president. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Here is a Presidential speech about that topic....
WrentheFaceless wrote: I can understand the motivation behind targets that are political or religious points of contention, not to say that either of those reasons are justification for this sort of thing.
But a center that assists the disabled? Cmon....
Yeah...
fething sick in the head, man.
Why the disabled? Any connection made yet, that I've missed? (I have been traveling a gak ton and not following the News According to Dakka (NAD) very closely).
I miss NADs.
The 'disabled' were never the target. The target was a Christmas party being held in a conference room/center rented by the county health department. The male perp was an employee of the county health department.
WrentheFaceless wrote: I can understand the motivation behind targets that are political or religious points of contention, not to say that either of those reasons are justification for this sort of thing.
But a center that assists the disabled? Cmon....
Yeah...
fething sick in the head, man.
Why the disabled? Any connection made yet, that I've missed? (I have been traveling a gak ton and not following the News According to Dakka (NAD) very closely).
I miss NADs.
The 'disabled' were never the target. The target was a Christmas party being held in a conference room/center rented by the county health department. The male perp was an employee of the county health department.
Turning into a different dynamic compare to other shootings.
Can we drop the discussion on armed insurrection, and its likelihood of success as that usually gets a thread locked very quickly.
jasper76 wrote: I didn't say the US shouldn't have guns. I said I don't trust anyone with guns but myself. I certainly don't trust someone to have a gun simply because they aren't in any "problem child" databases.
And I do questiton whether the ownership of firearms should be an enshrined right. Although I'm not under any delusions that the Second Amendment would ever be repealed in the current political climate.
Perhaps you should look inwards before you ask if the rest of the country is allowed to exercise a right that you feel you are free to exercise
jasper76 wrote: I agree with Spinners definition, and I wonder why there is so much antipathy towards using the words "mass shooting". Anyone care to enlighten? And if we shouldn't use he term "mass shooting" , what's a better term to use?
I would like to see a little definition on this. The FBI considers it to be 4 or more people killed with no cooling off period. Advocacy groups claim it to be 4 or more people wounded in an incident.
djones520 wrote: I truly hope that this was a lone wolf attack so to speak.
The report that there were groups of "middle eastern" men visiting their home recently causes concern. It may be a harmless coincidence, it may have been handlers who could be radicalizing others, or men preparing more strikes.
I have no doubt that our authorities are hunting these people down in order to find out. A lone wolf situation, while it was still horrible would be a much better thing over all.
I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and say that it was family/friends visiting, if there was something besides I'm sure the FBI will investigate
Authorities said there were three pipe bombs tied together in a bag at the scene, and the design indicated that suspects Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik appeared to believe their initial attack would draw a heavy law enforcement and emergency personnel response and left behind a device that would cause still greater casualties.
The device did not explode, and investigators do not know if the controller was too far away to trigger the bomb. Forensic investigation of the device has not been completed.
The attackers had also prepared metal pipe bombs of the type used by the Tsarnaev brothers after the Boston Marathon bombing. San Bernardino Police Department Chief Jarrod Burguan said Thursday at a press conference that 12 pipe bombs were found at a residence in nearby Redlands. Though there is no known link between the Boston and San Bernardino incidents, the California attackers and the Tsarnaev brothers seemed to be using designs found in multiple issues of Inspire magazine, the on-line publication of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Authorities are investigating how the San Bernardino attackers learned to construct their devices, and are looking for any possible accomplices who might have helped them obtain the large supply of ammunition, bombmaking materials and any weapons that may not have been directly purchased by the suspects.
More forensic evidence related to bomb-making was found inside the Redlands residence. Authorities told NBC News that investigators found traces of explosive residue indicating that the bombs may have been built there.
WrentheFaceless wrote: I can understand the motivation behind targets that are political or religious points of contention, not to say that either of those reasons are justification for this sort of thing.
But a center that assists the disabled? Cmon....
Yeah...
fething sick in the head, man.
Why the disabled? Any connection made yet, that I've missed? (I have been traveling a gak ton and not following the News According to Dakka (NAD) very closely).
I miss NADs.
The 'disabled' were never the target. The target was a Christmas party being held in a conference room/center rented by the county health department. The male perp was an employee of the county health department.
Turning into a different dynamic compare to other shootings.
Ah, feth. Thanks, guys. He got his wife to go back and cap people at a Christmas party? fething hell...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Can we drop the discussion on armed insurrection, and its likelihood of success as that usually gets a thread locked very quickly.
jasper76 wrote: I didn't say the US shouldn't have guns. I said I don't trust anyone with guns but myself. I certainly don't trust someone to have a gun simply because they aren't in any "problem child" databases.
And I do questiton whether the ownership of firearms should be an enshrined right. Although I'm not under any delusions that the Second Amendment would ever be repealed in the current political climate.
Perhaps you should look inwards before you ask if the rest of the country is allowed to exercise a right that you feel you are free to exercise
jasper76 wrote: I agree with Spinners definition, and I wonder why there is so much antipathy towards using the words "mass shooting". Anyone care to enlighten? And if we shouldn't use he term "mass shooting" , what's a better term to use?
I would like to see a little definition on this. The FBI considers it to be 4 or more people killed with no cooling off period. Advocacy groups claim it to be 4 or more people wounded in an incident.
For the first part, I did not ask if the rest of the country is allowed to exercise 2nd Amendment Rights. I know full well that they are (exceptions in law notwithstanding).
.
For the second part, I guess I wasn't aware til now that "mass shooting" was a term that had come to mean a shooting with a set number, like 4 or more, and wasn't aware that it was a controversial term. I've got no interest in splitting hairs with people over whether it should be used to denote 3 victims, or 4 victims, or 5 victims, or whatever.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The Republicans control the house right now, right? Am I wrong that would prevent the Democrats from passing sensible laws?
I mean, my understanding is the go-to excuse for a while from the Republicans has been "guns don't kill people, we need better mental health care to prevent gun violence" but at the same time they appear to oppose mental health services and measures to reduce inequality that might cut down on violent crime.
California is the model of "sensible" gun laws. What laws do you think would have prevented this?
Gun violence has a number of causes. If you want to be as effective as possible, you should approach it from multiple directions. One is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The vast majority of people have no good reason to own a gun. Buy them back and destroy them.
Then you can do stuff like providing proper support for people who are poor or sick. Work on reducing wealth inequality. Build community. Improve your justice system so that people are less likely to reoffend. Promote understanding that maybe the solution to all problems isn't "kill the bad guys." Get a better construction of masculinity, because for some reason most of your mass murderers are dudes (disproportionately white, too).
Just approach it from every angle. You're a huge country, you can do a lot of stuff at the same time. Maybe avoid trying to solve it with an ever-expanding, increasingly intrusive police state, though.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Build community. Improve your justice system so that people are less likely to reoffend.
That I can get behind. Revolving door prison system is terrible. Community building can really help the police "us and them" problem too. Lots of success stories when police actually get involved in their community and interact with people in a positive way.
jasper76 wrote: @Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.
Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.
Serious question for you Grey, you consider "mass shooting" a loaded phrase, but what about "active shooter"? That's every bit as euphemistic for "crazed gunman" as "mass shooting" is to "shooting with multiple victims".
Active Shooter is just it. One individual with a weapon shooting. No time called to figure out the individual motives, gripe, moan, motivation, anger, cause etc etc. You have a Active Shooter who is a threat that needs to be neutralized either forced into given up or taking out.
I've use
"Active Shooter and/or "Active SHOOTERS" depending on the situation
but then. I know my enemy
Edit
Happens to us all. Its like one of those bugs. Shows up does it thing and goes away. The "quotes"
Jihadin wrote: Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"
Edit
I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?
Absolutely, at least if you live in my fair state of NY. I think that's the scariest part of the SAFE act that most people don't even think about. Yeah a 7 rd limit is dumb as feth, but being able to get denied for actually seeking help is whats truly crazy to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Active Shooter is just it. One individual with a weapon shooting. No time called to figure out the individual motives, gripe, moan, motivation, anger, cause etc etc. You have a Active Shooter who is a threat that needs to be neutralized either forced into given up or taking out.
I've use
"Active Shooter and/or "Active SHOOTERS" depending on the situation
but then. I know my enemy
Oh I think it's appropriate, maybe not in this particular cases as there where shooters, but I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of always blaming "the media" when they so very often toe the established line.
What's your over/under for what rights get tossed? 2nd or 1st Amendment, I've got 10:1. 4thA I've got 2:1. 3rdA I've got the longshot 100:1. Solid payout though.
:
Jihadin wrote: Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"
Edit
I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?
If you've had suicidal thoughts, then definitely get rid of the weapons, the life you save may be your own.
we lose way to many vets that way.
As a service member, I appreciate your sentiment, I say that with all seriousness.
Getting rid of a firearm does nothing to help suicidal thoughts though.
Serious meds here to. Can opt myself out of this game to with a Over Dose. I choose to stay alive and help make sure me I am needed down the road for Future Wars/Apocalypse
It doesn't stop the thoughts, but it can stop the thought from becoming an action.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Gun violence has a number of causes. If you want to be as effective as possible, you should approach it from multiple directions. One is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The vast majority of people have no good reason to own a gun. Buy them back and destroy them.
People have many good reasons to own guns;
- hunting
- sport
- historical collections
- self defense
A buy back is a misnomer - the firearms were never the property of the government to begin with. So if there are 300,000,000 firearms in the US how much do you think would need spent to entice people to surrender them? Where does this money come from? What essential services will you cut back to finance this scheme? When the majority of firearms are not turned in then what?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Then you can do stuff like providing proper support for people who are poor or sick. Work on reducing wealth inequality. Build community. Improve your justice system so that people are less likely to reoffend. Promote understanding that maybe the solution to all problems isn't "kill the bad guys." Get a better construction of masculinity, because for some reason most of your mass murderers are dudes (disproportionately white, too).
Just approach it from every angle. You're a huge country, you can do a lot of stuff at the same time. Maybe avoid trying to solve it with an ever-expanding, increasingly intrusive police state, though.
I believe that the following would help;
- end the War on Drugs
- end the for profit prison system we have
- end the revolving door in prisons
- increased mental health and support services
- better integration of mental health and criminal records with NICS
Punishing millions of law abiding citizens because of the transgressions of the overwhelming minority of people is wholly disproportionate.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The Republicans control the house right now, right? Am I wrong that would prevent the Democrats from passing sensible laws?
I mean, my understanding is the go-to excuse for a while from the Republicans has been "guns don't kill people, we need better mental health care to prevent gun violence" but at the same time they appear to oppose mental health services and measures to reduce inequality that might cut down on violent crime.
California is the model of "sensible" gun laws. What laws do you think would have prevented this?
Gun violence has a number of causes. If you want to be as effective as possible, you should approach it from multiple directions. One is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The vast majority of people have no good reason to own a gun. Buy them back and destroy them.
You don't need to have a "good reason" to own a firearm in the US (and self defense is always a legitimate reason), ownership is a civil right just like free speech and protection from unreasonable search & seizure.
Some places try voluntary buybacks, but these typically have relatively poor turnouts and even poorer incentives (it's usually something like a $100 grocery store gift card for a gun or something similarly unimpressive).
More to the point, in places where mandatory gun buybacks have been enacted, firearms ownership was never as widespread nor as entrenched. Buying back guns in Australia was possible because they weren't as culturally ingrained and there were far fewer of them, both in absolute terms and per-capita, you'd be talking several orders of magnitude more cost involved with a much more reluctant populace and law enforcement apparatus in the US.
More to the point, firearms violence in general is dropping, the number of deaths due to firearms is dropping steadily every year. The problem is the high profile "shock" killings, where a large number of people are killed in a single incident. These are relatively new (though admittedly, still very few people are killed in this way), and are largely the product of disaffected and socially isolated individuals facing pressures that didn't exist in the same ways in society in the past or that had other outlets for frustration that are not necessarily available at present.
Getting back to President Obama's statement that he wanted people on the "no fly list" to be barred from purchasing firearms, the Los Angeles Times has this little tidbit.
LA Times wrote:Federal officials who track terrorists abroad and in the U.S. said neither Farook nor Tashfeen Malik were known to them.
So, yea, even if that were the law, it would not have prevented these two from legally purchasing firearms.
It's incredibly difficult to get automatic weapons legally in the US. They are tightly restricted, very rare, and many states ban them period. If you can get around that, a fully automatic AK starts at about $15,000 or so (14,000 EUR). Crimes with lawfully owned automatic weapons do not exist, statistically: I think there have only been like 2 or so since the 1934 law that first restricted them.
Whenever you read a news story about a crime with an automatic weapon, it's virtually always A.) bs or B.) a weapon that was illegally converted to full auto, which is actually fairly difficult to do, and again, already illegal. But it's almost always bs, period.
It's incredibly difficult to get automatic weapons legally in the US. They are tightly restricted, very rare, and many states ban them period. If you can get around that, a fully automatic AK starts at about $15,000 or so (14,000 EUR). Crimes with lawfully owned automatic weapons do not exist, statistically: I think there have only been like 2 or so since the 1934 law that first restricted them.
Whenever you read a news story about a crime with an automatic weapon, it's virtually always A.) bs or B.) a weapon that was illegally converted to full auto, which is actually fairly difficult to do, and again, already illegal. But it's almost always bs, period.
Breotan wrote: Getting back to President Obama's statement that he wanted people on the "no fly list" to be barred from purchasing firearms, the Los Angeles Times has this little tidbit.
LA Times wrote:Federal officials who track terrorists abroad and in the U.S. said neither Farook nor Tashfeen Malik were known to them.
So, yea, even if that were the law, it would not have prevented these two from legally purchasing firearms.
This smacks of not getting a good tragedy go to waste. There were calls before this incident to prohibit people on the no fly list from purchasing firearms, and it was not gaining traction. To use a tragedy like this to push for gun control measures that would not have done anything to prevent the incident is beyond contempt.
Using the no fly list to prevent people owning guns is a dangerous step that strips citizens of many of the protections of due process.
LethalShade wrote: You guys buy weapons to defend yourselves against guys who bought weapons to allegedly defend themselves from other people who have weapons ?
Ouza already covered the automatic weapons part very well. People here may buy weapons to protect themselves from others who wish to cause them harm
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Pistols are the worst problem, actually, not automatic weapons.
"Mass shooting" is not a controversial term.
Not a controversial term, merely a poorly defined one
Jehan-reznor wrote: So any news on the events? instead of another guns debate thread that is about to be locked.
On the gun thing;
Spoiler:
Guns are so much a part of the american psyche/culture, that first changes must be made there, before changes can be made to the 2nd amendment.
Yes. Evidently one has passed DHS counter terrorism screeening. That will give the anti refugees a lot of ammo. Multiple contacts or attempted contacts with radicals and looked up ISIL sites. This is Fort Hood type attacker.
Breotan wrote: Getting back to President Obama's statement that he wanted people on the "no fly list" to be barred from purchasing firearms, the Los Angeles Times has this little tidbit.
LA Times wrote:Federal officials who track terrorists abroad and in the U.S. said neither Farook nor Tashfeen Malik were known to them.
So, yea, even if that were the law, it would not have prevented these two from legally purchasing firearms.
That doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I can understand and sympathize with alot of resistance to gun control measures. But for the life of me, I don't understand the resistance to this effort. I know that some like Carly Fiorina are concerned about the people that end up on that list by mistake. So what? Inconveniencing a few people mistakenly placed on a list is nothing against the potential benefit this would provide, and opposing this seems to me like opposing pure common sense.
Maybe someone can convince me that I'm missing something on this issue.
I have a huge problem with Constitutionally protected rights being violated without due process, charges, trial and conviction.
Being told you can't own a firearm because the government says you may or may not do something bad in the future, with no prior record or conviction of any crime, is a horrendously terrible idea and precident to set.
If the people on the list are doing something wrong, the feds should get warrants, collect evidence, and charge them.
To think stripping a group of people of a constitutional right based on inclusion on a list for which the criteria for and membership of is hidden from the public is disgusting. Should we also strip them of their 4th amendment rights to make it easier for the feds to railroad them? Perhaps strip them of their 1st amendment rights and make it illegal for them to practice their religion or speak out about their treatment would be good for public safety too.
In no way do I find it acceptable that some political appointee at DoJ can feth over people based on his/her decision to put them on some list like this.
I honestly can't see how any American would not find this concept appalling. The people on the list have not DONE anything. If they had, they would have been prosecuted, right?
One law enforcement source said investigators are trying to determine whether explosives left at the scene of the shooting were from a design found in Inspire magazine, the online publication of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The source noted that the design is easily accessible and doesn't mean the attack was related to Al Qaeda. Police said the device included three pipe bombs attached to a remote-controlled device.
The ties to Pakistan and Saudi indicated AQ more than DaIsh to me.
Also saw the hard drive(s) were removed and they had been using burner phones. That could very well indicate they were protecting other members of a cell/another cell.
Frazzled wrote: You don't see the problem with the government creating lists of undesirables based on hidden criteria, that you can't get off of?
Is there no mechanism to appeal if your name has made it on the list somehow?
These are constitutional rights. They can't just be eliminated by fiat.
If the list in the future has definitions only bureaucrats know about and are accountable for...
"You're on the list"
"Thats unconstitutional"
"Sue us to get off. Its no big deal"
"why am I on the list?"
"your parents came from Japan"
"...?"
"You just have to prove you're not Japanese. Whats the problem?"
"...?"
Frazzled wrote: You don't see the problem with the government creating lists of undesirables based on hidden criteria, that you can't get off of?
Is there no mechanism to appeal if your name has made it on the list somehow?
These are constitutional rights. They can't just be eliminated by fiat.
But it's already being done, that's why felons can't buy guns, it's why domestic abusers can't own guns, nor people with restraining orders. see "the Lautenberg Amendment"
so throwing in the no fly list into the hat isn't that far of a stretch, but instead of posters here would rather defend the rights of known terrorists to get guns. Wouldn't the more obvious thing to do is petition to have the list made public, and implement a grievance procedure to remove names?
NAH, it's america, sell more guns, use the idea of some wrongly accused guy who probably doesn't exists to allow known terrorist who deserve to be on the list to buy all the guns they need.
But it's already being done, that's why felons can't buy guns, it's why domestic abusers can't own guns, nor people with restraining orders. see "the Lautenberg Amendment"
That was a law, not a Star Chamber.
so throwing in the no fly list into the hat isn't that far of a stretch, but instead of posters here would rather defend the rights of known terrorists to get guns.
Thats cute. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Does she know you're quoting Hitler now?
Wouldn't the more obvious thing to do is petition to have the list made public, and implement a grievance procedure to remove names?
What if the list includes things like..."no darkies!" How do disprove that?
But it's already being done, that's why felons can't buy guns, it's why domestic abusers can't own guns, nor people with restraining orders. see "the Lautenberg Amendment"
That was a law, not a Star Chamber.
Wouldn't the more obvious thing to do is petition to have the list made public, and implement a grievance procedure to remove names?
What if the list includes things like..."no darkies!" How do disprove that?
That's why it should be public, then we would know who's on it, and challenge nonsense like that in court.
But the pro gun crowd doesn't seem interested in who's on it or why, they just want to sell more guns to them.
and what does a 1983 movie have to do with the law? it's a law and it denies constitutional gun rights to americans.
Due Process is "a thing" ya know...
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.
Being suspicious of someone isn't enough to deprive him/her of their fundamental rights.
Frazzled wrote: You don't see the problem with the government creating lists of undesirables based on hidden criteria, that you can't get off of?
Is there no mechanism to appeal if your name has made it on the list somehow?
These are constitutional rights. They can't just be eliminated by fiat.
But it's already being done, that's why felons can't buy guns, it's why domestic abusers can't own guns, nor people with restraining orders. see "the Lautenberg Amendment"
so throwing in the no fly list into the hat isn't that far of a stretch, but instead of posters here would rather defend the rights of known terrorists to get guns. Wouldn't the more obvious thing to do is petition to have the list made public, and implement a grievance procedure to remove names?
NAH, it's america, sell more guns, use the idea of some wrongly accused guy who probably doesn't exists to allow known terrorist who deserve to be on the list to buy all the guns they need.
Your 2A rights, just like many other rights, can be stripped if you've been convicted of a felony. You also lose some of your 4A protections while you're on probation, etc. There's a huge difference between somebody who committed a serious crime being stripped of rights they have proven to be untrustworthy of due to their own willful actions and stripping rights from somebody who hasn't done anything wrong at all.
Being on the No Fly List doesn't make you a terrorist, it doesn't even make you a criminal. The No Fly List is an unconstitutional abuse of govt power whereby the federal govt prevents private citizens from boarding commercial airlines. These same people, on the list, that allegedly can't be trusted to get on an airplane with out hijacking it and/or murdering everyone on board are still free to move around the country, board other methods of mass transit like trains and buses, drive their own car/truck wherever they want, work their jobs, move freely around the country etc. They're not charged with a crime or apprehended. The No Fly List at face value makes no logical sense and is asinine.
If the federal govt has evidence that a person poses a reasonable risk of hijacking an airplane with murderous intent then there should be enough evidence to charge that person with multiple crimes, apprehend that person and prosecute him/her. Simply putting that person on a list so they can't board the airplane doesn't make the country any safer because that same person that is apparently an imminent terroristic threat if they boarded a plane isn't impeded in any way from committing a terrorist act that doesn't involve an airplane.
There have been multiple documented cases of innocent people being put on the No Fly List.
Wouldn't the more obvious thing to do is petition to have the list made public, and implement a grievance procedure to remove names?
Frazzled wrote: What if the list includes things like..."no darkies!" How do disprove that?
That's why it should be public, then we would know who's on it, and challenge nonsense like that in court.
But the pro gun crowd doesn't seem interested in who's on it or why, they just want to sell more guns to them.
and what does a 1983 movie have to do with the law? it's a law and it denies constitutional gun rights to americans.
Check the stories in the links I posted. People have been wrongly put on the No Fly List for years, ever since it's inception. The federal govt has consistently refused to publicize the names on the list, the criteria for being on the list or create a transparent and effective process for removing your name from the list. This is not a new problem, people have been fighting against the No Fly List for years and the govt refuses to address the problems.
LethalShade wrote: Are people on this list prevented to leave the US by any mean ?
Or can they travel to another country (Canada, Mexico, etc) then fly from there ?
They are simply prevented by flying, but it's no big deal because you can't ever get off the list and you can't really challenge it in court and even if you do, the government will declare the case against you comprises national secrets and it will be dismissed without you even knowing what they think you did. It's pretty reasonable, all in all.
LethalShade wrote: Are people on this list prevented to leave the US by any mean ?
Or can they travel to another country (Canada, Mexico, etc) then fly from there ?
They are simply prevented by flying, but it's no big deal because you can't ever get off the list and you can't really challenge it in court and even if you do, the government will declare the case against you comprises national secrets and it will be dismissed without you even knowing what they think you did. It's pretty reasonable, all in all.
Yup, their ability to travel via other non airborne methods of mass transit or travel via private vehicles isn't hindered at all. Neither is their ability to go shopping at Walmart, Home Depot, Lowe's or any other large store from which they could purchase items that would be useful in building an IED. The only thing the No Fly List does is prevent people from boarding commercial airline flights. That's it.
Adding a firearm purchasing prohibition onto the No Fly List wouldn't stop them from doing any of the above either. Preventing people on the List from buying guns is a wholly arbitrary restriction based on fear mongering and politics, not logic or reason.
Prestor Jon wrote: Adding a firearm purchasing prohibition onto the No Fly List wouldn't stop them from doing any of the above either. Preventing people on the List from buying guns is a wholly arbitrary restriction based on fear mongering and politics, not logic or reason.
Since we're on the No-Fly list anyway, is there any information at all on how many terrorist attacks this list has prevented to date? I mean, you don't know you're on the list before you're denied boarding a plane - surely hundreds or thousands of people with bombs, guns or knives have been apprehended thanks to this list?
Prestor Jon wrote: Adding a firearm purchasing prohibition onto the No Fly List wouldn't stop them from doing any of the above either. Preventing people on the List from buying guns is a wholly arbitrary restriction based on fear mongering and politics, not logic or reason.
Since we're on the No-Fly list anyway, is there any information at all on how many terrorist attacks this list has prevented to date? I mean, you don't know you're on the list before you're denied boarding a plane - surely hundreds or thousands of people with bombs, guns or knives have been apprehended thanks to this list?
More likely people just have large amounts of time and money wasted when they show up at the airport and get turned around.
Can't say I remember anything dangerous being stopped by it.
DoJ getting busy and promising to defend us and ensure resources are allocated towards the biggest threats.
Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocate's 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her "greatest fear" is the "incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric" in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech. She said:
The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. My message to not just the Muslim community but to the entire American community is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.
Assuring the pro-Muslim group that "we stand with you," Lynch said she would use her Justice Department to protect Muslims from "violence" and discrimination.
"When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American."
So yeah, giving her the ability to strip folks of constitutional rights by adding them to a list is clearly the way forward.
Folks (including me) were upset at some of the aspects of the Patriot Act. The types of stuff being promoted by the current admin makes that look real tame.
I'm not sure we can believe that. According to her attorney
Attorney David Chelsey, who represents the family of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, told CNN “there is a lot of disconnects and there is a lot of unknowns and there is a lot things that quite frankly don’t add up or seem implausible.”
Chelsey said the 90-pound Tashfeen Malik was not involved in the shooting and could not have carried the heavy armory and tactical gear.
“It just doesn’t make sense for these two to act like some kind of Bonnie and Clyde or something,” Chelsey said. “It’s just ridiculous.”
California attacker Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to IS
The woman who carried out a gun attack in California pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State (IS) group on Facebook, US officials say.
Tashfeen Malik made the post under an account with a different name, the officials told US media.
Fourteen people were killed and 21 wounded in Wednesday's attack.
Malik and her husband Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, died in a shootout with police after the killings at San Bernardino, east of Los Angeles.
The New York Times reported that there was no evidence that IS had directed the couple in the attack.
"At this point we believe they were more self-radicalised and inspired by the group than actually told to do the shooting," the newspaper quoted an official as saying.
Tashfeen Malik is reported to have posted the message on Facebook in support of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The post has since been removed.
After the attack at the Inland Regional Center social services agency, bomb equipment, weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition were found in the couple's home.
They had destroyed computer hard drives and other electronic equipment before the rampage took place, a US government source said on Friday.
Investigators are also said to be following up a report that Farook had argued with a colleague at work who denounced the "inherent dangers of Islam".
Malik was born in Pakistan and had recently lived in Saudi Arabia.
Intelligence officials in Pakistan have contacted relatives there, a family member quoted by Reuters said.
Police said between 75 and 80 people were at the centre when the shooting began.
The identities of the victims have since been released by San Bernardino's coroner, revealing that the youngest was 26 and the oldest was 60.
Who are the victims?
Officials said the attack indicated there had been "some degree of planning" and local police chief Jarrod Burguan said it appeared that the couple were prepared to carry out another attack.
"There was obviously a mission here. We know that. We do not know why. We don't know if this was the intended target or if there was something that triggered him to do this immediately," said David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI's Los Angeles office.
In the shootout with police hours after the attack, Farook and Malik fired 76 rounds of ammunition at the officers and the officers fired 380 rounds back.
Two police officers were injured during the pursuit.
Starting to look like this was an attack inspired by ISIS rather than ordered by them.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So rumors are flying around that they where american born, is that true?
I think he was (parents were immigrants) and she was born in Pakistan, came in on a K1 visa (or which ever visa allows a citizen to bring in someone to get married).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Was not body armor but tactical webbing. Load Bearing gear
Yep, and we've known that for a couple days I think. I'm not sure how old the interview with the lawyer is. Maybe the info about armor was not out at that time.
sirlynchmob wrote: But it's already being done, that's why felons can't buy guns, it's why domestic abusers can't own guns, nor people with restraining orders. see "the Lautenberg Amendment"
so throwing in the no fly list into the hat isn't that far of a stretch, but instead of posters here would rather defend the rights of known terrorists to get guns. Wouldn't the more obvious thing to do is petition to have the list made public, and implement a grievance procedure to remove names?
NAH, it's america, sell more guns, use the idea of some wrongly accused guy who probably doesn't exists to allow known terrorist who deserve to be on the list to buy all the guns they need.
And everything you have listed is subject to due process before the Courts. Something that is conspicuously absent from being placed on a No Fly List. If these people are in fact a threat gather evidence, bring them to trial, and if the evidence warrants it then convict them.
So, do you guys think this might be another 911? In terms of how it will be treated and used or inspire future acts? I dont mean to devalue what happened, im just curious.
I was in the office yesterday, and we have a tv mounted on the wall with news coverage. Somehow one of the 24/7s (I think it was CNN) managed to have a solid coverage of nothing but this story the entire time I was there. I wasn't close enough to it to listen to it all day, thankfully, but there's something just screwed up about that, unless they were repeating themselves every couple hours. Didn't look like it though.
I'm sure that's nothing insightful to most people, but I haven't watched tv news in some good 10+ years, so the fact that they could have so much to say on one thing is stunning to me, personally.
CptJake wrote: DoJ getting busy and promising to defend us and ensure resources are allocated towards the biggest threats.
Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocate's 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her "greatest fear" is the "incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric" in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech. She said:
The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. My message to not just the Muslim community but to the entire American community is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.
Assuring the pro-Muslim group that "we stand with you," Lynch said she would use her Justice Department to protect Muslims from "violence" and discrimination.
"When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American."
So yeah, giving her the ability to strip folks of constitutional rights by adding them to a list is clearly the way forward.
Folks (including me) were upset at some of the aspects of the Patriot Act. The types of stuff being promoted by the current admin makes that look real tame.
Also factor in the potential abuse when politicians have called their opponents "terrorists" and people are disenfranchised with no legitimate reason by being placed on a secret list with no due process, and limited recourse.
CptJake wrote: Remember Senator Ted Kennedy got put on the list.
Now, I am the opposite of a Ted Kennedy fan, but the example does show how fethed up the process (not that there is an actual formal process) is.
And that notorious trouble maker Yosef Islam (nee Cat Stevens)
Tea for the Tillerman was one of the 1st CDs I bought when I got a CD player back in like 1988.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, do you guys think this might be another 911? In terms of how it will be treated and used or inspire future acts? I dont mean to devalue what happened, im just curious.
Define 'future acts'.
If you mean acts by the gov't to limit freedoms in the name of security, read some of what is being proposed. That is clearly being attempted.
If you mean further terrorist acts, Mumbai was a game changer. This, the Boston Marathon bombing, and future acts are the types of attacks we'll be facing. Plenty of radicalization going on and 'copy cat' type attacks are really just 'going with what works'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: NBC reporter IN the apartment showing IDs, all kinds of stuff. Guess the FBI was too busy to cordon it off while the investigation is still going on.
But yeah, let them take away constitutional rights based on putting your name on a list...
Automatically Appended Next Post: CNN inside now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: gak, looks like the whole press corps is in the apartment right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Holy compromised crime scenes Batman!
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, do you guys think this might be another 911? In terms of how it will be treated and used or inspire future acts? I dont mean to devalue what happened, im just curious.
I don't think so. This is more like the Boston Marathon bombing than 9/11. People doesn't seem that shocked.
But yeah, it could be used to spy on Americans more, of course.
In case anyone who do not remember what one of those are....CD player....1988
Male is American born citizen
Female came over on a K1 Visa
Neighbors were suspicious of activity but did not call it in for fear of being considered racists or racial profiling.
Owner of apartment open it up for media to look through. Took down the plywood covering the door.
Edit
Guy made 50K a year
So all the weapons and ammo...materials for pipebombs.....starting to come out they seem to be financed.
Optics on the rifles is a mil brand but there's knockoff version for cheaper
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, do you guys think this might be another 911? In terms of how it will be treated and used or inspire future acts? I dont mean to devalue what happened, im just curious.
I don't think so. This is more like the Boston Marathon bombing than 9/11. People doesn't seem that shocked.
But yeah, it could be used to spy on Americans more, of course.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, do you guys think this might be another 911? In terms of how it will be treated and used or inspire future acts? I dont mean to devalue what happened, im just curious.
I don't think so. This is more like the Boston Marathon bombing than 9/11. People doesn't seem that shocked.
But yeah, it could be used to spy on Americans more, of course.
Associated Press wrote:The FBI says it is investigating the deadly mass shooting in California as an "act of terrorism."
David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI's Los Angeles office, made the declaration at a news conference Friday in California.
He also said the shooters attempted to destroy evidence, including crushing two cellphones and discarding them in a trash can. He said authorities continue to investigate the case to understand the motivations of the shooters and whether they were planning more attacks.
O'Reilly hammered his butt on that comment. (Trump)
Now I really wished Obama should have waited before making the comment that this was another typical mass shooting incident that only happens in the US of A.
Better dig deep in the investigation being I think the Xmas party was not the primary target.
Edit
The Bearcats used in this are suppose to be turned over back to the Fed's today
Jihadin wrote: Now I really wished Obama should have waited before making the comment that this was another typical mass shooting incident that only happens in the US of A
The reasons are different but the results are the same. Not sure how being exasperated that another mass shooting took place is somehow rendered inert by the fact that outside terrorism was the motive instead of domestic terrorism. I suppose if one wants to find a reason to hate on the president but doesn't want to use any of the actual reasons to be upset this would work. Any port in a storm I suppose.
Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).
Jihadin wrote: Now I really wished Obama should have waited before making the comment that this was another typical mass shooting incident that only happens in the US of A
The reasons are different but the results are the same. Not sure how being exasperated that another mass shooting took place is somehow rendered inert by the fact that outside terrorism was the motive instead of domestic terrorism. I suppose if one wants to find a reason to hate on the president but doesn't want to use any of the actual reasons to be upset this would work. Any port in a storm I suppose.
Jihadin wrote: Now I really wished Obama should have waited before making the comment that this was another typical mass shooting incident that only happens in the US of A
The reasons are different but the results are the same. Not sure how being exasperated that another mass shooting took place is somehow rendered inert by the fact that outside terrorism was the motive instead of domestic terrorism. I suppose if one wants to find a reason to hate on the president but doesn't want to use any of the actual reasons to be upset this would work. Any port in a storm I suppose.
He's not hating, just expressing an opinion.
And I'm just expressing an opinion of an opinion. One only gets to comment if they are giving a reach around to the other person?
Jihadin wrote: Now I really wished Obama should have waited before making the comment that this was another typical mass shooting incident that only happens in the US of A
The reasons are different but the results are the same. Not sure how being exasperated that another mass shooting took place is somehow rendered inert by the fact that outside terrorism was the motive instead of domestic terrorism. I suppose if one wants to find a reason to hate on the president but doesn't want to use any of the actual reasons to be upset this would work. Any port in a storm I suppose.
He's not hating, just expressing an opinion.
And I'm just expressing an opinion of an opinion. One only gets to comment if they are giving a reach around to the other person?
Relapse wrote: It is now being said the woman made an online pledge to the leader of ISIS.
It's kinda sad that that carries more weight than pulling .556 out of people's fourteen human skulls. Like without knowing motive we'd mistake this incident for rock concert or apple product launch.
What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.
Jihadin wrote: Now I really wished Obama should have waited before making the comment that this was another typical mass shooting incident that only happens in the US of A
The reasons are different but the results are the same. Not sure how being exasperated that another mass shooting took place is somehow rendered inert by the fact that outside terrorism was the motive instead of domestic terrorism. I suppose if one wants to find a reason to hate on the president but doesn't want to use any of the actual reasons to be upset this would work. Any port in a storm I suppose.
He's not hating, just expressing an opinion.
And I'm just expressing an opinion of an opinion. One only gets to comment if they are giving a reach around to the other person?
No need to get sensitive and defensive.
Do I at least get a kiss?
Why I said earlier that his comment made should have taken into account of the Paris attack. Guess some view this still as "workplace violence" being it was his co-workers that the couple took out with two AR's and fire fight with LEO who called in a Bearcat for assistance. Who had a combat load for a platoon for grunts and pipe bombs to make a IEDer dream come true. Who left a six month old with his mom on their way to wage War on Xmas. Who we found out later used burner cells, destroyed hard drives, destroyed their current cells...Its like dealing with Insurgents again. Since the PP clinic in the building was not the target of this couple I guess we can rule out Christian Terrorists. Since he had an issue with a Co-Worker.....also there was a Jewish male who was killed in the room...who was friends with him. They did tease them on his beard he was growing out....I could keep it in focus of "workplace violence" being it was his co-workers the couple opted out. Lot's of ports in this storm all depends on what port one wants and to ignore everything else (ports)
Relapse wrote: It is now being said the woman made an online pledge to the leader of ISIS.
It's kinda sad that that carries more weight than pulling .556 out of people's fourteen human skulls. Like without knowing motive we'd mistake this incident for rock concert or apple product launch.
What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.
The dynamics of the attack
Edit
Then again disregard what I said being I might be talking out my arse like someone else said earlier in thread
Who in the US...let alone Canada going to be the first to say that "Terrorist" are operating in the US of A or Canada
I doubt the terrorist wage war in Mexico of Latin America. Cannot imagine what the Cartels will do if Radical Muslims Extremists" blows up a church in their area
Jihadin wrote: Who in the US...let alone Canada going to be the first to say that "Terrorist" are operating in the US of A or Canada
I doubt the terrorist wage war in Mexico of Latin America. Cannot imagine what the Cartels will do if Radical Muslims Extremists" blows up a church in their area
Edit
sentence structure
To tell the truth, my bet would be on them linking with the cartels.
Relapse wrote: It is now being said the woman made an online pledge to the leader of ISIS.
It's kinda sad that that carries more weight than pulling .556 out of people's fourteen human skulls. Like without knowing motive we'd mistake this incident for rock concert or apple product launch.
What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.
It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.
Relapse wrote: It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.
Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?
I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?
Nope, I get bent out of shape that the word terrorist is subjective as hell and criteria rarely seems to be the act itself but based on WHO did the act, inferred motive or not. I think columbine could be described as a terrorist attack, I also think collateral damage could be described as a terrorist attack. I thought this event was a terrorist attack from the outset, just like I thought those who perpetrated it were terrorists without knowing their motive, knowing their work was enough for me. When a deleted facebook post is a more important factor than 14 .556 riddled bodies I start losing my gak.
Relapse wrote: It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.
Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?
I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?
Nope, I get bent out of shape that the word terrorist is subjective as hell and criteria rarely seems to be the act itself but based on WHO did the act, inferred motive or not. I think columbine could be described as a terrorist attack, I also think collateral damage could be described as a terrorist attack. I thought this event was a terrorist attack from the outset, just like I thought those who perpetrated it were terrorists without knowing their motive, knowing their work was enough for me. When a deleted facebook post is a more important factor than 14 .556 riddled bodies I start losing my gak.
Have you seen and participated in the discussions here of what constitutes a terrorist attack as opposed to someone on a murder spree? There are many who would disagree with you.
What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.
Well, in this case, quite a bit more than a fething tweet.
You have the presence of pipe bombs/IEDs coupled with remote detonating devices, multiple shooters (VERY rare), what looks like a plan for subsequent targets (went back, reloaded, were heading back out) and more.
Crablezworth wrote: CNN described them as wearing "assault-style clothing". It's a minor miracle they didn't describe their suv as an "assault-style" suv.
More accurately, CNN (and Reuters) repeated the description of "assault-style clothing" as provided to them by the Police Chief. Not that I wouldn't enjoy the low, low hanging fruit that is mocking CNN, but seems kind of narrative-y to pin that one on them.
What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.
Well, in this case, quite a bit more than a fething tweet.
You have the presence of pipe bombs/IEDs coupled with remote detonating devices, multiple shooters (VERY rare), what looks like a plan for subsequent targets (went back, reloaded, were heading back out) and more.
So, just a TINY bit more than a 'fething tweet'.
But you knew knew that. Or should have
I really don't think he's all the way clued into the news of this incident.
What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.
Well, in this case, quite a bit more than a fething tweet.
You have the presence of pipe bombs/IEDs coupled with remote detonating devices, multiple shooters (VERY rare), what looks like a plan for subsequent targets (went back, reloaded, were heading back out) and more.
So, just a TINY bit more than a 'fething tweet'.
But you knew knew that. Or should have
I don't think you're understanding me, I'm saying I didn't require information about a deleted facebook post to make the assessment that I would call it a terrorist attack.
"14 dead bodies, 17 injured, pipe bombs found, shootout with police... well that's not enough to call it a terrorist attack" "we found out the wife deleted a facebook comment declaring allegiance to isis" "oh ok, NOW it's a terrorist attack, fewf, good thing too, I was totally going to describe yesterday events as hooliganism, good thing we got that straight".
Crablezworth wrote: CNN described them as wearing "assault-style clothing". It's a minor miracle they didn't describe their suv as an "assault-style" suv.
More accurately, CNN (and Reuters) repeated the description of "assault-style clothing" as provided to them by the Police Chief. Not that I wouldn't enjoy the low, low hanging fruit that is mocking CNN, but seems kind of narrative-y to pin that one on them.
I appreciate you posting that, up till now I thought it was self generated, their talking heads were saying it often without attribution.
Frazzled wrote: Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).
I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack;
- perpetrators were not on a No Fly List
- perpetrators were not known to FBI
- ban on "assault weapons" in CA - magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA - no open carry in CA - background checks for public and private transactions in CA - mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA
What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.
Well, in this case, quite a bit more than a fething tweet.
You have the presence of pipe bombs/IEDs coupled with remote detonating devices, multiple shooters (VERY rare), what looks like a plan for subsequent targets (went back, reloaded, were heading back out) and more.
So, just a TINY bit more than a 'fething tweet'.
But you knew knew that. Or should have
I really don't think he's all the way clued into the news of this incident.
Again, the facebook message could have been praising scientology and the motive could have been a blood sacrifice to reincarnate l ron hubbard, I'd still have called it terrorism. I'll put it simply though, if a self identified group of nihilists collectively signed a note saying "we believe in nothing, existence is a lie" and mailed it to the president before setting of a nuclear bomb that decimates a city leaving millions dead, is that terrorism or just a crime? I mean hay, they're above politics those nihilists,
Frazzled wrote: Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).
I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack;
- perpetrators were not on a No Fly List
- perpetrators were not known to FBI
- ban on "assault weapons" in CA - magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA - no open carry in CA - background checks for public and private transactions in CA - mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA
Health inspection is a dangerous ideology
I'm firmly in the camp of "there was no preventing it".
Relapse wrote: It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.
Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?
I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?
Be careful - acknowledging an Islamic terrorist's religion as a possible motive is considered "racism" here.
It's not racism to talk about his religion or what might have motivated him same as the Christian religion and praise of Army of God by the other terrorist this week is fair game for discussion.
It only becomes trouble when entire population are painted with a broad brush and you start to claim that all Muslims/Christians are terrorists.
I believe that this attack could have been prevented, but just not in the time it took. Had this attack not taken place and the perpetrators continued to contact radicals, download material online, and made more incriminating posts I believe they would have come to the attention of the FBI eventually.
d-usa wrote: It's not racism to talk about his religion or what might have motivated him same as the Christian religion and praise of Army of God by the other terrorist this week is fair game for discussion.
It only becomes trouble when entire population are painted with a broad brush and you start to claim that all Muslims/Christians are terrorists.
Agreed with one exception, people who wear socks with sandals, they're just the worst.
Relapse wrote: It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.
Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?
I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?
Be careful - acknowledging an Islamic terrorist's religion as a possible motive is considered "racism" here.
It's not racism to talk about his religion or what might have motivated him same as the Christian religion and praise of Army of God by the other terrorist this week is fair game for discussion.
It only becomes trouble when entire population are painted with a broad brush and you start to claim that all Muslims/Christians are terrorists.
Frazzled wrote: Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).
I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack;
- perpetrators were not on a No Fly List
- perpetrators were not known to FBI
- ban on "assault weapons" in CA - magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA - no open carry in CA - background checks for public and private transactions in CA - mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA
repeal the 2nd amendment and round up all the guns from anyone who is not in the states nation guard, the military, or some sort of police roll.
People no matter what. If they want a weapon they will get a weapon. Pipe dream there. Repeal the 2nd and round up all the weapons eh. Gee I sold all mine for fifty dollars at a gun show. Like my flower bed there do ya. Nope not a rifle capsule in there but feel free to check it you want with a search warrant
Frazzled wrote: Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).
I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack;
- perpetrators were not on a No Fly List
- perpetrators were not known to FBI
- ban on "assault weapons" in CA - magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA - no open carry in CA - background checks for public and private transactions in CA - mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA
repeal the 2nd amendment and round up all the guns from anyone who is not in the states nation guard, the military, or some sort of police roll.
So an almost impossible task followed by an actually impossible task. Lets remove Freedom of the Press, Speech, and Religion while we are at it. Those might actually be easier too.
People no matter what. If they want a weapon they will get a weapon. Pipe dream there. Repeal the 2nd and round up all the weapons eh. Gee I sold all mine for fifty dollars at a gun show. Like my flower bed there do ya. Nope not a rifle capsule in there but feel free to check it you want with a search warrant
show me the receipt and the paperwork on the guy you sold it to. oh you don't have it, you must have illegally sold your gun, so come with us.
@Grey Templar
start with a media campaign instead of this is your brains on drugs, this is your brains after being shot message. all gun packaging would be required to have pictures of people murdered in mass shootings, and a nice smear campaign against armor piercing ammo. deer don't wear armor, but cops do. public opinion can and always does shift.
it's not an impossible task, close down all gun manufacturers, the NRA, and take all their assets, close down all places that sell guns & ammo and take all their assets.
surely all the law abiding citizens would follow the new law and hand over their guns, otherwise they'd show themselves for the criminals they are and would be locked up.
the 2nd has been abused far to long, say no to guns.
trump is all about taking away freedom of religion from one religion, if he gets his way removing it from the others would be a easy thing.
you could probably have a substantial shift in opionion and a much lower mass shooting rate. a president could have this done in his first term.
One of my firearms instructors copies the drivers license of the buyer whenever he privately sells one of his guns and draws up a tiny "names, serial number, type of gun, date" contract they both sign and keep a copy of. That way if someone comes back years later he has a record of when he last had it.
So the weapons were apparently purchased from Texas based online discount gun retailers
Are online or over the phone retailers subject to the same requirements as an in-store purchase?
Online sales are subject to transfer to a local FFL in the state the purchaser resides in, when they receive it they notify the purchaser, then the purchaser must go to the FFL and do the paperwork. Assuming the NICS comes back with a "clear to proceed", the purchaser can then take possession of the firearm.
The only legal way for a firearm to be sold across state lines is FFL to FFL transfer.
A lot of the "regulate online sales" BS you hear from anti-gun people are actually addressing ads on Craigslist, which is no different to the newspaper gun ads that have been running in newspaper classifieds for decades and is almost always a private sale between individuals. These are subject to all state and federal regulations pertaining to private sales, and if an FFL is involved, paperwork needs to be done as normal.
If the link you gave is correct, the sale was illegal, because at least 2 of the weapons used are illegal in CA.
People no matter what. If they want a weapon they will get a weapon. Pipe dream there. Repeal the 2nd and round up all the weapons eh. Gee I sold all mine for fifty dollars at a gun show. Like my flower bed there do ya. Nope not a rifle capsule in there but feel free to check it you want with a search warrant
show me the receipt and the paperwork on the guy you sold it to. oh you don't have it, you must have illegally sold your gun, so come with us.
@Grey Templar
start with a media campaign instead of this is your brains on drugs, this is your brains after being shot message. all gun packaging would be required to have pictures of people murdered in mass shootings, and a nice smear campaign against armor piercing ammo. deer don't wear armor, but cops do. public opinion can and always does shift.
it's not an impossible task, close down all gun manufacturers, the NRA, and take all their assets, close down all places that sell guns & ammo and take all their assets.
surely all the law abiding citizens would follow the new law and hand over their guns, otherwise they'd show themselves for the criminals they are and would be locked up.
the 2nd has been abused far to long, say no to guns.
trump is all about taking away freedom of religion from one religion, if he gets his way removing it from the others would be a easy thing.
you could probably have a substantial shift in opionion and a much lower mass shooting rate. a president could have this done in his first term.
Confirmed, you have zero clue about guns and what they actually do or the absurdness of your idea. And really smear Armor Piercing Ammo? Pure idiocy.
Armor-piercing ammo, as defined by the BATFe, is already illegal (save for ultra-rare "grandfathered" possession).
Again, anti-gunners believe any ammo that can penetrate level 3a body armor is "armor-piercing". That body armor is only rated effective up to .44 special/magnum. Any rifle ammunition, and some handgun ammunition, will still rip through it, even though it may not be defined as armor-piercing by the BATFe.
sirlynchmob wrote: trump is all about taking away freedom of religion from one religion, if he gets his way removing it from the others would be a easy thing.
Trump also says that building a border wall is a viable option, and that he's a great buisnessman. I don't think he's a good example.
sirlynchmob wrote: trump is all about taking away freedom of religion from one religion, if he gets his way removing it from the others would be a easy thing.
Trump also says that building a border wall is a viable option, and that he's a great buisnessman. I don't think he's a good example.
As the republican front runner and potential next president, he's a fair game for examples. Because that nut job could actually be the next POTUS.
sirlynchmob wrote: repeal the 2nd amendment and round up all the guns from anyone who is not in the states nation guard, the military, or some sort of police roll.
So the weapons were apparently purchased from Texas based online discount gun retailers
Are online or over the phone retailers subject to the same requirements as an in-store purchase?
Yes, a background check must take place as the firearm must go to an FFL.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: show me the receipt and the paperwork on the guy you sold it to. oh you don't have it, you must have illegally sold your gun, so come with us.
Evidence?
sirlynchmob wrote: start with a media campaign instead of this is your brains on drugs, this is your brains after being shot message. all gun packaging would be required to have pictures of people murdered in mass shootings, and a nice smear campaign against armor piercing ammo. deer don't wear armor, but cops do. public opinion can and always does shift.
So your argument is an appeal to emotion?
sirlynchmob wrote: it's not an impossible task, close down all gun manufacturers, the NRA, and take all their assets, close down all places that sell guns & ammo and take all their assets.
So we close down business engaged in lawful practice, and an advocacy group which has broken no laws? You don't think that is unreasonable?
sirlynchmob wrote: surely all the law abiding citizens would follow the new law and hand over their guns, otherwise they'd show themselves for the criminals they are and would be locked up.
You don't see why millions of law abiding people would take exception to having their rights trampled over and their property seized?
So the weapons were apparently purchased from Texas based online discount gun retailers
Are online or over the phone retailers subject to the same requirements as an in-store purchase?
the online is a misnomer. they still go through the same background checkbwhen you pick up the firearm.
Weapons bought "online" have to be shipped to a FFL and not the buyer directly. You then go to the FFL to pick up you weapon, pay any taxes due, and (get ready for it) fill out your paperwork and undergo a background check. I know because this was the process I went through when I bought my pistol.
Stick to the topic. No more 2nd amendment discussions that flower out like they have been. Next one gets the thread locked and you won't be discussing this as it develops here. If you want to discuss the political implications of a terrorist attack on the 2nd amendment being repealed or not, that's for a different thread. So keep it there.
Frazzled wrote: Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).
I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack; - perpetrators were not on a No Fly List - perpetrators were not known to FBI - ban on "assault weapons" in CA - magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA - no open carry in CA - background checks for public and private transactions in CA - mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA
repeal the 2nd amendment and round up all the guns from anyone who is not in the states nation guard, the military, or some sort of police roll.
Hearing & seeing the reports of all the stockpiling of both weapons/ammo and explosives this pair had, I think we should be thankful that they were badly inept terrorists...
12 pipe bombs with even semi-intelligent placement around a large public building would have been catastrophic.
While it's still hugely tragic as it is for those who's lives have been shattered, it could have been a helluva lot worse.
Experiment 626 wrote: Hearing & seeing the reports of all the stockpiling of both weapons/ammo and explosives this pair had, I think we should be thankful that they were badly inept terrorists...
12 pipe bombs with even semi-intelligent placement around a large public building would have been catastrophic.
While it's still hugely tragic as it is for those who's lives have been shattered, it could have been a helluva lot worse.
Agreed. I'm glad the attackers were stopped. It seems clear (leaving the scene, recording video, etc.) that this was not intended as a suicide mission
Experiment 626 wrote: Hearing & seeing the reports of all the stockpiling of both weapons/ammo and explosives this pair had, I think we should be thankful that they were badly inept terrorists...
12 pipe bombs with even semi-intelligent placement around a large public building would have been catastrophic.
While it's still hugely tragic as it is for those who's lives have been shattered, it could have been a helluva lot worse.
Agreed. I'm glad the attackers were stopped. It seems clear (leaving the scene, recording video, etc.) that this was not intended as a suicide mission
So far it's also being suggested based on their little stockpile that this wasn't the "real" attack they were preparing for but became the target based on the husband's rage. I wonder if that will be shown to actually be the case.
Edit: And this post is the one that hit the magic 10,000 mark. Yay, me!
Question about those illegal guns were they bought that way or were they converted? i suppose that some guns are more easily converted to full auto then others, or are there converting kits available?
Jehan-reznor wrote: Question about those illegal guns were they bought that way or were they converted? i suppose that some guns are more easily converted to full auto then others, or are there converting kits available?
This is where the media reports are somewhat misleading. It was reported that all guns were purchased legally, and that two of the firearms were bought in California and two in Texas. Transporting firearms across State lines is typically illegal, and not registering them in California is also illegal. It is thought that the rifles were bought by a friend of the couple for the express purpose of giving to them. This is called a straw purchase and is a felony on a national level, on a State level California also requires a background check for all private sales/transfers and this clearly was not performed. The firearms in question were believed to have been compliant with California law when initially purchased, but were subsequently modified to be illegal under State law. There are also reports that an attempt was made to convert one of the rifles to fully automatic from semi automatic, which is a felony.
Fully auto firearms or conversion kits are very expensive as for a regular citizen they must submit a form (signed by the local chief of police) with the ATF, pay the tax stamp, and then find the firearm/fire control group that was manufactured before the 1986 Assault Weapons Ban. Given the scarcity of these items they are often very expensive.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: There are also reports that an attempt was made to convert one of the rifles from fully automatic to semi automatic, which is a felony.
Fully auto firearms or conversion kits are very expensive as for a regular citizen they must submit a form (signed by the local chief of police) with the ATF, pay the tax stamp, and then find the firearm/fire control group that was manufactured before the 1986 Assault Weapons Ban. Given the scarcity of these items they are often very expensive.
To add to that, some uninformed people see "AR-15 full-auto bolt carrier groups" for sale and think that's some sort of conversion kit to make an AR full-auto. To clarify, this is false. It is simply the design of bolt carrier group that is used in full-auto guns, it in no way makes an AR full-auto. My own semi-auto rifle has these parts.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: There are also reports that an attempt was made to convert one of the rifles from fully automatic to semi automatic, which is a felony.
I think mean convert from Semi TO Full.
You are correct. This is why I drink coffee in the morning
Jehan-reznor wrote: Question about those illegal guns were they bought that way or were they converted? i suppose that some guns are more easily converted to full auto then others, or are there converting kits available?
To expand a little on what Dreadclaw said, if they were either AR15s or AK47s, under California law they have to have a device called a "bullet button" which means you cannot remove the magazine without use of a tool to press a recessed button. You can use the point of a bullet, hence the name. Additionally, there are restrictions in that state on magazine size; a 30 round magazine must be modified - pinned - to accept no more than 10 rounds. Removing the bullet button and the pinning mechanism both result in a firearm unlawful in California.
To answer your last question, Dreadclaw mentioned the full auto conversion kits. They do exist, for an AR-15, the kit in question is called a drop-in auto sear.
Spoiler:
That piece must be installed in the gun. As he said, that piece alone is considered by the ATF to be a machine gun; and is heavily restricted. They are both rare and expensive (right now about $9,000 USD) and require the regulations already outlined. However, it's not impossible to manufacture one (which is of course illegal), you can find plans online for the specs to machine and install one. Note that a lawful AR-15 lower doesn't physically have space for that part so you also have to remove some material from your AR15 lower to accommodate it. There was a case a few years ago where the ATF declared a big batch of Airsoft BB guns to be "machine guns" and seized them, much to the laughter of the internet. However when you dig into the case, it turned out that the Airsoft guns were really, really faithful replicas, and included the empty space for which an auto-sear could fit, and so were (as the law is written) "readily convertible" and so it wasn't ridiculous at all, but that's way too complicated of a story to report on the news. Sorry, I digress.
Converting an AK is actually a bit easier; you just need a few parts from a kit (which are actually legal to own - some lawful AK's will already have one of them, which is fine), and then cut a slot and drill a hole (which is not legal, it's considered manufacturing a machine gun unless you have the appropriate tax stamp).
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's really all it takes? That looks like something I could manufacture in with the stuff in my basement.
As well as milling out part of the lower receiver, as Ouze mentioned.
Still something I could do in my garage (although I probably have more power tools than the average person).
Absolutely. You'd then be illegally manufacturing a machine gun, though if you're a suicidal terrorist I guess you wouldn't care.
You also most likely have enough items around the house to manufacture explosives and chemical weapons, should you choose to do so. They require even less effort.
Thankfully, would be terrorists and serial killers haven't learned to turn silver paint and urine into bulk H.M.E. That would be much worse than guns and much harder for LEO/FBI/CIA/NSA to track.
Honestly the fact that H.M.E is relatively easy to build and use makes me wonder if there is a specific reason for the use of guns. Its also surprising we haven't seen road side I.E.Ds and V.I.E.Ds yet in Western nations.
It's also pretty easy to make if you know some chemistry. Although, thankfully, most terrorists don't seem to know much about chemistry, the last ANFO bomb attempt in the US (at least high-profile one) was that one in times square that didn't work.
ISIS could easily disseminate the info, Al-Queda has been doing it for years. The bombs the Taliban/Haqqani would make would have MacGyver feeling ashamed for his lack of imagination and skill.
The Tsarnaev brothers made a go at bomb building. Saddly they accomplished their mission but thankfully they were very bad at it.
Making simple explosives out of icing sugar and weedkiller is very easy, so is electrical detonation.
Given enough materials, and an oil drum, you can make a device that will do a lot of damage to even a modern tank, by the Miznay-Shardin Plate effect. That is what the insurgents in Iraq were doing.
Well, luckily for us, bomb making by self-taught/book schooled jihadi wannabe's tends to be far more dangerous to the bomb maker(s).
Most serious & skilled bomb makers end up at some point harming themselves, (or else just outright killing themselves). An untrained civilian who at best has only basic high school chemistry level knowledge is going to struggle to build & successfully detonate even a basic pipe bomb.
IIRC, didn't the Boston Marathon bombers require well over a month to build just two pressure cooker devices?
Not to mention, without proper facilities and gear, if they are working to make chemical bombs, they are likely likely to breath in the stuff that kills them.
Felisa Cardona, a spokeswoman for San Bernardino County, confirmed to The Times that Environmental Health Services employees such as Farook underwent “active-shooter training” about a year ago, in the same room where Wednesday’s massacre occurred.
Cardona said county officials could not recall whether Farook attended the training with his co-workers, but said that some of the shooting victims were likely to have participated.
It was not immediately clear how many employees received the training or how many years the county had conducted it, the spokeswoman said.
I guess the annual mandatory training events are not all that effective.
They aren't. Same reason why a lot of martial artists despite doing it for several years will end up standing around frozen in dangerous situations - they have never experienced real threat. That's why, for example, Krav Maga or CQC is much more effective with a proper training - you can be assaulted anytime, anywhere, even if not in a "training session". Despite afterwards knowing it was just a trick and not a real assault, in this very situation, it's real. And even if by any chance, in a real assault, you think it's a trick, you end up being more calm and pulling off your routines, thus being more efficient.
/e: Just to be clear, those trainings still are a very good thing. It's always better to know at least some routines instead of being totally helpless. In reality, however, they don't work as you'd think they do.
Such training will never net 100% results. I feel that we undergo the training in the hopes that there is one person who has the ability to react, so they'll know what to do.
You'll never save everyone with this type of training (and I'm referring to all forms of "annual training", such as sexual assault, suicide prevention,etc...). It can lead to some lives being saved though, and that's better then nothing.
Most of the 'annual training' is pure 'check the block' crap. Both the trainers and the trainees treat it that way for the most part.
Heck, I have to do my annual 'active shooter training' via an interactive web based lesson. It has not changed in like 5 years. Though anecdotal, I don't know a single person who sees it as anything but a pain in the ass must do to keep off the naughty list requirement.
djones520 wrote: Such training will never net 100% results. I feel that we undergo the training in the hopes that there is one person who has the ability to react, so they'll know what to do.
You'll never save everyone with this type of training (and I'm referring to all forms of "annual training", such as sexual assault, suicide prevention,etc...). It can lead to some lives being saved though, and that's better then nothing.
Training is useless TBH. My school makes every student go through sexual assault and bystander intervention training is you see a rape happening.
Its just useless TBH, those who are gonna rape, dont care, those who would intervene are likely not gonna actually be there(I dont go to alchohol fueled parties anymore, why do I need to see that?
Thanks for the information, so in theory because the killer became a fanatic, he may have known some people who could get or modify his guns to become full auto.
Scanner traffic indicates law enforcement may have investigated San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook a week before the attack.
No real details except for what came over police scanners in the area. But how much more can you do if having the police to a "knock & talk" doesn't find anything wrong?
djones520 wrote: Such training will never net 100% results. I feel that we undergo the training in the hopes that there is one person who has the ability to react, so they'll know what to do.
You'll never save everyone with this type of training (and I'm referring to all forms of "annual training", such as sexual assault, suicide prevention,etc...). It can lead to some lives being saved though, and that's better then nothing.
Training is useless TBH. My school makes every student go through sexual assault and bystander intervention training is you see a rape happening.
Its just useless TBH, those who are gonna rape, dont care, those who would intervene are likely not gonna actually be there(I dont go to alchohol fueled parties anymore, why do I need to see that?
Incorrect and often proven to be so. Those trainings to help because they provide people with /patterns/. If encountering a learned situation, people, if trained well, remember the pattern they learned and are more likely to follow it or, at the very least, feel more secure and are thus more likely to be able to act. Annual trainings, however, do not help with actually properly reacting, i.e. immediately reacting as if a behavior was triggered because you may remember the pattern, but it's not internalized yet.
The entire rape thingy is more difficult than the violence training because the legal definition of rape conflicts with that the common definition of it and thus, there is no clear trigger for people to react upon said behavior. A proper training would imprint a pattern like seeing someone slipping sth. into a drink, someone fondling someone else who is seemingly drunk etc. Clear, recognizable patterns. Teaching stuff like "Stop right there mister, she had a single beer!" is just stupid because it's a pattern that directly conflicts with common sense and thus can never be acted upon. Good training teaches clear, memorizable patterns instead of teaching someone rules and expecting them to then measure, each time, personally, whether the rule is broken or not. If people get in a "Hmm that could be..." situation, the pattern will, in most cases, not trigger. Clear, recognizable. That's the key.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's really all it takes? That looks like something I could manufacture in with the stuff in my basement.
It really is mechanically very easy, all you're doing is essentially making it so that the hammer doesn't stay retained after being pulled and just flings itself back up after the bolt passes over. On open-bolt guns its even easier, as they're often actually more complex to make semi-auto than full auto, and hence why the ATF no longer allow the sale of new open bolt weapons AFAIK.
Really.... full auto isn't just an automatic (hah!) upgrade over semi auto. Semi is better for almost any purpose where your goal is point a weapon at someone and killerize them.
Full auto weapons are great for suppressing fire when you have a stable firing position and/or a mechanical support, but for hip fire it is largely useless outside of intimidation. Three round bursts or single shot, that's the way to go.
And I say this as a person who can claim with all honesty to be an expert machinegunner.
Bromsy wrote: Really.... full auto isn't just an automatic (hah!) upgrade over semi auto. Semi is better for almost any purpose where your goal is point a weapon at someone and killerize them.
Full auto weapons are great for suppressing fire when you have a stable firing position and/or a mechanical support, but for hip fire it is largely useless outside of intimidation. Three round bursts or single shot, that's the way to go.
And I say this as a person who can claim with all honesty to be an expert machinegunner.
But we have the experience and the knowledge to know and can follow closely to what is being discuss
Theres no real reason to even go to the trouble of converting to full auto.
I have a redjacket ak74, and i can empty a 30rd mags fast as you like.
Heck. When i was in afghanistan, i did'nt use the 3rd burst on my rifle. I always shot semi. The rifle got too hot, and could stop up.
people are flocking to buy guns and practice using the guns where Farook practiced.
Spoiler:
SAN BERNARDINO -- There was a custody hearing on Tuesday for the 6-month-old daughter of Tashfeen Malik -- a Pakistani in the U.S. on a Visa -- and her American husband, Syed Farook, who murdered 14 people at a holiday party in California.
Farook's sister wants to adopt the baby from state custody. CBS News learned on Tuesday that Farook took out a $28,000 loan before the massacre.
Play Video
San Bernardino shooters practiced shooting before attack
CBS News has found that the shooting last Wednesday is sending many in San Bernardino to the gun store.
At a gun shop less than two miles from the scene of the massacre, more than two dozen people were lined up outside when it opened on Tuesday morning.
It's a similar story at the gun range where Farook did some target practice two days before he killed 14 coworkers.
Business at the range is up 60 percent since the attack.
Desiree Pagliuso is a single mother of three. She didn't have a gun in the house before, but after the shooting, she does.
"The reason it's changed now is because it's in our neighborhood," she said. "I've had you know multiple conversations with women that have never even shot guns that are looking into buying guns to be able to protect themselves."
gunowner.jpg
Desiree Pagliuso.
CBS News
Nerves are frayed throughout the community. On Sunday night, there was panic when reports of gunfire at a nearby shopping mall led to more than 300 law enforcement officers circling the property. It turned out to be a robbery where people mistook the sound of smashing glass for gunshots.
"People are on edge, and people are a little extra cautious," said San Bernardino Chief Jarrod Burguan. "That's good that's what we are asking people to do."
For Pagliuso, being extra cautious now means owning a gun.
"911 is not that quick a response and in 2.5 seconds they are not going to be there," said Pagliuso.
Gun and ammunition manufacturing is at $13.5 billion industry in the United States. According to FBI data, the number of requests for background checks to buy guns spikes after high profile mass shootings like San Bernardino.
people are flocking to buy guns and practice using the guns where Farook practiced.
Spoiler:
SAN BERNARDINO -- There was a custody hearing on Tuesday for the 6-month-old daughter of Tashfeen Malik -- a Pakistani in the U.S. on a Visa -- and her American husband, Syed Farook, who murdered 14 people at a holiday party in California.
Farook's sister wants to adopt the baby from state custody. CBS News learned on Tuesday that Farook took out a $28,000 loan before the massacre.
Play Video
San Bernardino shooters practiced shooting before attack
CBS News has found that the shooting last Wednesday is sending many in San Bernardino to the gun store.
At a gun shop less than two miles from the scene of the massacre, more than two dozen people were lined up outside when it opened on Tuesday morning.
It's a similar story at the gun range where Farook did some target practice two days before he killed 14 coworkers.
Business at the range is up 60 percent since the attack.
Desiree Pagliuso is a single mother of three. She didn't have a gun in the house before, but after the shooting, she does.
"The reason it's changed now is because it's in our neighborhood," she said. "I've had you know multiple conversations with women that have never even shot guns that are looking into buying guns to be able to protect themselves."
gunowner.jpg
Desiree Pagliuso.
CBS News
Nerves are frayed throughout the community. On Sunday night, there was panic when reports of gunfire at a nearby shopping mall led to more than 300 law enforcement officers circling the property. It turned out to be a robbery where people mistook the sound of smashing glass for gunshots.
"People are on edge, and people are a little extra cautious," said San Bernardino Chief Jarrod Burguan. "That's good that's what we are asking people to do."
For Pagliuso, being extra cautious now means owning a gun.
"911 is not that quick a response and in 2.5 seconds they are not going to be there," said Pagliuso.
Gun and ammunition manufacturing is at $13.5 billion industry in the United States. According to FBI data, the number of requests for background checks to buy guns spikes after high profile mass shootings like San Bernardino.
It's almost as if people realize that their safety is primarily their responsibility. It is a shame that so many had to suffer for others to learn this lesson.
I do like that the article tries in vain to link the range to the shooter as if that will cast it in a bad light. Do people still go to the hardware store where he purchased the materials for the pipebombs? What about the gas station where he filled up his vehicle so he could go to the scene of the attack? What about the place where he ate breakfast? Tenuous link is tenuous.
Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.
Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."
England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens' right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.
Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:
Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]
Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today's society. Police and Sheriff's departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department "dropped" [2] 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]
It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]
About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.
Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."
It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we've seen that they have no duty to do so. And we've also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.
Now it's time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren't duty-bound to protect us, and they can't be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won't protect us if they have the opportunity?
One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.
Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York's high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]
Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco's violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she'd be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn't notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.
In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff's 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: "What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?" Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.
But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman's estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief's. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren't at all rare.
In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because "the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather." [15]
In a much more recent case, [16] a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that "no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing..." [17]
Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let's leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood "real world." I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.
One client of my partner's and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they'd witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn't enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.
In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we're often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can't or won't do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.
She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.
It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn't taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn't or wouldn't help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.
Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren't), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don't, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn't be time enough for them to do it. It's about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.
The more exalts you get on your posts, the further down The List your name goes.
If your name is at the top of The List at the beginning of the new year then the mods will take you and sacrifice you to the great Dak'Ka, blessed be the name, in order to keep the servers running.
Alternatively you may buy DCM status and be removed from the list completely until your DCMship expires.
The more exalts you get on your posts, the further down The List your name goes.
If your name is at the top of The List at the beginning of the new year then the mods will take you and sacrifice you to the great Dak'Ka, blessed be the name, in order to keep the servers running.
Alternatively you may buy DCM status and be removed from the list completely until your DCMship expires.
Not sure if legit... No orky face to indicate authenticity...
For myself, it's something I use when someone is either being profound, and speaking with intelligence or being humorous. In this case, you are all in the first catagory.
people are flocking to buy guns and practice using the guns where Farook practiced.
Spoiler:
SAN BERNARDINO -- There was a custody hearing on Tuesday for the 6-month-old daughter of Tashfeen Malik -- a Pakistani in the U.S. on a Visa -- and her American husband, Syed Farook, who murdered 14 people at a holiday party in California.
Farook's sister wants to adopt the baby from state custody. CBS News learned on Tuesday that Farook took out a $28,000 loan before the massacre.
Play Video
San Bernardino shooters practiced shooting before attack
CBS News has found that the shooting last Wednesday is sending many in San Bernardino to the gun store.
At a gun shop less than two miles from the scene of the massacre, more than two dozen people were lined up outside when it opened on Tuesday morning.
It's a similar story at the gun range where Farook did some target practice two days before he killed 14 coworkers.
Business at the range is up 60 percent since the attack.
Desiree Pagliuso is a single mother of three. She didn't have a gun in the house before, but after the shooting, she does.
"The reason it's changed now is because it's in our neighborhood," she said. "I've had you know multiple conversations with women that have never even shot guns that are looking into buying guns to be able to protect themselves."
gunowner.jpg
Desiree Pagliuso.
CBS News
Nerves are frayed throughout the community. On Sunday night, there was panic when reports of gunfire at a nearby shopping mall led to more than 300 law enforcement officers circling the property. It turned out to be a robbery where people mistook the sound of smashing glass for gunshots.
"People are on edge, and people are a little extra cautious," said San Bernardino Chief Jarrod Burguan. "That's good that's what we are asking people to do."
For Pagliuso, being extra cautious now means owning a gun.
"911 is not that quick a response and in 2.5 seconds they are not going to be there," said Pagliuso.
Gun and ammunition manufacturing is at $13.5 billion industry in the United States. According to FBI data, the number of requests for background checks to buy guns spikes after high profile mass shootings like San Bernardino.
Of course they are. The Libs are foaming at the mouth for "common sense" gun control.
If I understand your argument, people aren't afraid of being caught in a mass shooting, and don't want to defend themselves, they are buying guns because they don't agree that guns don't make you safer.
Kilkrazy wrote: If I understand your argument, people aren't afraid of being caught in a mass shooting, and don't want to defend themselves, they are buying guns because they don't agree that guns don't make you safer.
Folks do NOT agree with the Gunz Are Bad perspective. That does not mean they don't want to defend themselves and I can't see how the heck you got that. It means bluntly, they don't see gunz as bad. That does not preclude them from thinking owning a gun to defend is a good thing. In fact, the two seem to go hand in hand though self defense is not the only reason sales are up.
And now after the shooting, even more folks think having the capability to defend themselves and loved ones is a good thing.
My point is gun sales were up even BEFORE this particular incident
You said that gun sales were up prior to the latest mass shooting and this shows that people are buying guns not because they are afraid of mass shootings but because they disagree with the idea that guns are bad.
However there are a number of mass shootings every year in the USA, so how can you divorce the effect of these from people buying guns, when one of the primary reasons for buying a gun is self defence.
Kilkrazy wrote: You said that gun sales were up prior to the latest mass shooting and this shows that people are buying guns not because they are afraid of mass shootings but because they disagree with the idea that guns are bad.
However there are a number of mass shootings every year in the USA, so how can you divorce the effect of these from people buying guns, when one of the primary reasons for buying a gun is self defence.
That is how the heck I came up with it.
And?
The statistics shows that homicide is on the downward trend, while gun supplies is on a upward trend.
And what's your definition of "mass shootings"? Because that's all over the F'n map...
Mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.[1] The Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition,[2] and uses a definition of a "public mass shooting"[3] if 4 or more people are actually killed, not including the perpetrator, echoing the FBI definition[4][5] of the term "mass murder". Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling off period.[6] Related terms include school shooting and massacre.
That's what I get from wiki. Does seem to be a contentious thing.
Kilkrazy wrote: You said that gun sales were up prior to the latest mass shooting and this shows that people are buying guns not because they are afraid of mass shootings but because they disagree with the idea that guns are bad.
However there are a number of mass shootings every year in the USA, so how can you divorce the effect of these from people buying guns, when one of the primary reasons for buying a gun is self defence.
That is how the heck I came up with it.
Gun sales WERE up before this incident. They go up further temporarily after big incidents like this, partially because folks get the idea the cops can't protect them, and partly because leftist control freaks start waving the banner of 'Common Sense Gun Control' (in this case even as the incident was on going). Fear of not being able to buy what you want coupled with the reminder that it may be good to be able to defend yourself (a reminder these incidents give) help drive a spike in sales. That spike is just that, a spike. The upward trend was going on without the spike.
But, as a mod you realize you're derailing this for your political purposes, and that another mod asked that we not allow that to happen.
So, back on topic: FBI thinks this may have been planned even before Farook and Malik came back to the US frome when he traveled to pick her up:
FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday Farook and Malik, his wife, began scheming to carry out a terror attack before they were engaged and before she moved to the United States on a fiancee visa last year.
Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley said Malik may have given false information on her visa application.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hunt for a THIRD terrorist linked to San Bernardino attackers: Syed Farook planned attack in 2012 with someone else - and his wife could have been a terror 'operative'
San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook may have been planning an earlier attack with someone else, officials said on Tuesday.
Farook and an unidentified person conspired in 2012 and a specific target was considered, officials said, adding that they could not elaborate on how serious the plot was.
But they did not go through with the earlier attack after several terror-related arrests in the area had them ‘spooked’, an official told CNN.
The news of Farook’s previous plot was revealed as officials announced that they are investigating the possibility that his wife and fellow attacker Tashfeen Malik was ‘an operative’, according to Fox News.
Mass shooting refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence.[1] The Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition,[2] and uses a definition of a "public mass shooting"[3] if 4 or more people are actually killed, not including the perpetrator, echoing the FBI definition[4][5] of the term "mass murder". Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling off period.[6] Related terms include school shooting and massacre.
That's what I get from wiki. Does seem to be a contentious thing.
Doubly contentious given that there are a lot of hoax statistics floating around regarding mass shootings. Like, someone started a website tracking mass shooting statistics that I saw get shared all over facebook a while back. Problem was, most of the "mass shooting events" the site listed were either exaggerated, multiple separate shootings combined into one event, or straight up fakes.
Apparently though, the OECD publishes "rampage shooter" data (for industrialized nations). Not sure their exact criteria, but it turns out that per capita, there are several prominent European nations that are ahead of the USA in terms of mass shooting rate, including Finland, Norway, and Switzerland. Switzerland happens to have just about the single lowest overall murder rate in the world. Finland and Norway have similarly low murder rates, and more restrictive gun laws than the USA. Israel is also on the list.
Gun sales WERE up before this incident. They go up further temporarily after big incidents like this, partially because folks get the idea the cops can't protect them, and partly because leftist control freaks start waving the banner of 'Common Sense Gun Control' (in this case even as the incident was on going). Fear of not being able to buy what you want coupled with the reminder that it may be good to be able to defend yourself (a reminder these incidents give) help drive a spike in sales. That spike is just that, a spike. The upward trend was going on without the spike.
Another way to look at that is a bunch of scared and panicked people are buying guns. It's like the opposite of "responsible gun owners". People so scared of the people around them you can safely assume a good portion of them have mental health issues that should prevent them from having a gun. so when someone in this black friday group commits a mass shooting we can all go "see he bought the guns legally" thus proving the leftists control freaks waving the banner of 'Common Sense Gun Control' correct.
a bunch of scared, panicked and terrorized people buying guns, what could possible go wrong? I'm sure with this increase in gun ownership america will finally have enough guns to be the safest country in the world.
Gun sales WERE up before this incident. They go up further temporarily after big incidents like this, partially because folks get the idea the cops can't protect them, and partly because leftist control freaks start waving the banner of 'Common Sense Gun Control' (in this case even as the incident was on going). Fear of not being able to buy what you want coupled with the reminder that it may be good to be able to defend yourself (a reminder these incidents give) help drive a spike in sales. That spike is just that, a spike. The upward trend was going on without the spike.
Another way to look at that is a bunch of scared and panicked people are buying guns. It's like the opposite of "responsible gun owners". People so scared of the people around them you can safely assume a good portion of them have mental health issues that should prevent them from having a gun. so when someone in this black friday group commits a mass shooting we can all go "see he bought the guns legally" thus proving the leftists control freaks waving the banner of 'Common Sense Gun Control' correct.
a bunch of scared, panicked and terrorized people buying guns, what could possible go wrong? I'm sure with this increase in gun ownership america will finally have enough guns to be the safest country in the world.
Since we have a military going to pre WWII levels....and now throw in terrorists attacks....along with whackjobs with occasional nutjobs. Its a good year for weapon buying. I am looking to buy another AR/M4 (be three now) and a M14 afterwards. Since I am looking to go back being Surgtech since all these weapons are floating around in the US. I doubt a hospital will run out of patients
Congress passing a bill for DoS and USCIS to tighten their back ground checks.
DarkLink wrote: Doubly contentious given that there are a lot of hoax statistics floating around regarding mass shootings. Like, someone started a website tracking mass shooting statistics that I saw get shared all over facebook a while back. Problem was, most of the "mass shooting events" the site listed were either exaggerated, multiple separate shootings combined into one event, or straight up fakes.
Apparently though, the OECD publishes "rampage shooter" data (for industrialized nations). Not sure their exact criteria, but it turns out that per capita, there are several prominent European nations that are ahead of the USA in terms of mass shooting rate, including Finland, Norway, and Switzerland. Switzerland happens to have just about the single lowest overall murder rate in the world. Finland and Norway have similarly low murder rates, and more restrictive gun laws than the USA. Israel is also on the list.
No, that's not what those numbers suggest. Their rates are much lower than in the USA. There is however a "hoax statistic", that you are likely referring to, that's been tweaked to show those artificially inflated rates.
DarkLink wrote: Doubly contentious given that there are a lot of hoax statistics floating around regarding mass shootings. Like, someone started a website tracking mass shooting statistics that I saw get shared all over facebook a while back. Problem was, most of the "mass shooting events" the site listed were either exaggerated, multiple separate shootings combined into one event, or straight up fakes.
Apparently though, the OECD publishes "rampage shooter" data (for industrialized nations). Not sure their exact criteria, but it turns out that per capita, there are several prominent European nations that are ahead of the USA in terms of mass shooting rate, including Finland, Norway, and Switzerland. Switzerland happens to have just about the single lowest overall murder rate in the world. Finland and Norway have similarly low murder rates, and more restrictive gun laws than the USA. Israel is also on the list.
No, that's not what those numbers suggest. Their rates are much lower than in the USA. There is however a "hoax statistic", that you are likely referring to, that's been tweaked to show those artificially inflated rates.
You'll need to elaborate. You mean the oecd stats are incorrect, or falsified? Or that they've been misquoted? And what's your source for claiming the us has the higher mass shooting rate. I've seen a dozen different claims with as many different statistics and as many different criteria.
If you mean the oced stats are hoaxed, maybe. If you mean the hoax I mentioned was in reference to oced stats, then no, it wasn't. That was a hoax claiming to illustrate how much worse mass shootings are in the US.