50512
Post by: Jihadin
DEVELOPING: As many as a dozen people have reportedly been killed in what police call an active shooter situation Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif., where SWAT teams were pursuing three suspects who may have escaped in an SUV.
As many as 30 hostages were seen coming out of the building, a center for treating developmentally disabled people, near a public golf course where the event occurred. The local Fox TV affiliate said at least 12 fatalities occurred inside the building, which was surrounded by authorities, just before noon local time.
.@SanBernardinoPD has confirmed 1to3 possible suspects.Multiple victims. #SBCSD &other agencies assisting. More info to come. #SanBernardino
The call came in around 11 a.m. in the 1300 block of South Waterman Avenue, at the Inland Regional Center, according to San Bernardino police Lt. Rich Lawhead. A makeshift triage center was set up outside the facility. A local NBC videographer reported there were not enough ambulances to transport victims, and that people were using pickup trucks to carry victims to triage areas.
The San Bernardino Sheriff's Office closed off local streets and emergency responders were making their way into a cluster of buildings on the scene.
A witness told Fox News that gunmen wearing masks and body armor entered the building and started shooting. Another area resident said a woman trapped inside called her father and asked him to "pray for us."
Bomb Squad went in already on a suspected package.
I've a bad vibe on this
76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
More of the same, really. These events are going to happen at a regular rate and thats pretty normal.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Edited on advice of fellow poster to remove unhelpful bit.
The report of multiple people in masks is not good.
1464
Post by: Breotan
What the hell motivates people like this?
87291
Post by: jreilly89
*sighs* its Chrismas dammit. Or Hannukah even. Why can't people be good to each other?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Seems we have three shooters, body armor, and....camo
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
 Frazzled wrote:Ironically, have the incident a few miles west and it would be considered your average weekend drive by.
Even for you, Frazz, that is a pretty gakky response. I know you lived here for a while, but seriously, feth off with your California-Gang-Banger BS. 12 dead is not a common occurrence here, drive-bys or otherwise.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're right. My bad. I will edit out and keep on topic. Seems we have three shooters, body armor, and....camo
Let us be hopeful that that is a mistaken report or witness.
1464
Post by: Breotan
 NinthMusketeer wrote:More of the same, really. These events are going to happen at a regular rate and thats pretty normal.
Witnesses are saying three suspects wearing masks and carrying AK47s. So no, this isn't a "pretty normal" event.
The authorities don't want to use the "T" word until more info comes in but given this has multiple suspects, a possible "device" left behind, and LAPD was already on alert by Homeland Security, it sure doesn't look like a crazed loner.
221
Post by: Frazzled
FBI and ATF on scene per LA Times. That doesn't sound good.
Edit: most recent LA Times update.
Police are now searching for a black sport utility vehicle that fled the scene of a mass shooting that left up to 20 people injured inside of a San Bernadino social services office on Wednesday morning, federal law enforcement sources told the Los Angeles Times.
A San Bernadino police spokeswoman also confirmed there "are fatalities," but was unsure of how many people had been killed.
At least three suspected shooters fled the building after gunfire erupted, according to the sources, who requested anonymity because the investigation is active and ongoing.
It is unclear if the people inside the vehicle are witnesses or suspects.
See the most-read stories this hour >>
Police also used a robot to detonate a "device" found inside the building, according to the sources, who also said investigators were assembling a battering ram to gain access to the office complex.
Live updates: Police say 'there are fatalities'
Live updates: Police say 'there are fatalities'
The San Bernardino Fire Department said the shooting took place in the 1300 block of Waterman Avenue, near Orange Show Road.
Sgt. Vicki Cervantes, the San Bernadino police spokeswoman, told reporters at the scene up to three shooters were reported inside the Inland Regional Center. Officers have not secured the building and are going door to door.
The suspects, she said, are heavily armed and were possibly wearing body armor.
“It’s a very active scene,” Cervantes said. “It’s very fluid.”
Television news footage showed police officers and firefighters at the scene as well as people being escorted out of the area.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Actually mass shootings in the US are fairly normal, sadly. There are different reasons for them, of course, but the overall unfortunately happens with some frequency in this country.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
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....
Some cold hearted bastards =/ Lets hope this is brought to a swift conclusion without further loss of life
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
 Breotan wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:More of the same, really. These events are going to happen at a regular rate and thats pretty normal.
Witnesses are saying three suspects wearing masks and carrying AK47s. So no, this isn't a "pretty normal" event.
The authorities don't want to use the "T" word until more info comes in but given this has multiple suspects, a possible "device" left behind, and LAPD was already on alert by Homeland Security, it sure doesn't look like a crazed loner.
Right now I'd hold off on the Islamic "T" also. From the "tacticool" description from witnesses it also sounds like Caucasian type shooter too.
1464
Post by: Breotan
 Ahtman wrote:
Actually mass shootings in the US are fairly normal, sadly. There are different reasons for them, of course, but the overall unfortunately happens with some frequency in this country.
"Lone gunman" shootings are happening too often, I agree. Even with the few details we have, it is clear this is not the same thing.
Back to the OT, it's looking like all three perps left in that black SUV. No update on the pursuit.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Time for Alex Jones in three...two...one...
241
Post by: Ahtman
Which is why I said there are different reasons for doing it but they all have the same general outcome: lots of people shot. Mass shootings, for any reason, have become far to common in the USA. It isn't everyday to be sure, but even a few times is to many.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Why? If we want crazy talk we can just look at Twitter for what pundits on the right and left are spewing.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Ahtman wrote:
Which is why I said there are different reasons for doing it but they all have the same general outcome: lots of people shot. Mass shootings, for any reason, have become far to common in the USA. It isn't everyday to be sure, but even a few times is to many.
Agreed. This is something far different than your traditional lone gunmen, but sadly these tragedies are far too common and frequent these days.
84405
Post by: jhe90
Not good, but bombs, cammo gear, masks and Ak47's ....
this is too much like Paris..... it might not be, its bad every way, but if those lot are about, there savage barbarians :(
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
You are late....already has been called a false flag. Something about the NWO is happening now.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
 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....
Some cold hearted bastards =/ Lets hope this is brought to a swift conclusion without further loss of life
Neo-Nazis?
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Oh look another mass shooting, that makes it what? 1040 since sandy hook?
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
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....
Some cold hearted bastards =/ Lets hope this is brought to a swift conclusion without further loss of life
The article that Frazzled posted says that it is a "social services center". To some politically active groups, they consider welfare mooching minorities to be a "blight" on the US.
Not necessarily the first target that immediately springs to mind, but there's always someone out there who might think of it as a target.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 TheCustomLime wrote:Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
Lets not presume anything at this point. First reports are often very wrong.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
TheCustomLime wrote:Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
You do realize that we've had attacks like this before that had nothing to do with organized terrorist groups, right?
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
 Kanluwen wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
You do realize that we've had attacks like this before that had nothing to do with organized terrorist groups, right?
I realize that and I really hope it's not. I'm just voicing my concern is all.
84405
Post by: jhe90
TheCustomLime wrote: Kanluwen wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
You do realize that we've had attacks like this before that had nothing to do with organized terrorist groups, right?
I realize that and I really hope it's not. I'm just voicing my concern is all.
in the current climate, with massive threat levels, the attack on Paris, UK and others foiling several terror plots, and the fact a certain group are a psychopathic death cult?
it would be very worrying if it was.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
TheCustomLime wrote: Kanluwen wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
You do realize that we've had attacks like this before that had nothing to do with organized terrorist groups, right?
I realize that and I really hope it's not. I'm just voicing my concern is all.
Honestly, if it were ISIS?
I would expect not just one attack but multiples. They know they need to make a concerted effort to cause as much havoc as possible at once in an attempt for demoralization.
Because once their attack is stopped, it becomes MUCH harder for them to make a follow-up on US soil.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I too don't understand why this type of place was targeted. It doesn't fit the profile. I can't think of any similar events ever. Its not the sort of controversial target that is on the receiving end of shootings.
Lots of reports are saying the shooters got away, so we might have more attacks still to come. It would fit the style of the Paris attacks that ISIS did so its a possibility.
Ahtman wrote:
Actually mass shootings in the US are fairly normal, sadly. There are different reasons for them, of course, but the overall unfortunately happens with some frequency in this country.
Just to clarify, normal doesn't mean common. Compared to any other type of crime they are very very very rare.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Well considering we lead the world in mass shootings I would say it is a common occurrence.
66109
Post by: IV th legion
The CEO of the center has said that the shooting started in a conference room being rented by an outside group. BBC is saying that the majority of the shooting took place in a building with a library and conference center. Apparently a SWAT situation in Pasadena (~20-30 minutes away by road) related to this.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Ustrello wrote:Well considering we lead the world in mass shootings I would say it is a common occurrence.
Being the leader of something that is incredibly rare overall doesn't really mean anything.
If 99% of people have between 0-3 pimples, we could say the guy with 4 pimples has "a lot of pimples".
Mass shootings still only account for a minuscule insignificant number of wrongful deaths in the US.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Kanluwen wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
You do realize that we've had attacks like this before that had nothing to do with organized terrorist groups, right?
Nidal Hassan was not a member of an organized terror group. Does not change the fact he was a terrorist who committed a terrorist act. 'Inspired by' is the way we'll see a lot of these described.
42013
Post by: Sinful Hero
Reasons the center was probably attacked was it's a very soft target. Centers for the developmentally disabled aren't usually known to have tight security, and the residents won't exactly be able to protect themselves.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
 Grey Templar wrote: Ustrello wrote:Well considering we lead the world in mass shootings I would say it is a common occurrence.
Being the leader of something that is incredibly rare overall doesn't really mean anything.
If 99% of people have between 0-3 pimples, we could say the guy with 4 pimples has "a lot of pimples".
Mass shootings still only account for a minuscule insignificant number of wrongful deaths in the US.
If you have a disproportionate amount of pimples or cancer cells compared to the normal human you usually seek treatment. But your comparison is not apt, because if there were someone with 23 pimples, the united states would have 133. That is quite a difference.
Sauce http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I agree. I doubt it was a specific attack on disabled people though, a crowded mall would have been just as ideal.
1464
Post by: Breotan
 BrotherGecko wrote:
You are late....already has been called a false flag. Something about the NWO is happening now.
What? Where are you getting this?
221
Post by: Frazzled
IV th legion wrote:The CEO of the center has said that the shooting started in a conference room being rented by an outside group. BBC is saying that the majority of the shooting took place in a building with a library and conference center. Apparently a SWAT situation in Pasadena (~20-30 minutes away by road) related to this.
Bloomberg is saying a robot detonated a suspicious device. Multiple sources confirming looking for multiple gunmen in SUV.
Picked a decent time for a getaway traffic wise.
The target is...strange.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
True, but again that 133 isn't adjusted to account for differences in population or other demographics. We will have more of just about everything simply because we are so much larger than most countries.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Grey Templar wrote:
True, but again that 133 isn't adjusted to account for differences in population or other demographics. We will have more of just about everything simply because we are so much larger than most countries.
So by that logic India should be outpacing us in mass shootings 3 to 1
221
Post by: Frazzled
Can we not go there right now?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ustrello wrote: Grey Templar wrote:
True, but again that 133 isn't adjusted to account for differences in population or other demographics. We will have more of just about everything simply because we are so much larger than most countries.
So by that logic India should be outpacing us in mass shootings 3 to 1
Only if you considered population. There are many many other factors. But that is off-topic at the moment.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Reddit is hard at work reporting the events. Not saying its a ton of people as I try not to stare too long in fear of being burned but yah its already a false flag to people that like to use the words false and flag too close to each other.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Couldn't even wait until the bodies started to stink before turning this into a political thing. Don't let a good tragedy go to waste, am I right America?
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
 jhe90 wrote:Not good, but bombs, cammo gear, masks and Ak47's ....
this is too much like Paris..... it might not be, its bad every way, but if those lot are about, there savage barbarians :(
There has to be something more going on here. Not only is the building not a religious or political target (so far as I know), but the attackers put a lot of planning into this to strike at San Bernardino...not exactly the Paris of Southern California. I feel like the attackers must be locals.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Seems the county gov't/county workers had rented the room for a Christmas party
Federal sources: County workers may have been targeted
The shooting took place at a gathering of San Bernardino County employees, according to federal law enforcement sources who requested anonymity because the investigation is active and ongoing. Those officials said they think that group, not the facility, may have been targeted.
Keith Nelson, vice president of the Inland Regional Center’s Board of Trustees, said the shooting took place in building No.3 on the campus.
Building No. 3 is the only building on the campus that is open to the public and does not require a work badge to enter, Nelson said,
The conference room, which holds up to 200 people, was decorated for a holiday party, said Marybeth Feild, board president and CEO of the center.
—Paloma Esquivel, Richard A. Serrano and Veronica Rocha
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
TheCustomLime wrote: Kanluwen wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
You do realize that we've had attacks like this before that had nothing to do with organized terrorist groups, right?
I realize that and I really hope it's not. I'm just voicing my concern is all.
I doubt ISIS even knows where San Bernardino is. If they were planning a terrorist attack in SoCal, I would expect them to hit somewhere closer to Disneyland, both in location and name recognition.
If this is terrorism, it's most likely domestic.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Again, a DaIsh attack is VERY likely to actually be domestic DaIsh inspired, NOT initiated by DaIsh in Syria/Iraq. And the targeting would be local as a result.
Not attempting to link this to any group, but folks need to understand the paradigm on targeting and attacks has evolved.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Hrm, most obvious suspect is to identify who was recently fired from the county who held a grudge.
4402
Post by: CptJake
WrentheFaceless wrote:Hrm, most obvious suspect is to identify who was recently fired from the county who held a grudge.
That does seem like a smart place to start.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
It seems a little strange that a disgruntled worker would round up two of his buddies and get AK47s just to waste his former colleagues.
Then again, this is breaking news. It's just as likely to be a 9mm pistol as it is an actual Kalashnikov rifle.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
 CptJake wrote:Seems the county gov't/county workers had rented the room for a Christmas party
OK, that's a better target than the disabled, but still a bit odd for a mass shooting with several perpetrators. One guy with a grudge against the county I could see, but three in heavy gear? Well, perhaps some sort of idiot militia has finally decided to stop the evil guv'ment - but surely they'd also want to publish their reasons?
98523
Post by: LethalShade
AKs and maybe a bomb are a bit of an overkill for a simple grudge.
(But that's 'Murica so who knows ?)
221
Post by: Frazzled
WrentheFaceless wrote:Hrm, most obvious suspect is to identify who was recently fired from the county who held a grudge.
San Bernardino County is big, as in larger than Israel kind of big. That could be a fair number of people. Difficult to see how that could be more than one shooter in that hypothetical but can't rule it out.
Cartel hit? They have the means, and its within their scope of historical activities. Someone choose poorly on the old silver or lead test? Automatically Appended Next Post: TheCustomLime wrote:It seems a little strange that a disgruntled worker would round up two of his buddies and get AK47s just to waste his former colleagues.
Then again, this is breaking news. It's just as likely to be a shotgun as it is an actual Kalashnikov rifle.
Yes.
4402
Post by: CptJake
No 'bomb' was confirmed. The bomb squad 'disabled' a package or a 'suspicious' item. They have not (that I can find) confirmed it was an actual bomb. Could have been a backpack some scared dude dropped in a funny place as he un-assed the AO.
We'll see.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
True, could be all kinds of reasons, but a holiday party seems a deliberate personal target.
37231
Post by: d-usa
CptJake wrote:Again, a DaIsh attack is VERY likely to actually be domestic DaIsh inspired, NOT initiated by DaIsh in Syria/Iraq. And the targeting would be local as a result.
Not attempting to link this to any group, but folks need to understand the paradigm on targeting and attacks has evolved.
Other than "AK-47" it really doesn't seem very ISIL inspired just because the target feels "off" IMO. It seems like they have been targeting areas focusing on "western decadence" or "western sinful living", like bars, concerts, and the soccer stadium. I don't know that a local government worker party would be on their radar.
Government workers seen like they would be more of a domestic anti-government style attack, but I would expect AR-15s instead of AK-47s (although I admit that this may be profiling on my part).
At first sight I really have a hard time narrowing it down to any group that immediately jumps to mind.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 d-usa wrote:Government workers seen like they would be more of a domestic anti-government style attack, but I would expect AR-15s instead of AK-47s (although I admit that this may be profiling on my part).
#notallAKs
I have to say this is a weird one. My guess would be drug related but who knows.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Well, a hardcore anti-government group might be able to get their hands on them from over the boarder perhaps?
37231
Post by: d-usa
I'm just saying that any patriotic domestic terrorist should be buying American made weapons, that's all 
50512
Post by: Jihadin
It was well executed. Damn near to a "T"
4402
Post by: CptJake
There is no confirmation they used AKs. Only confirmed is 'long gun'.
And of course in CA, 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines are illegal if I remember correctly.
37231
Post by: d-usa
CptJake wrote:There is no confirmation they used AKs. Only confirmed is 'long gun'.
Thanks for clearing that up, so it really could be anything then. Although even AK-47 doesn't really narrow it down much based on our reporting standards with the media.
10920
Post by: Goliath
Ahtman wrote:
Actually mass shootings in the US are fairly normal, sadly. There are different reasons for them, of course, but the overall unfortunately happens with some frequency in this country.
Yup. 352nd shooting with more than 4 fatalities (including shooter) this year.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Plenty of AK style weapons come up from central america. I suspect they are going to be as common as AR types. They also have a 'cool' factor amongst the gang elements which also aids in commonality.
73580
Post by: richred_uk
 Goliath wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Actually mass shootings in the US are fairly normal, sadly. There are different reasons for them, of course, but the overall unfortunately happens with some frequency in this country.
Yup. 352nd shooting with more than 4 fatalities (including shooter) this year.
From the Washington post - the number is the number of mass (4+ victims - I dont know if that means fatalities - I suspect it doesn't) shootings per day in the US:
80999
Post by: jasper76
I hope they catch em and hang em high.
This country is getting scarier and scarier to live in.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
How many confirmed casualties ?
4402
Post by: CptJake
I honestly don't understand that point of view. The VAST majority in the US is NEVER going to be directly exposed this type of event. Why live in fear?
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
4402
Post by: CptJake
I've seen 14 dead mentioned recently, but I don't think any number is 'confirmed' at this point.
80999
Post by: jasper76
CptJake wrote:Plenty of AK style weapons come up from central america. I suspect they are going to be as common as AR types. They also have a 'cool' factor amongst the gang elements which also aids in commonality.
Well, I don't actually live in fear. Just sayin. These mass shootings are just becoming a normal thing to see in the news. I used to be surprised to hear something like 14 people shot dead. Now, its just another Wednesday in the good ole USA.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 jasper76 wrote: CptJake wrote:Plenty of AK style weapons come up from central america. I suspect they are going to be as common as AR types. They also have a 'cool' factor amongst the gang elements which also aids in commonality.
Well, I don't actually live in fear. Just sayin. These mass shootings are just becoming a normal thing to see in the news.
News reports the unusual and bloody.
MOST of these 'mass shootings' are some nutter who offs his family and self, really horrendous domestic violence. Another large part is criminal activity/gang activity. A small portion is gak like we are seeing today.
80999
Post by: jasper76
It's all bad to me.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
CptJake wrote: Kanluwen wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:Possible bomb, AK47s, masks, body armor and masks. This is starting to smell like a terrorist attack.
I wonder if ISIS will be stupid enough to claim responsibility.
You do realize that we've had attacks like this before that had nothing to do with organized terrorist groups, right?
Nidal Hassan was not a member of an organized terror group. Does not change the fact he was a terrorist who committed a terrorist act. 'Inspired by' is the way we'll see a lot of these described.
Okay...?
I'm referring to these kinds of shootings where the shooters had body armor, (reported) automatics, and concealed their identities.
North Hollywood immediately springs to mind.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
CptJake wrote:Again, a DaIsh attack is VERY likely to actually be domestic DaIsh inspired, NOT initiated by DaIsh in Syria/Iraq. And the targeting would be local as a result.
Not attempting to link this to any group, but folks need to understand the paradigm on targeting and attacks has evolved.
The Paris attack was organised from Brussels.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
 Kilkrazy wrote: CptJake wrote:Again, a DaIsh attack is VERY likely to actually be domestic DaIsh inspired, NOT initiated by DaIsh in Syria/Iraq. And the targeting would be local as a result.
Not attempting to link this to any group, but folks need to understand the paradigm on targeting and attacks has evolved.
The Paris attack was organised from Brussels.
Except you don't cross the Ocean to the US as easily as the Franco-Belgian border.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Kilkrazy wrote: CptJake wrote:Again, a DaIsh attack is VERY likely to actually be domestic DaIsh inspired, NOT initiated by DaIsh in Syria/Iraq. And the targeting would be local as a result.
Not attempting to link this to any group, but folks need to understand the paradigm on targeting and attacks has evolved.
The Paris attack was organised from Brussels.
Are either Paris or Brussels in the US?
I didn't think so. My answer is regarding here in the US. And we've seen it. Guys are very rarely traveling far for their attacks, and have almost all been 'inspired' instead of infiltrated DaIsh members. Even in cases where there was some coordination (Hassan for example) the targeting was local. In the rare cases it is not, it is usually do to the 'inspired' part (see Nasser Abdo inspired by Hassan).
50512
Post by: Jihadin
They call this workplace violence I'm recarrying
80999
Post by: jasper76
I really don't get the location. What kind of human scum would target a center for developmental disabilities?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
This seems a very sophisticated attack, although the choice of target is very strange. The Christmas party in the building may be a clue as to the attackers and motive, but it is very early to speculate in any useful manner
d-usa wrote:Other than "AK-47" it really doesn't seem very ISIL inspired just because the target feels "off" IMO. It seems like they have been targeting areas focusing on "western decadence" or "western sinful living", like bars, concerts, and the soccer stadium. I don't know that a local government worker party would be on their radar.
Government workers seen like they would be more of a domestic anti-government style attack, but I would expect AR-15s instead of AK-47s (although I admit that this may be profiling on my part).
At first sight I really have a hard time narrowing it down to any group that immediately jumps to mind.
Agreed. There are none of the hallmarks of an ISIS attack;
- not a very public target
- no hostages
- fleeing the scene
- lack of confirmed explosives
d-usa wrote:I'm just saying that any patriotic domestic terrorist should be buying American made weapons, that's all
Plenty of good US made AKM pattern rifles are available
98523
Post by: LethalShade
jasper76 wrote:I really don't get the location. What kind of human scum would target a center for developmental disabilities?
A human scum ? Nuff said.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
So far nothing has been said by the attackers. (God Wills It or God is Great).
Just went in and shot the place.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Yeah, it's pretty bad. And we have no idea how severe these injuries are either.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Caught them it seems...or in pursuit of..one on foot.
One officer down
Suspect down
aanother in vehicle (2nd suspect)
3rd on foot
edit
3rd suspect on foot.
Possible forth. Unsure of...driver of the vehicle
53516
Post by: Chute82
One suspect hit by gunfire.. The police have a suv surrounded
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
For anyone interested, here is the local news stream: http://ktla.com/on-air/live-streaming/
1464
Post by: Breotan
17 wounded. 14 dead.
Police in apparent shootout with suspects.
4402
Post by: CptJake
jasper76 wrote:I really don't get the location. What kind of human scum would target a center for developmental disabilities?
The kind targeting the county employees who rented the conference area for their Christmas party...
80999
Post by: jasper76
Well, the dudes in that black SUV aint goin nowhere, if there even alive.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
LEOs have a vehicle surrounded.
As an aside I didn't realize that some California police used Mini-14s
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Given the number of military-equipped gangs in California, specifically in San Bernardino? I'm surprised they don't all drive Abrams.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
another mass shooting? it must be Wednesday.
Can we just make a common thread "mass shootings in the US" it would save space, rather than having two threads going on at the same time.
cue Obama to say what a tragedy it is, cue the NRA to blame mentally unstable people. outrage by the american people, elected officials throw their hands up and shrug saying there's nothing we can do. and done.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
LEO are really quiet about this.
I hope this is not a ISIS inspired attack to go with the Paris one.
Edit
Was a fire fight at the stop. Has the feel they were going to die they were going out shooting.
Seems "two" is still on the loose
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
 Jihadin wrote:LEO are really quiet about this.
I hope this is not a ISIS inspired attack to go with the Paris one.
I find it sad that so much gun violence occurs, that you can't know if it's a terrorist attack, or just more americans shooting up the place.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Obama and other Ds have already weighed in.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on San Bernardino shootings wrote: Each time I see breaking news of yet another mass shooting, I feel it in the pit of my stomach. Congress can’t stop every shooting, but we can help reduce their frequency. I remain hopeful that enough of my colleagues will join me to make that a reality.
Hillary Clinton wrote:I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H
50512
Post by: Jihadin
CptJake wrote:Obama and other Ds have already weighed in.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on San Bernardino shootings wrote: Each time I see breaking news of yet another mass shooting, I feel it in the pit of my stomach. Congress can’t stop every shooting, but we can help reduce their frequency. I remain hopeful that enough of my colleagues will join me to make that a reality.
Hillary Clinton wrote:I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H
Wow
he said that right after the Paris shooting.....Awesome Sauce there Chosen One
1464
Post by: Breotan
This has more of a Boston bomber type vibe to it. Gunfire instead of explosives but the rest of it seems to be going down a similar path.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
If you heard a random thunder-clap don't worry it was just my palm meeting my face.
Wolf Blitzer just tried said its scary to see the police using the same armored vehicles he saw in Iraq and Fellujah....
Yah, those light armored swat vehicles...
4402
Post by: CptJake
At least one perp dead on street, and one in the SUV. SUV has SWAT trying to figure out if there are explosives, don't know if perp in it is dead or wounded. Heard 'pipe bombs' mentioned as having been found.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Local TV is reporting 1 suspect deceased on the street, one suspect not moving but with a gun in the SUV, and a search for a possible third suspect that may have fled.
(beat me to it)
4402
Post by: CptJake
BrotherGecko wrote:If you heard a random thunder-clap don't worry it was just my palm meeting my face. Wolf Blitzer just tried said its scary to see the police using the same armored vehicles he saw in Iraq and Fellujah.... Yah, those light armored swat vehicles...
They are using Bearcat MRAPs. Which were used in Iraq and (I think) Afganistan. Mostly Iraq though because they don't do well off road.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on San Bernardino shootings wrote:Congress can’t stop every shooting, but we can help reduce their frequency.
How? Seriously, put up or shut up, Senator.
91290
Post by: Kap'n Krump
Not that it makes any difference, but why a hospital for the mentally disabled? I mean, in the co springs shooting, while it's monstrous to shoot up a planned parenthood (or anywhere else), I can see the motive - some people don't approve of abortions.
Do note I'm not condoning the co springs shooting in any way, shape, or form, but I can understand that someone could be insane and angry enough to target a PP for its abortion services.
But why a mentally disabled hospital? I guess because it would be an easy target?
I mean, the newtown shooting was pretty senseless, and similarly undefended, but that guy was nuts, as I recall (like the co springs shooter). But from the description, this was a coordinated and planned effort by multiple shooters.
I guess what I'm getting at is - if they're sane enough to plan, coordinate, execute, and, hell, even agree on such a action, why a hospital for the developmentally disabled?
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Jihadin wrote: CptJake wrote:Obama and other Ds have already weighed in.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on San Bernardino shootings wrote: Each time I see breaking news of yet another mass shooting, I feel it in the pit of my stomach. Congress can’t stop every shooting, but we can help reduce their frequency. I remain hopeful that enough of my colleagues will join me to make that a reality.
Hillary Clinton wrote:I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H
Wow
he said that right after the Paris shooting.....Awesome Sauce there Chosen One
Spread some of the awesome sauce please (source).
These are the comments I recall Obama making after Paris.
"This is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share," Obama said in a statement delivered in the White House Briefing Room. "We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance the people of France need to respond."
Obama added, "This is a heartbreaking situation, and obviously those of us here in the United States know what it's like and we've gone through these kinds of episodes ourselves."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/paris-terror-attacks-obama/
80999
Post by: jasper76
What's that third vehicle moving in with the armored deck on front?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
If its a VBIED or close to one then we're in a new game
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote:What's that third vehicle moving in with the armored deck on front?
EOD team
Xray machine and robot controls...might have a mechanical arm to. Thick blast shield
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Kap'n Krump wrote:Not that it makes any difference, but why a hospital for the mentally disabled? I mean, in the co springs shooting, while it's monstrous to shoot up a planned parenthood (or anywhere else), I can see the motive - some people don't approve of abortions. Do note I'm not condoning the co springs shooting in any way, shape, or form, but I can understand that someone could be insane and angry enough to target a PP for its abortion services. But why a mentally disabled hospital? I guess because it would be an easy target? I mean, the newtown shooting was pretty senseless, but the guy was insane as I recall (like the co springs shooter). But from the description, this was a coordinated and planned effort by multiple shooters. I guess what I'm getting at is - if they're sane enough to plan, coordinate, and, hell, even agree on such a action, why a hospital for the developmentally disabled?
As I've mentioned several times, the target seems to be a conference center rented out to the county gov't employees for their Christmas party. THAT is what was hit.... Automatically Appended Next Post: Source for my quotes above: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html (you'll need to scroll down) and https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/672149874046083072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw And Bernie weighs in: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/672160504572452864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Sanders wrote:Mass shootings are becoming an almost-everyday occurrence in this country. This sickening and senseless gun violence must stop.
other candidates on the incident (including the Rs) http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/12/02/2016-candidates-react-to-san-bernardino-shooting/ Note the difference in theme between the parties....
91290
Post by: Kap'n Krump
Ah, my apologies. Thanks for the clarification.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
I see the Obama attack force is now out in full, not even allowing for the end of the situation before pouncing.
Have some respect for the dead before we start the political attacks.
12313
Post by: Ouze
The quote source requested is the one that was probably made up, allegedly after the Paris attacks - not yours.
Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Jihadin wrote: CptJake wrote:Obama and other Ds have already weighed in.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on San Bernardino shootings wrote: Each time I see breaking news of yet another mass shooting, I feel it in the pit of my stomach. Congress can’t stop every shooting, but we can help reduce their frequency. I remain hopeful that enough of my colleagues will join me to make that a reality.
Hillary Clinton wrote:I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H
Wow
he said that right after the Paris shooting.....Awesome Sauce there Chosen One
It's a true statement. One terrorist attack in Paris =/= 355 mass shootings in the US inside a single year.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
TheCustomLime wrote:It seems a little strange that a disgruntled worker would round up two of his buddies and get AK47s just to waste his former colleagues.
Then again, this is breaking news. It's just as likely to be a 9mm pistol as it is an actual Kalashnikov rifle.
Given what we know, I highly doubt this is workplace violence. That usually ends up with the perp committing suicide or suicide by cop at the scene. They don't usually flee.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I doubt we'll know the accurate motive for days, really.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
 Ouze wrote:The quote source requested is the one that was probably made up, allegedly after the Paris attacks - not yours.
Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.
I kinda figured Jihadin was talking out of his ass, but I wanted to see if I missed anything.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Psienesis wrote: Jihadin wrote: CptJake wrote:Obama and other Ds have already weighed in.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on San Bernardino shootings wrote: Each time I see breaking news of yet another mass shooting, I feel it in the pit of my stomach. Congress can’t stop every shooting, but we can help reduce their frequency. I remain hopeful that enough of my colleagues will join me to make that a reality.
Hillary Clinton wrote:I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H
Wow
he said that right after the Paris shooting.....Awesome Sauce there Chosen One
It's a true statement. One terrorist attack in Paris =/= 355 mass shootings in the US inside a single year.
How many of those shootings were simple robberies or gang shootouts which escalated? The defining # of victims for a mass shooting is pretty low and can easily encompass things like that.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Security guards at the facility were unarmed, or so says the local NBC TV stream.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Hardly surprising or newsworthy.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
CptJake wrote: BrotherGecko wrote:If you heard a random thunder-clap don't worry it was just my palm meeting my face.
Wolf Blitzer just tried said its scary to see the police using the same armored vehicles he saw in Iraq and Fellujah....
Yah, those light armored swat vehicles...
They are using Bearcat MRAPs. Which were used in Iraq and (I think) Afganistan. Mostly Iraq though because they don't do well off road.
Naw Bearcats are civilian commerical vehicles never heard of military using them. You'd have to show me were you saw that, I'd find it interesting why the military used thin skin commerical MRAPs.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Used as FOB runners for QRF
80999
Post by: jasper76
Really? Where I live, security guards are typically armed.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
That usually depends on what they are guarding.
Some little convention center isn't usually going to have armed guards.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Grey Templar wrote: Psienesis wrote: Jihadin wrote: CptJake wrote:Obama and other Ds have already weighed in.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein on San Bernardino shootings wrote: Each time I see breaking news of yet another mass shooting, I feel it in the pit of my stomach. Congress can’t stop every shooting, but we can help reduce their frequency. I remain hopeful that enough of my colleagues will join me to make that a reality.
Hillary Clinton wrote:I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H
Wow
he said that right after the Paris shooting.....Awesome Sauce there Chosen One
It's a true statement. One terrorist attack in Paris =/= 355 mass shootings in the US inside a single year.
How many of those shootings were simple robberies or gang shootouts which escalated? The defining # of victims for a mass shooting is pretty low and can easily encompass things like that.
And how many weren't? How many were national headline generating mass shootings? More than I am comfortable with. Are you actually okay with the state of affairs in this country? The Planned Parenthood shooting thread hasn't even closed yet and we have another mass shooting thread. If we had one of these events a year it would be troubling, but we have many, many more than that each year. We have a problem in the country, and trying to find justification for the amount of shootings we have every year is lunacy to me. "A lot of them are suicides." "Some of them are crimes gone wrong." Yeah, so what? Many of these attacks are against defenseless people and we have become so inured to this new reality that we can actually spend time now parsing which "mass shooting" should qualify as an actual mass shooting or just a technical one.
Honestly. WTF?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
WrentheFaceless wrote:I see the Obama attack force is now out in full, not even allowing for the end of the situation before pouncing.
Have some respect for the dead before we start the political attacks.
That's really funny, considering republicans were repeating the same lies a terrorist was saying, while a planned parenthood while a clinic was under siege.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
My point is that there are many many more things which unnecessarily kill or injure people that would be far easier to fix. Gun violence has no substance to it in the grand scheme of things. Its simply not worth time or effort to fix, especially when there are constitutional rights involved.
Its just an outrage machine that the left likes to crank because it serves their agenda, but they have no intention of actually doing anything to solve the problem. All they end up doing is trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens while not solving the actual, very minor, problem.
If you really truly want to reduce gun violence, you will focus exclusively on improving the economy and reducing crime rates. Not putting on gun-control right restricting band-aids that make you feel warm and fuzzy.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You notice the difference between this shooting to the one at PP?
One was a nut job
This one was coordinated and executed to a "T" by three individuals who were prepared to fight.
This is not a typical Mass Shooting. This involved three individuals (possible four) compare to a lone Gunman
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Grey Templar wrote:My point is that there are many many more things which unnecessarily kill or injure people that would be far easier to fix. Gun violence has no substance to it in the grand scheme of things. Its simply not worth time or effort to fix, especially when there are constitutional rights involved.
Its just an outrage machine that the left likes to crank because it serves their agenda, but they have no intention of actually doing anything to solve the problem. All they end up doing is trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens while not solving the actual, very minor, problem.
If you really truly want to reduce gun violence, you will focus exclusively on improving the economy and reducing crime rates. Not putting on gun-control right restricting band-aids that make you feel warm and fuzzy.
The irony burns so hard with this statement
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Jihadin wrote:You notice the difference between this shooting to the one at PP?
One was a nut job
This one was coordinated and executed to a "T" by three individuals who were prepared to fight.
This is not a typical Mass Shooting. This involved three individuals (possible four) compare to a lone Gunman
Whats more disturbing is now that we seemingly have a definition of a "Typical Mass Shooting" because they happen so often that we can 'define' them.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Jihadin wrote:You notice the difference between this shooting to the one at PP?
One was a nut job
This one was coordinated and executed to a "T" by three individuals who were prepared to fight.
This is not a typical Mass Shooting. This involved three individuals (possible four) compare to a lone Gunman
so it's ok for republicans to quote a terrorists during a terrorist attack, and that's not politicizing an terrorist act?
but oh no, Obama can't say anything about this attack, because it's different.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Pretty sure we've defined mass shootings for decades. Thats not a new thing.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
I honestly can't find any evidence the military has ever purchased Bearcats in any amount. Maybe contractors in Iraq but not even the manufacturer seems to say so that I've found.
I will admit Iraq was a poorly documented conflict.
If you can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it. I've seen all kinds of MRAPs being in an RCP but never a Bearcat.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
jasper76 wrote:Security guards at the facility were unarmed, or so says the local NBC TV stream.
The decision to have armed security depends on what is being guarded, the budget for security, insurance for armed guards on site, the availability of armed guards. California has some very strict gun control so there might not be an available pool of armed guards, much less an available pool in the price range of a facility for the disabled.
Most likely they were hired to be a visible deterrent but not much else.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
sirlynchmob wrote: Jihadin wrote:You notice the difference between this shooting to the one at PP?
One was a nut job
This one was coordinated and executed to a "T" by three individuals who were prepared to fight.
This is not a typical Mass Shooting. This involved three individuals (possible four) compare to a lone Gunman
so it's ok for republicans to quote a terrorists during a terrorist attack, and that's not politicizing an terrorist act?
but oh no, Obama can't say anything about this attack, because it's different.
I'm calling it like I see it. Trying to..link me to politics not going to work. This was well planned and executed.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: jasper76 wrote:Security guards at the facility were unarmed, or so says the local NBC TV stream.
The decision to have armed security depends on what is being guarded, the budget for security, insurance for armed guards on site, the availability of armed guards. California has some very strict gun control so there might not be an available pool of armed guards, much less an available pool in the price range of a facility for the disabled.
Most likely they were hired to be a visible deterrent but not much else.
There are armed guards. At least in Los Angeles. But typically they guard high profile places like Jewelry Stores and the like. Though once I did see an armed guard standing in front of a grocery store which I thought was hilarious.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Someone at the Xmas party left mad and came back with two more individuals. Empty one mag, reload, empty the second mag, and all left.
Edit
like SHep said. These guys were on a "mission"
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
TheCustomLime wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: jasper76 wrote:Security guards at the facility were unarmed, or so says the local NBC TV stream.
The decision to have armed security depends on what is being guarded, the budget for security, insurance for armed guards on site, the availability of armed guards. California has some very strict gun control so there might not be an available pool of armed guards, much less an available pool in the price range of a facility for the disabled.
Most likely they were hired to be a visible deterrent but not much else.
There are armed guards. At least in Los Angeles. But typically they guard high profile places like Jewelry Stores and the like. Though once I did see an armed guard standing in front of a grocery store which I thought was hilarious.
If the grocery store gets robbed regularly they might have armed guards. Its not like large grocery stores only have chump change in their tills either.
80999
Post by: jasper76
The local news said that there were like 5-10 guards, suggesting a semi-substantial security force may have been present. I guess that's why I thought they might have been armed.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
They actually thought it was a Active Shooter Drill being they have one once a month
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Jihadin wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Jihadin wrote:You notice the difference between this shooting to the one at PP?
One was a nut job
This one was coordinated and executed to a "T" by three individuals who were prepared to fight.
This is not a typical Mass Shooting. This involved three individuals (possible four) compare to a lone Gunman
so it's ok for republicans to quote a terrorists during a terrorist attack, and that's not politicizing an terrorist act?
but oh no, Obama can't say anything about this attack, because it's different.
I'm calling it like I see it. Trying to..link me to politics not going to work. This was well planned and executed.
well let me ask it this way. If you have to wait a period of time out of respect, how can you ever have a discussion about the gun violence in the US? By the time you've given the one attack time to mourn their dead, 2 more attacks have happened. Thus we see the dilemma facing the US and it's utter lack of even trying to address, let alone solve their mass shooting problem.
4402
Post by: CptJake
BrotherGecko wrote:
I honestly can't find any evidence the military has ever purchased Bearcats in any amount. Maybe contractors in Iraq but not even the manufacturer seems to say so that I've found.
I will admit Iraq was a poorly documented conflict.
If you can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it. I've seen all kinds of MRAPs being in an RCP but never a Bearcat.
Army and Air Force both got some. I had a list of types and where they went but it is on a computer that does not get connected to the open internet. MP units at Hood, Bragg and a couple other places have them now. Only open source I can easily find is unfortunately the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenco_BearCat Look at 'usage' section.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Sad story. Hopefully those affected can find the help they need.
Multiple large-scale, right-infringing gun laws have been enacted in the past (since the early 20th century, in fact), both nationally and on a state level, and yet we still get scenarios like this one happening, often in places that have the most restrictive laws in the country. More "feel good" laws won't help.
I don't have the answer, but stomping all over the rights of law-abiding citizens clearly isn't having an effect, yet it's the first thing many people jump to. Insanity.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
I don't want tragedies to be used as an excuse to trample on the rights of law abiding citizens.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Um... that is why laws exist in the first place. To trample on the rights of citizens who were previously engaged in committing tragedies.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument
Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
sirlynchmob wrote: Jihadin wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Jihadin wrote:You notice the difference between this shooting to the one at PP?
One was a nut job
This one was coordinated and executed to a "T" by three individuals who were prepared to fight.
This is not a typical Mass Shooting. This involved three individuals (possible four) compare to a lone Gunman
so it's ok for republicans to quote a terrorists during a terrorist attack, and that's not politicizing an terrorist act?
but oh no, Obama can't say anything about this attack, because it's different.
I'm calling it like I see it. Trying to..link me to politics not going to work. This was well planned and executed.
well let me ask it this way. If you have to wait a period of time out of respect, how can you ever have a discussion about the gun violence in the US? By the time you've given the one attack time to mourn their dead, 2 more attacks have happened. Thus we see the dilemma facing the US and it's utter lack of even trying to address, let alone solve their mass shooting problem.
I'm use to rolling back out the "Wire" the next day with a few people short and/or their replacement. Your describing something some of us have first hand experience with. Try another aspect.
53516
Post by: Chute82
Grey Templar wrote: TheCustomLime wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: jasper76 wrote:Security guards at the facility were unarmed, or so says the local NBC TV stream.
The decision to have armed security depends on what is being guarded, the budget for security, insurance for armed guards on site, the availability of armed guards. California has some very strict gun control so there might not be an available pool of armed guards, much less an available pool in the price range of a facility for the disabled.
Most likely they were hired to be a visible deterrent but not much else.
There are armed guards. At least in Los Angeles. But typically they guard high profile places like Jewelry Stores and the like. Though once I did see an armed guard standing in front of a grocery store which I thought was hilarious.
If the grocery store gets robbed regularly they might have armed guards. Its not like large grocery stores only have chump change in their tills either.
Every grocery store in Youngstown Ohio has a armed security guard. They get robbed all the time..
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
WrentheFaceless wrote:The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument
Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.
So, trampling on the Constitution to make you feel safer without actually being safer is a better option?
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Here's an idea. Everyone who wants to talk about gun laws, for and against, go start a new thread to talk about it. 'K?
I'll even start one for you if you want.
Ye, gods, the crisis isn't even over.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
 Co'tor Shas wrote:Here's an idea. Everyone who wants to talk about gun laws, for and against, go start a new thread to talk about it. 'K?
I'll even start one for you if you want.
Ye, gods, the crisis isn't even over.
But Obama said we should use tragedies like this to make political points.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
WrentheFaceless wrote:The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument
Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.
What laws do you believe would have prevented this incident?
1464
Post by: Breotan
Perhaps not history's greatest monster, but he did put out a statement while the situation was still unfolding in San Bernardino.
CBS News wrote:Speaking to CBS News moments after news broke of the shooting, Obama called for "common sense gun safety laws" and urged lawmakers to pass a law to prevent individuals on the "No Fly List" who are barred from boarding commercial flights from legally purchasing firearms.
You see, Ouze, our President apparently cannot grasp the concept of what civil rights actually mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
Let's start with the section "Controversy" and work our way down from there. In their lawsuit, the ACLU stated, "many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names."
Did you catch that? No way to know how they got there and no way to clear their names. Wow. I don't know about you but the idea of abridging a civil right based on a pre-generated list (criteria unknown) scares the hell out of me more than any terror incident.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
 MWHistorian wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument
Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.
So, trampling on the Constitution to make you feel safer without actually being safer is a better option?
Yknow 200 years later the meaning of the 2nd amendment is still up for debate on if it actually applies to unrestricted gun access or if its obsolete since we havent required a "well regulated militia" since the Revolutionary days.
But thats a different debate, though it doesnt seem you're interested in any debate about it since you're using the trump card "trampling my constitution" already.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument
Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.
What laws do you believe would have prevented this incident?
We'll never know, debate on what can be done wont ever be allowed since its taboo to even mention anything regarding guns apparently
Anyways, gun debate, off topic yada yada.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
MWHistorian wrote: WrentheFaceless wrote:The old "New laws wont work, bad guys dont follow them anyways" argument
Why have any laws then if the bad guys will just ignore them? They're just stifling muh freedoms.
So, trampling on the Constitution to make you feel safer without actually being safer is a better option?
To many people, usually left-wing, this seems the preferable solution, unfortunately.
You get it with the right-wing too, when they spout BS about making Islam illegal or rounding up Muslims, conveniently forgetting about our 1st Amendment and ignoring that such actions would do nothing to make them safer, probably quite the opposite.
And so it is with Second Amendment issues too, you get the folks that want to ignore the Second Amendment to gain some false notion of safety, when all it is really doing is hurting the rights of the innocent and law-abiding.
37231
Post by: d-usa
You pass the laws and then let the courts decide if it's constitutional. Simple stuff really.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
d-usa wrote:You pass the laws and then let the courts decide if it's constitutional. Simple stuff really.
If they can ever get a law to pass for constitutional review, it would be interesting to see
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Maybe the nuclear option is a bit overboard, but in the interests of moderation, I propose that we use drones. Why not? We minimize collateral damage in that case, and they're cheap.
Though, again, we have spent trillions on nuclear weapons and haven't used any of the damn things in 70 years.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Psienesis wrote:Though, again, we have spent trillions on nuclear weapons and haven't used any of the damn things in 70 years.
They've been used consistently and effectively their entire service life; as a deterrent.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
WrentheFaceless wrote: d-usa wrote:You pass the laws and then let the courts decide if it's constitutional. Simple stuff really.
If they can ever get a law to pass for constitutional review, it would be interesting to see
Where have you guys been? SCotUS has already affirmed our 2A rights in multiple cases. Check out Heller vs DC and McDonald v Chicago for the most recent ones.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.
Edit
Name of the disgruntled employee who left is
Masuk Si-ed. (just got mention) specualtion but the name is going out over the net
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Psienesis wrote:The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.
Its "Right to bear arms". Not "Right to bear only a particular type of arms as retroactively defined by such and such".
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Jihadin wrote:Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.
Police reports from the area are currently BOLO 3 white males.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Psienesis wrote: Jihadin wrote:Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.
Police reports from the area are currently BOLO 3 white males.
Name mention so far going over net is Masuk Sa- id ( SP)
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Grey Templar wrote: Psienesis wrote:The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.
Its "Right to bear arms". Not "Right to bear only a particular type of arms as retroactively defined by such and such".
And the only arms to bear when it was written were muskets, bows and arrows, melee weapons. The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Psienesis wrote: Jihadin wrote:Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.
Police reports from the area are currently BOLO 3 white males.
Muslims aren't a race, there are people of every ethnicity who are Muslim. Them being white doesn't really rule anything out. They could be Jihadis, they could be a trio of nutcases, they could really be anything at the moment.
91
Post by: Hordini
Psienesis wrote:The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Can we get ships with huge cannons on them with enough firepower to destroy other ships and bombard coastal cities and fortifications? The founding fathers obviously had those in mind as well, seeing as there were many ships with those capabilities in private hands at the time, and the Constitution even has guidelines for issuing Letters of Marque, allowing American civilian-owned ships with those capabilities to attack, capture, or destroy enemy ships.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Psienesis wrote:Maybe the nuclear option is a bit overboard, but in the interests of moderation, I propose that we use drones. Why not? We minimize collateral damage in that case, and they're cheap.
Though, again, we have spent trillions on nuclear weapons and haven't used any of the damn things in 70 years.
I think you're on the right track, maybe Russia can solve americas gun problems after they're done solving the ME problem america created.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Breotan wrote:
Perhaps not history's greatest monster, but he did put out a statement while the situation was still unfolding in San Bernardino.
CBS News wrote:Speaking to CBS News moments after news broke of the shooting, Obama called for "common sense gun safety laws" and urged lawmakers to pass a law to prevent individuals on the "No Fly List" who are barred from boarding commercial flights from legally purchasing firearms.
You see, Ouze, our President apparently cannot grasp the concept of what civil rights actually mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
Let's start with the section "Controversy" and work our way down from there. In their lawsuit, the ACLU stated, "many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names."
Did you catch that? No way to know how they got there and no way to clear their names. Wow. I don't know about you but the idea of abridging a civil right based on a pre-generated list (criteria unknown) scares the hell out of me more than any terror incident.
Yup, within less than 24 hours of the reports of the shooting the President of the United States used his bully pulpit to ask Congress to pass a law that strips US citizens of a constitutional right without due process.
We have gun crime because we have freedom of gun ownership. Any citizen who can pass a NICS check can buy a gun. Tens of millions of Americans own firearms including people who may decide in the future to commit crimes with their guns but we give people the benefit of the doubt because we believe people are innocent until proven guilty and our right to own firearms is protected by federal and state laws. This is going to remain true for the foreseeable future because the type of draconian restrictions some people advocate can't be done without rewriting the federal Constitution along with multiple state constitutions and rescinding a whole lot of federal, state and local laws.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
The way the constitution is worded we could ban all firearms and allow people to possess bear arms. As in, the arms of a bear. Cause only the word of the law, not the spirit, has any meaning in the court of law, amirite?
I hope you aren't be serious Psienesis.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Psienesis wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Psienesis wrote:The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.
Its "Right to bear arms". Not "Right to bear only a particular type of arms as retroactively defined by such and such".
And the only arms to bear when it was written were muskets, bows and arrows, melee weapons. The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Incorrect. Private citizens at the time often owned entire warships or even fleets of warships, often of better quality than many national governments could afford. A Warship wasn't cheap to operate either. The closest analog would be if someone today owned and operated their own private Nimitz class aircraft carrier or Nuclear Submarine, including the entire armament and fighting crew.
Any arguments that the founding fathers didn't mean any and all weapons or any kind that ever existed or ever will exist are laughably wrong.
91
Post by: Hordini
Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century.
Not true. For example.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Whew. Glad its 2015 and not 1776
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
 Hordini wrote: Psienesis wrote:The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Can we get ships with huge cannons on them with enough firepower to destroy other ships and bombard coastal cities and fortifications? The founding fathers obviously had those in mind as well, seeing as there were many ships with those capabilities in private hands at the time, and the Constitution even has guidelines for issuing Letters of Marque, allowing American civilian-owned ships with those capabilities to attack, capture, or destroy enemy ships.
Many of the cannons used in the revolutionary war were privately owned and merchants could lawfully arm their ships with cannon.
Cannons are definitely cool but they'd be awfully expensive to fire and a real pain to get to range if you didn't have enough private land to fire it on. There's already plenty of stuff you can own and build that can arguably have the same level of firepower as 18th century cannon.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You get some outstanding ideas on that in Delaware during Pumpkin Chunkin time
Edit
Doing a house to house search for third suspect
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Psienesis wrote:The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.
So only the precise things that existed when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written are protected?
47598
Post by: motyak
Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Jihadin wrote: Psienesis wrote: Jihadin wrote:Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.
Police reports from the area are currently BOLO 3 white males.
Name mention so far going over net is Masuk Sa- id ( SP)
Farooq Saeed is the name I've been hearing, which was already debunked as not-even-slightly-a-suspect.
Apparently 2 suspects now down (suspected KIA but can't confirm) 1 possibly outstanding.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Prestor Jon wrote: Hordini wrote: Psienesis wrote:The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Can we get ships with huge cannons on them with enough firepower to destroy other ships and bombard coastal cities and fortifications? The founding fathers obviously had those in mind as well, seeing as there were many ships with those capabilities in private hands at the time, and the Constitution even has guidelines for issuing Letters of Marque, allowing American civilian-owned ships with those capabilities to attack, capture, or destroy enemy ships.
Many of the cannons used in the revolutionary war were privately owned and merchants could lawfully arm their ships with cannon.
Cannons are definitely cool but they'd be awfully expensive to fire and a real pain to get to range if you didn't have enough private land to fire it on. There's already plenty of stuff you can own and build that can arguably have the same level of firepower as 18th century cannon.
Heck, it was common practice for actual military units in the standing army to actually be owned by the unit's commander and the services of the regiment were simply rented by the government(IE: they'd pay you X amount in a set period for each soldier you had ready to fight. The regiment itself was your private property and the soldiers in it your employees. It also was common for these officers to have a few fake soldiers in the regiment so they could pocket some extra cash)
1464
Post by: Breotan
Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which permits us to strip the 2nd Amendment away completely. Is that what you want?
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Psienesis wrote:The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.
So only the precise things that existed when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written are protected?
Some folks like to use that arguement, in which case freedom of the press does not extend to radio, tv, internet or modern printing techniques, meaning that these things are fair game for government control in their opinion.
Worrying, isn't it?
39550
Post by: Psienesis
We don't have a free press, and it's delusional to believe that we do.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Psienesis wrote:Which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which permits us to strip the 2nd Amendment away completely. Is that what you want?
What exactly are you trying to say?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
No, its just fine as it is.
Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
No it isn't.
Unless you mean "repeal the existing infringements upon it" in which case yes, absolutely.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Grey Templar wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
No, its just fine as it is.
Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.
so 355 mass shootings this year alone isn't a down side?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
sirlynchmob wrote: Grey Templar wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
No, its just fine as it is.
Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.
so 355 mass shootings this year alone isn't a down side?
Given that there is no evidence that they are caused by the 2nd amendment, nor would eliminating it do anything to prevent more, I would say no.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Psienesis wrote:Which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which permits us to strip the 2nd Amendment away completely. Is that what you want?
Actually yes, that is what I want. I want those who think it can happen and should happen to go that route rather than the gakky methods they try now. If you are so fething right, do it the right way.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Psienesis wrote:Which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which permits us to strip the 2nd Amendment away completely. Is that what you want?
Won't be happening anytime soon.
84157
Post by: DutchWinsAll
Wow, some people are for limiting the 2nd Amendment, and more aren't. Who'd have thunk it? But I will say being very Left-leaning myself, I am embarrassed by some, if not most anti-gunners.
Any updates on suspect names? Could be a giveaway.
Still the attack venue is just so weird. Islamic nutbags would go for something, I dunno, more spectacular? They tried to hit a soccer game in Paris, and the parking lot of any NFL game is a shooting range full of inebriated, unarmed fans. Throw some steel plate inside a cube van and you're untouchable for an hour or more at least.
This just seems so odd, unless there's more to the target we don't know about yet.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Grey Templar wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
No, its just fine as it is.
Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.
We are witnessing one of the downsides to having it be around right now, as we did yesterday, and over the last weekend.
The 2nd Amendment is in no way, shape, or form a safeguard against tyranny, because it doesn't permit you to own firearms that are in any way competitive with an actual military. All of the privately-held firearms in the country aren't worth the steel they're made from against, say, a tank. Or a stealth bomber. Or, hell, drones. Once upon a time? Sure, maybe, but that hasn't been the case for a century or more. The idea of a popular uprising from the American populace to overthrow a tyrannical government is the fodder of RPGs, dystopian fiction, and right-wing conspiracy theories. It will never happen in practice (even the Revolution required the assistance of an actual foreign military power to succeed).
If there is going to be an uprising? Better pray the actual military rises up with you, but history generally indicates that doesn't happen.
1464
Post by: Breotan
sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
Certainly a valid position to hold. All you need is 2/3 Congress to propose and vote "yea" on it and 3/4 State Legislatures to ratify it.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
True enough. If this was to cause deaths and not a specific target then there are lots of better targets, and last friday might have been a better time too.
All around it seems odd.
The specific event seems to say workplace violence.
Method seems to indicate a larger terrorist attack.
Location sort of fits the bill for an attack of opportunity, though there were almost certainly better targets.
The gear of attackers suggests a high level of organization, which contradicts the idea of it being workplace violence.
1464
Post by: Breotan
ABC News saying two suspects dead.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Grey Templar wrote:True enough. If this was to cause deaths and not a specific target then there are lots of better targets, and last friday might have been a better time too.
All around it seems odd.
The specific event seems to say workplace violence.
Method seems to indicate a larger terrorist attack.
Location sort of fits the bill for an attack of opportunity, though there were almost certainly better targets.
The gear of attackers suggests a high level of organization, which contradicts the idea of it being workplace violence.
the methods and gear really just suggest gamers who's played to much call of duty.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
sirlynchmob wrote: Grey Templar wrote:True enough. If this was to cause deaths and not a specific target then there are lots of better targets, and last friday might have been a better time too.
All around it seems odd.
The specific event seems to say workplace violence.
Method seems to indicate a larger terrorist attack.
Location sort of fits the bill for an attack of opportunity, though there were almost certainly better targets.
The gear of attackers suggests a high level of organization, which contradicts the idea of it being workplace violence.
the methods and gear really just suggest gamers who's played to much call of duty.
Video games will be the next inanimate object blamed if that's the case.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Psienesis wrote: Grey Templar wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
No, its just fine as it is.
Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.
We are witnessing one of the downsides to having it be around right now, as we did yesterday, and over the last weekend.
The 2nd Amendment is in no way, shape, or form a safeguard against tyranny, because it doesn't permit you to own firearms that are in any way competitive with an actual military. All of the privately-held firearms in the country aren't worth the steel they're made from against, say, a tank. Or a stealth bomber. Or, hell, drones. Once upon a time? Sure, maybe, but that hasn't been the case for a century or more. The idea of a popular uprising from the American populace to overthrow a tyrannical government is the fodder of RPGs, dystopian fiction, and right-wing conspiracy theories. It will never happen in practice (even the Revolution required the assistance of an actual foreign military power to succeed).
If there is going to be an uprising? Better pray the actual military rises up with you, but history generally indicates that doesn't happen.
Given that right now there are people holding off our military with nothing more than AKs, IEDs, and maybe the occasional Moletov Cocktail I'd say you are very wrong. Advanced military technology tends to have diminishing effectiveness when you aren't fighting a conventional war against another conventional military.
If you think those Jihadis are clever, I'd shudder to think what some truly pissed off Americans would be able to whip up if they needed to take on a hostile occupying military. It would not be pretty for anyone attempting to do this. Automatically Appended Next Post: sirlynchmob wrote: Grey Templar wrote:True enough. If this was to cause deaths and not a specific target then there are lots of better targets, and last friday might have been a better time too.
All around it seems odd.
The specific event seems to say workplace violence.
Method seems to indicate a larger terrorist attack.
Location sort of fits the bill for an attack of opportunity, though there were almost certainly better targets.
The gear of attackers suggests a high level of organization, which contradicts the idea of it being workplace violence.
the methods and gear really just suggest gamers who's played to much call of duty.
Doubt it. You'd need a bit of money to get this level of gear. Why buy an assault rifle and body armor to shoot some place up when you could spend $60 and get Fallout 4? Much more cathartic. 
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Breotan wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
Certainly a valid position to hold. All you need is 2/3 Congress to propose and vote "yea" on it and 3/4 State Legislatures to ratify it.
Even if the 2A was repealed, and that's not happening anytime soon if ever, you still have the majority of state constitutions that guarantee a right to own firearms not to mention all of the other laws, federal, state and local. It's not as if the 2A is the only thing that allows us to own firearms.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 motyak wrote:Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.
Did we miss this?
1464
Post by: Breotan
d-usa wrote: motyak wrote:Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.
Did we miss this?
Yep.  Returning to topic now.
No word on a third shooter.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
d-usa wrote: motyak wrote:Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.
Did we miss this?
I did. It was at the end of a page on a hot thread.
I'll cease discussion on the matter henceforth.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Alex C wrote: d-usa wrote: motyak wrote:Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.
Did we miss this?
I did. It was at the end of a page on a hot thread.
I'll cease discussion on the matter henceforth.
It did turn over to a new page pretty quickly after it was posted.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Grey Templar wrote:
Given that right now there are people holding off our military with nothing more than AKs, IEDs, and maybe the occasional Moletov Cocktail I'd say you are very wrong. Advanced military technology tends to have diminishing effectiveness when you aren't fighting a conventional war against another conventional military.
Look at you saying our military is useless when fighting groups like ISIS.
but against the american people the pro gun crowd is already at a disadvantage. In the back of their minds they've said it a dozen times, point a gun at a cop and you deserve to die. hence they never will.
Maybe this attack is the start of the revolution, let's grab the guns and go help them!!!! anyone? bueler? bueler?
sorry the revolution will never happen, so the 2nd is not needed as it's irrelevant.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I would expect the cops to hold out giving any identifying info for as long as they can, especially if they are worried the shooters/driver may have had others involved. Any info leaked warns the support effort... Automatically Appended Next Post: sirlynchmob wrote:
sorry the revolution will never happen, so the 2nd is not needed as it's irrelevant.
So use the constitutionally provided method to repeal it.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
CptJake wrote:
I would expect the cops to hold out giving any identifying info for as long as they can, especially if they are worried the shooters/driver may have had others involved. Any info leaked warns the support effort...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:
sorry the revolution will never happen, so the 2nd is not needed as it's irrelevant.
So use the constitutionally provided method to repeal it.
Any additional info released regarding what part of the local govt was renting the space? That might help discern the motive.
84157
Post by: DutchWinsAll
Alex C wrote:
Video games will be the next inanimate object blamed if that's the case.
Dude, where have you been? Everybody from Gore to the NRA has been trying to blame video games for almost 3 decades now.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
DutchWinsAll wrote: Alex C wrote:
Video games will be the next inanimate object blamed if that's the case.
Dude, where have you been? Everybody from Gore to the NRA has been trying to blame video games for almost 3 decades now.
I'm aware.
I'm talking about this specific incident.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
CNN says it was a man and a woman
84157
Post by: DutchWinsAll
Alex C wrote:DutchWinsAll wrote: Alex C wrote:
Video games will be the next inanimate object blamed if that's the case.
Dude, where have you been? Everybody from Gore to the NRA has been trying to blame video games for almost 3 decades now.
I'm aware.
I'm talking about this specific incident.
Ah, gotcha.
Personally I blame the hippity hop these kids are listening to nowadays. First time I ever heard Lil Wayne I wanted to shoot someone, because it was bad.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Update.
losangeles.cbslocal.com wrote:At a 5:35 p.m. news conference, officials said two suspects — one male and one female — were dead and another suspect was in custody.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Prestor Jon wrote: Any additional info released regarding what part of the local govt was renting the space? That might help discern the motive.
I read something about health workers maybe? (mental health services from Fox...)
221
Post by: Frazzled
More FBI coming in. CNN talking heads are saying this looks like terrorism (domestic or international). Checking house in Redding. That used to be country. Don't know about now.
Man and woman BGs wacked in SUV. This is not good.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
CptJake wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
Any additional info released regarding what part of the local govt was renting the space? That might help discern the motive.
I read something about health workers maybe? (mental health services from Fox...)
so like doctors & nurses?
uh oh right wingers, you guys might be on the hook for this one as well. Looks like some more people fed to much rhetoric on obamacare and took action.
or some liberals tired of all the people with mental health issues committing these mass shootings so they decided to cull their numbers.
either way it just looks like another day of americans killing americans.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Rick Serano wrote:The lead gunman connected to the mass shooting is believed to be a U.S. citizen, according to a federal law enforcement source speaking on condition of anonymity.
The source added that links to international terrorism are still on the table, however, as the assailants could have been encouraged by a foreign terror group.
6:09 update: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html
1464
Post by: Breotan
cnn wrote:The suspects -- a man and a woman -- had assault-style rifles and handguns, San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told reporters. They were dressed in what he called assault style clothing.
What the effing hell is ASSAULT STYLE clothing?
4402
Post by: CptJake
sirlynchmob wrote: CptJake wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
Any additional info released regarding what part of the local govt was renting the space? That might help discern the motive.
I read something about health workers maybe? (mental health services from Fox...)
so like doctors & nurses?
uh oh right wingers, you guys might be on the hook for this one as well. Looks like some more people fed to much rhetoric on obamacare and took action.
or some liberals tired of all the people with mental health issues committing these mass shootings so they decided to cull their numbers.
either way it just looks like another day of americans killing americans.
You really ought to give your US Hate a rest. Go make some cocoa and have a cookie.
221
Post by: Frazzled
What the effing hell is ASSAULT STYLE clothing?
mall ninja clothing. fatigues and webbing type gear. Distinctly different than hunter gear.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Breotan wrote:cnn wrote:The suspects -- a man and a woman -- had assault-style rifles and handguns, San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told reporters. They were dressed in what he called assault style clothing.
What the effing hell is ASSAULT STYLE clothing?
I picture this:
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Breotan wrote:cnn wrote:The suspects -- a man and a woman -- had assault-style rifles and handguns, San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told reporters. They were dressed in what he called assault style clothing.
What the effing hell is ASSAULT STYLE clothing?
The same as the "assault style rifles and handguns"; scary words designed to provoke an emotional response rather than having any actual meaning behind them.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
CptJake wrote:
You really ought to give your US Hate a rest. Go make some cocoa and have a cookie.
I'm having a nice glass of Merlot right now. I don't hate the US, I spent 20 years defending it. It's just sad that so many americans are sacrificed on the altar of the second amendment. where something so violent happens and no one knows if it's just americans being americans, or a foreign threat.
4402
Post by: CptJake
sirlynchmob wrote: CptJake wrote:
You really ought to give your US Hate a rest. Go make some cocoa and have a cookie.
I'm having a nice glass of Merlot right now. I don't hate the US, I spent 20 years defending it. It's just sad that so many americans are sacrificed on the altar of the second amendment. where something so violent happens and no one knows if it's just americans being americans, or a foreign threat.
Sorry, your posting in this topic and others is what I judge you buy, and the hatred is pretty fething clear. Give it a rest.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Frazzled wrote:
What the effing hell is ASSAULT STYLE clothing?
mall ninja clothing. fatigues and webbing type gear. Distinctly different than hunter gear.
TactiCOOL clothing.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Multiple sources from multiple agencies identified one of the three attackers at the resource center to NBC News as Syed Farook. No other information was available, but a knowledgeable source said another member of the trio is believed to be Farook's brother.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/authorities-respond-report-shooting-san-bernardino-california-n472976?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=d977013f95c388b72026f502c930aad4
On CNN too. Someone was asking for names...
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
CptJake wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: CptJake wrote:
You really ought to give your US Hate a rest. Go make some cocoa and have a cookie.
I'm having a nice glass of Merlot right now. I don't hate the US, I spent 20 years defending it. It's just sad that so many americans are sacrificed on the altar of the second amendment. where something so violent happens and no one knows if it's just americans being americans, or a foreign threat.
Sorry, your posting in this topic and others is what I judge you buy, and the hatred is pretty fething clear. Give it a rest.
it's all in your imagination, have a glass of wine and chill.
80999
Post by: jasper76
CNN is saying one of the suspects was at the holiday party and a dispute broke out, the suspect left the party and came back with people.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Since one of the shooters was named Syed Farook, I take we're assuming he was simply attempting to rob a nearby Chase bank?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Ouze wrote:Since one of the shooters was named Syed Farook, I take we're assuming he was simply attempting to rob a nearby Chase bank?
Was this confirmed? I heard that name elsewhere but could not find a reputable source?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Dreadclaw69 wrote:[quote=Ouze 672146 8295670 54b620345c961eab65296a6ee3a9954b.jpg I heard that name elsewhere but could not find a reputable source?
I saw it on NBC link CptJake posted. As it's NBC, no, I haven't seen it anywhere reputable 
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Ouze wrote:Since one of the shooters was named Syed Farook, I take we're assuming he was simply attempting to rob a nearby Chase bank?
Was this confirmed? I heard that name elsewhere but could not find a reputable source?
I just posted a link above...
84157
Post by: DutchWinsAll
Kinda what I had figured, but Allah bin Muslim would have been a bit easier for everybody. But hey, here's hoping it's not another case of Islamic terrorism! Because honestly, if it is, or when it happens basically, all sorts of rights are gonna get thrown out the door, again, for the rest of us normal folk.
Building a secret cabin in the Frank Church sounds so much better every day. Plus for whatever reason Idaho has a disproportionate amount of good-looking women from what I've seen.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Seems like the SBPD are being really stingy with the details.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Breotan wrote:Seems like the SBPD are being really stingy with the details.
I don't blame them, they are not sure they're done yet.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Breotan wrote:Seems like the SBPD are being really stingy with the details.
Unlike the media, they probably have to actually fact-check information before releasing it.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Breotan wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Breotan wrote: Psienesis wrote:The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.
Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.
Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.
right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.
Certainly a valid position to hold. All you need is 2/3 Congress to propose and vote "yea" on it and 3/4 State Legislatures to ratify it.
That will totally happen with a lot of the republicans in the pocket of the NRA Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: CptJake wrote:
You really ought to give your US Hate a rest. Go make some cocoa and have a cookie.
I'm having a nice glass of Merlot right now. I don't hate the US, I spent 20 years defending it. It's just sad that so many americans are sacrificed on the altar of the second amendment. where something so violent happens and no one knows if it's just americans being americans, or a foreign threat.
Sorry, your posting in this topic and others is what I judge you buy, and the hatred is pretty fething clear. Give it a rest.
Can "why do you hate america" be a bingo square?
35976
Post by: Freakazoitt
What's going on? Why such events became too frequent?
1464
Post by: Breotan
Here's some background on our one identified suspect.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/suspect-involved-calif-massacre-identified-article-1.2453471
New York Daily News wrote:EXCLUSIVE: Father of San Bernardino shooting suspect Syed Farook says son worked as health tech inspecting restaurants, hotels
ONE OF the suspects in Wednesday’s mass shooting in California was identified as a young father who worked for the county agency that had been holding a holiday party when the carnage unfolded.
Syed Farook, believed to be 30, was linked to the horrific slaughter that left 14 dead at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.
Farook’s father was shocked to learn of his son’s possible involvement in the attack.
“I haven’t heard anything,” the elder Syed Farook told the Daily News. “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”
The shell-shocked dad said his son worked as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels and graduated from La Sierra High School in 2003.
After police announced two suspects — a male and a female — were dead following a car chase and shootout with police, the FBI began a search of a nearby Redlands apartment linked to the younger Farook’s family.
Police said that there had been a dispute during the San Bernardino County Department of Health holiday event at the Inland Regional Center
The Los Angeles Times reported Farook bolted from the holiday bash after arguing with another attendee, and then returned a short time later with the other two shooters.
The elder Farook said he hasn’t seen his son in some time.
“He’s married and has a kid. We’re estranged because my wife got the divorce, and they are together,” the dad said. “She doesn’t want to see me.”
Longtime neighbors in Riverside were shocked to hear Farook could be involved with such a brutal attack.
“He was quiet but always polite,” Maria Gutierrez told The News. “Maybe two years ago he became more religious. He grew a beard and started to wear religious clothing. The long shirt that’s like a dress and the cap on his head.”
“I know he was very smart. He went to college early. He and his brother were always working in the garage on cars. Until like 11 p.m. at night. I think his mom was a nurse and his older brother was in the military.”
“If it’s him, I’m very surprised. Can you imagine? They were my neighbors for so many years. I never would guess.”
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
Lets not all say it was ISIS... We don't know about the others
1464
Post by: Breotan
No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
Breotan wrote:
No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.
Was there any political motive behind that bombing? Or did we shoot first and never got to ask later
1464
Post by: Breotan
 Tactical_Spam wrote: Breotan wrote:
No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.
Was there any political motive behind that bombing? Or did we shoot first and never got to ask later
Oh, Boston was still extremist Islamist terror. It just wasn't sponsored by Al Qaeda or anyone like that. It was basically those two Tsarnaev brothers who radicalized themselves and decided to do "defend Islam" from the USA. The surviving brother was tried, found guilty, and is sitting on death row waiting for appeals to run out.
I'm positing that this may be a similar situation where we have these three but they don't have any obvious connection to ISIL or anyone like that.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
Breotan wrote: Tactical_Spam wrote: Breotan wrote:
No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.
Was there any political motive behind that bombing? Or did we shoot first and never got to ask later
Oh, Boston was still extremist Islamist terror. It just wasn't sponsored by Al Qaeda or anyone like that. It was basically those two Tsarnaev brothers who radicalized themselves and decided to do "defend Islam" from the USA. The surviving brother was tried, found guilty, and is sitting on death row waiting for appeals to run out.
I'm positing that this may be a similar situation where we have these three but they don't have any obvious connection to ISIL or anyone like that.
We don't have any connection to anything really
1464
Post by: Breotan
Tactical_Spam wrote: Breotan wrote: Tactical_Spam wrote: Breotan wrote:
No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.
Was there any political motive behind that bombing? Or did we shoot first and never got to ask later
Oh, Boston was still extremist Islamist terror. It just wasn't sponsored by Al Qaeda or anyone like that. It was basically those two Tsarnaev brothers who radicalized themselves and decided to do "defend Islam" from the USA. The surviving brother was tried, found guilty, and is sitting on death row waiting for appeals to run out.
I'm positing that this may be a similar situation where we have these three but they don't have any obvious connection to ISIL or anyone like that.
We don't have any connection to anything really
We know two of them were muslim (and brothers like in Boston) and one had become "very religious" over the past two years according to the news article I posted above. It's the woman we don't know anything about. No terror organization has claimed responsibility although news reports say ISIL has been seen celebrating.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
I don't think ISIS would endorse a woman...
1464
Post by: Breotan
I dunno, either. Like I said, I'm just getting the same "feel" or "vibe" that these are home grown jihadies like Boston and not some sleeper cell or anything.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Breotan wrote:Perhaps not history's greatest monster, but he did put out a statement while the situation was still unfolding in San Bernardino.
(snip) I don't know about you but the idea of abridging a civil right based on a pre-generated list (criteria unknown) scares the hell out of me more than any terror incident.
Not trying to rekindle this, but 2 people responded to what I said earlier and I felt I should close that loop. All snark aside, the President was totally wrong to milk an incident in progress in the way that he did, especially when it was so wrongheaded on it's face - California already has the "common sense" measures he has frequently referenced. Also, using the phrase "common sense" is stupid because it presumes that the other side of the debate is unreasonable when that might not be so. Finally, I also agree that the way the no-fly list works is totally asinine, desperately needs to be reviewed, and in it's current form is almost certainly unconstitutional - it's a de facto punishment without recourse. That's a pretty bad place to start building from, so I'd oppose what was suggested just as strongly as you do.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
Good to see NY times have become donkey caves
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-candidates-call-prayers-calf-massacre-article-1.2453261?utm_content=bufferf42c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Prayers aren’t working.
White House hopefuls on the Democratic side of the aisle called for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino that left at least 14 dead.
But after yet another mass shooting in America, GOP presidential contenders were conspicuously silent on the issue of gun control.
Instead, the Republicans were preaching about prayer.
GUNMEN KILL 14 INSIDE SAN BERNARDINO CENTER FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
“Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and the first responders in San Bernardino who willingly go into harm’s way to save others,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted.
Edit: I am not sure why people jump at prayers so much. Baffles me that the prayers of peace from the Repubs are getting booed over the political agenda of the far left Dems
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
Tactical_Spam wrote:Good to see NY times have become donkey caves
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-candidates-call-prayers-calf-massacre-article-1.2453261?utm_content=bufferf42c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Prayers aren’t working.
White House hopefuls on the Democratic side of the aisle called for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino that left at least 14 dead.
But after yet another mass shooting in America, GOP presidential contenders were conspicuously silent on the issue of gun control.
Instead, the Republicans were preaching about prayer.
GUNMEN KILL 14 INSIDE SAN BERNARDINO CENTER FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
“Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and the first responders in San Bernardino who willingly go into harm’s way to save others,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted.
Edit: I am not sure why people jump at prayers so much. Baffles me that the prayers of peace from the Repubs are getting booed over the political agenda of the far left Dems
Because it's grotesque to mouth platitudes when you don't care to address the causes of violence.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.
Same argument. Same BS.
Edit: I would also accuse the Dems of mouthing platitudes because they always say "We need more gun control" and never do 
12313
Post by: Ouze
 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:Because it's grotesque to mouth platitudes when you don't care to address the causes of violence.
Or, as an author once so eloquently put it; "Pray in one hand and poop in the other, and see which one fills up first."
Shrugging helplessly and impotently is not an inspirational leadership trait.
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
Tactical_Spam wrote:Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.
Same argument. Same BS.
Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.
(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Tactical_Spam wrote:Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.
Same argument. Same BS.
Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.
(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)
Feel free to notice both parties don't get anything done, ever. Real tired of political games.
Edit: I also found this picture
Don't attach nonwargaming images to Dakka, You need to use offsite hosting if you wish to share any such images.
Reds8n
68844
Post by: HiveFleetPlastic
Tactical_Spam wrote: HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Tactical_Spam wrote:Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.
Same argument. Same BS.
Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.
(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)
Feel free to notice both parties don't get anything done, ever. Real tired of political games.
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.
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Tactical_Spam wrote: HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Tactical_Spam wrote:Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.
Same argument. Same BS.
Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.
(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)
Feel free to notice both parties don't get anything done, ever. Real tired of political games.
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.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Neither party is capable of passing any law that is "sensible." Both are stupid in this area by a long shot.
Taking away guns won't help
Saying we need Psyche evals but not providing them is equally unhelpful
American politics is like a fething preschool: Neither party can agree on who gets to play with the "toy" and then it gets taken away and they both throw tantrums.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
So the consensus is that nothing can be done about these and any future shootings and the tree of liberty now requires constant watering of blood from these shootings that are now inevitable and unpreventable?
I refuse to belive that nothing can be done. But what do i know.
How did the 2nd amendment become the most sacred one anyways?
12313
Post by: Ouze
Intense lobbying over decades.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
Lobbying, as said. Not lobbying by those law-abiding citizens that want guns, mind you. Lobbying costs big money. Gun manufacturers (who sneakily fund the NRA too) worried about their own right to sell guns lobby for the 2nd since they can't sell if you can't buy.
But that's a bit beside the point. What isn't quite as beside the point is the ease of getting guns in societies where they are common. The Paris shooters had to make a lot of preparations in order to secure weapons for themself - most criminals that are likely to have guns would prefer small easily hidden things like handguns, and if you want something bigger you steal either a hunting rifle or some military hardware. A guy in the US who wants a gun can buy a lot of stuff legally and there's also a lot of stolen/illegal guns floating around. IIRC the flow of illegal guns is actually from the US to Mexico, not the other way around...
10920
Post by: Goliath
Tactical_Spam wrote: HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Tactical_Spam wrote:Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.
Same argument. Same BS.
Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.
(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)
Feel free to notice both parties don't get anything done, ever. Real tired of political games.
Edit: I also found this picture
Don't attach nonwargaming images to Dakka, You need to use offsite hosting if you wish to share any such images.
Reds8n
I agree with the photo you posted (before it was removed). It was a good day when they repealed every single law because criminals will just ignore them anyway.
4402
Post by: CptJake
And yet DaIsh recruits females...
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
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?
WrentheFaceless wrote:So the consensus is that nothing can be done about these and any future shootings and the tree of liberty now requires constant watering of blood from these shootings that are now inevitable and unpreventable?
I refuse to belive that nothing can be done. But what do i know.
What laws do you feel would have prevented this?
They are all sacred. But we don't hear anyone looking to issue permits for the right to free speech.
4402
Post by: CptJake
It seems Farook met his wife Malik on line and traveled to Saudi to meet her, came back married. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-mass-shooting-profile/index.html Also reading the Feds are dismissing an argument at the event as a cause, and don't think there was an argument. Automatically Appended Next Post: Breotan wrote:
No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.
I don't think the target is a mystery. He was familiar with the people and event, knew it would be a soft target.
Local bad guys, probably self radicalized (though the trip to Saudi may turn up different evidence) chose a local target.
221
Post by: Frazzled
WrentheFaceless wrote:So the consensus is that nothing can be done about these and any future shootings and the tree of liberty now requires constant watering of blood from these shootings that are now inevitable and unpreventable?
I refuse to belive that nothing can be done. But what do i know.
How did the 2nd amendment become the most sacred one anyways?
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. All the "common sense" laws you people bark about are already in place and then some. Some of those laws I am ok with on a nationwide basis. But if you want to confiscate guns you need a Constitutional convention. Be careful though, other rights might be adjusted too.
Some laws can be enacted, but they should focus on fixing the background check system: forcing complete reporting on mental health issues and charged crimes. Additionally if charged with certain crimes laws should be in place that confiscate firearms until those charges are resolved. Third the ATF should actually freaking prosecute straw byuers and not throw their hands up and scratch their butts while eating donuts.
More importantly, we need a strategic level review of the mental health system here. Many of these nutjobs were true nutjobs and had been spotted by many people.
Finally we need to realize we are in period of time of domestic terrorism. Mass attacks related to that may increase in frequency, either from other directed or self directed terrorism(I'd bet good money this is that). The US has been through far far worse and come through the other side.
80999
Post by: jasper76
The male suspect apparently was at the party, got in a tiff, left, and came back with his wife and perhaps a third person/
I'm not saying this wasn't religiously motivated, but if this were a methodically planned act of political terrorism, why come to the party in the first place? Doesn't seem to add up.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 jasper76 wrote:The male suspect apparently was at the party, got in a tiff, left, and came back.
I'm not saying this wasn't religiously motivated, but if this were political terrorism, why come to the party in the first place? Doesn't seem to add up.
It had to have been planned to have the gear and weaponry and wife (or others waiting). Remember the racist shooter sat through a whole church session before standing up and starting shooting.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Frazzled wrote: jasper76 wrote:The male suspect apparently was at the party, got in a tiff, left, and came back.
I'm not saying this wasn't religiously motivated, but if this were political terrorism, why come to the party in the first place? Doesn't seem to add up.
It had to have been planned to have the gear and weaponry and wife (or others waiting). Remember the racist shooter sat through a whole church session before standing up and starting shooting.
Sure. I guess what I'm a bit confused over is if this was a planned attack, why come unarmed, leave, and then come back armed? Maybe to scope the place out, I guess...
4402
Post by: CptJake
jasper76 wrote:The male suspect apparently was at the party, got in a tiff, left, and came back with his wife and perhaps a third person/
I'm not saying this wasn't religiously motivated, but if this were a methodically planned act of political terrorism, why come to the party in the first place? Doesn't seem to add up.
Police dispute the 'tiff' theory. One FBI guy said Farook was casing the event. There was a lot of planning involved (you don't leave in a tiff and go load magazines and make pipe bombs and return a short while later).
80999
Post by: jasper76
From CNN: "Farook, an American citizen, was an environmental health specialist with the San Bernardino County health department, which was hosting the holiday party at Inland Regional."
Methodical planning or no, the fact that he was an employee makes me lean toward disgruntled employee vs. political terrorist. Of course, it could be a combination of both. Guess its best to just wait for the facts to come in.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Lean how you want. Once the Feds go through his hard drives we'll know more. Interesting fact: Mass shootings with more than one shooter are VERY rare in the US. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shootings-multiple-suspects-rare/index.html Automatically Appended Next Post: Shooters had go-pro cameras on their gear. That is an indicator of more than 'disgruntled worker'.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
CptJake wrote:Shooters had go-pro cameras on their gear.
That is an indicator of more than 'disgruntled worker'.
Seriously? What were they planning on doing with the footage after?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadclaw69 wrote: CptJake wrote:Shooters had go-pro cameras on their gear.
That is an indicator of more than 'disgruntled worker'.
Seriously? What were they planning on doing with the footage after?
Just guessing, but typically it gets posted and used as recruiting/inspirational material.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
CptJake wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: CptJake wrote:Shooters had go-pro cameras on their gear.
That is an indicator of more than 'disgruntled worker'.
Seriously? What were they planning on doing with the footage after?
Just guessing, but typically it gets posted and used as recruiting/inspirational material.
That would be atypical for workplace violence
4402
Post by: CptJake
There is nothing about this typical of 'work place violence'.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Why I have a way different feel for this incident compare to others. This was not work place violence. This was well planned, well geared, and well executed. Wonder who radicalized who
241
Post by: Ahtman
I agree that we don't want to jump there quite yet but all signs are pointing to radicalization. I didn't see it above but an article on Yahoo said that Syed Rizfan Fook went to Saudi Arabia, came back with a wife (who killed with him), grew out a beard, and then shot everyone up a few months later. If it were just a disgruntled worker I can't imagine bringing in a wife or third party.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Jihadin wrote:Why I have a way different feel for this incident compare to others. This was not work place violence. This was well planned, well geared, and well executed. Wonder who radicalized who
Just because the attack was well planned, geared, and executed does not exclude the possibility of workplace violence, whether religious radicalization was a factor or not. The guy had worked with the people at the party for 5 years...that's a pretty significant piece of information.
33125
Post by: Seaward
I actually don't think it was all that well executed. Not to be grisly, but three shooters with rifles and fourteen deaths suggests either Olympic-class armed shooter response times by the poor people at the event, or really terribly-executed terrorism by the terrorists. Which, good, 'cause feth 'em.
4402
Post by: CptJake
jasper76 wrote: Jihadin wrote:Why I have a way different feel for this incident compare to others. This was not work place violence. This was well planned, well geared, and well executed. Wonder who radicalized who
Just because the attack was well planned, geared, and executed does not exclude the possibility of workplace violence, whether religious radicalization was a factor or not. The guy had worked with the people at the party for 5 years...that's a pretty significant piece of information.
Other pieces of significant info:
Trip to Saudi.
Had recently become 'more religious'
Grew out beard
Had go pro cameras
Had prepped IEDs (cops called the house an IED facility as a matter of fact)
Had lots of extra ammo
I suspect 'work place violence' is not gonna end up being the reason. I do think he chose the target based on what he was familiar with.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
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.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 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?
98168
Post by: Tactical_Spam
CptJake wrote: jasper76 wrote: Jihadin wrote:Why I have a way different feel for this incident compare to others. This was not work place violence. This was well planned, well geared, and well executed. Wonder who radicalized who
Just because the attack was well planned, geared, and executed does not exclude the possibility of workplace violence, whether religious radicalization was a factor or not. The guy had worked with the people at the party for 5 years...that's a pretty significant piece of information.
Other pieces of significant info:
Trip to Saudi.
Had recently become 'more religious'
Grew out beard
Had go pro cameras
Had prepped IEDs (cops called the house an IED facility as a matter of fact)
Had lots of extra ammo
I suspect 'work place violence' is not gonna end up being the reason. I do think he chose the target based on what he was familiar with.
Is that how we find ISIS terrorists now?
80999
Post by: jasper76
None of those factors rule out workplace violence either. Nor do they rule out political terrorism. These two motives aren't mutually exclusive, is what I'm trying to say.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Laugh if you want, it is an indicator of radicalization. On it is own it is a meaningless tidbit. Compiled with other info...
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
I'm still not sure it's Islamic, no phrases, no flags, weird target, ect. It just doesn't feel right. Then again, what do I know?
4402
Post by: CptJake
jasper76 wrote:None of those factors rule out workplace violence either. Nor do they rule out political terrorism. These two motives aren't mutually exclusive, is what I'm trying to say.
Can you show a single case of workplace violence in the US where those other factors (or similar) were present?
Police have already said it did not look like his job was in danger, and don;t think 'workplace violence' is the issue.
Why do you disagree with them?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Though I would be hesitant to mark a "trip to Saudi" as a sign of radicalization in Muslims, since it's a requirement for all Muslims who can afford it and are well enough to travel, the other stuff is pretty typical of a self radicalized salafist.
It would not surprise me if Islamic extremism played some role.
And I reckon it's fine to say that when some evidence like this comes up, just like I reckon it's fine to say that guy that shot up the planned parenthood clinic was probably an extremist Christian terrorist.
80999
Post by: jasper76
CptJake wrote: jasper76 wrote:None of those factors rule out workplace violence either. Nor do they rule out political terrorism. These two motives aren't mutually exclusive, is what I'm trying to say.
Can you show a single case of workplace violence in the US where those other factors (or similar) were present?
Police have already said it did not look like his job was in danger, and don;t think 'workplace violence' is the issue.
Why do you disagree with them?
Source? One's job being in danger is not the only possible motive for workplace violence. The imagination can contoct many other possible motives for workplace violence.
And as I've been tryeing to say, workplace violence and religious fanaticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
They have/had a six month old child who they left with grand parents that day
This was not a spur of a moment decision.
4402
Post by: CptJake
jasper76 wrote: CptJake wrote: jasper76 wrote:None of those factors rule out workplace violence either. Nor do they rule out political terrorism. These two motives aren't mutually exclusive, is what I'm trying to say.
Can you show a single case of workplace violence in the US where those other factors (or similar) were present?
Police have already said it did not look like his job was in danger, and don;t think 'workplace violence' is the issue.
Why do you disagree with them?
Source? One's job being in danger is not the only possible motive for workplace violence. The imagination can contoct many other possible motives for workplace violence.
And as I've been tryeing to say, workplace violence and religious fanaticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Can you show a single case of workplace violence in the US where those other factors (or similar) were present?
And I'll also add in. show one this violent (or even close) that did not end in a perp suicide on site.
This just does not have 'workplace violence' indicators. It DOES have 'terror attack' indicators. When the form that starts to appear is pretty fething duck like, you can start to assume duck. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:They have/had a six month old child who they left with grand parents that day
This was not a spur of a moment decision.
They also told grandma they were going to a Dr appointment when they dropped off the kid.
221
Post by: Frazzled
CptJake wrote: 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.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Agreed, and also agreed in the case of the probable Christian terrorist who carried out the shooting in the planned parenthood clinic.
80999
Post by: jasper76
CptJake wrote: jasper76 wrote: CptJake wrote: jasper76 wrote:None of those factors rule out workplace violence either. Nor do they rule out political terrorism. These two motives aren't mutually exclusive, is what I'm trying to say.
Can you show a single case of workplace violence in the US where those other factors (or similar) were present?
Police have already said it did not look like his job was in danger, and don;t think 'workplace violence' is the issue.
Why do you disagree with them?
Source? One's job being in danger is not the only possible motive for workplace violence. The imagination can contoct many other possible motives for workplace violence.
And as I've been tryeing to say, workplace violence and religious fanaticism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Can you show a single case of workplace violence in the US where those other factors (or similar) were present?
And I'll also add in. show one this violent (or even close) that did not end in a perp suicide on site.
This just does not have 'workplace violence' indicators. It DOES have 'terror attack' indicators. When the form that starts to appear is pretty fething duck like, you can start to assume duck.
I'll just repeat myself and drop the issue. Workplace violence and domestic terrorism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Perhaps you're right and the whole thing was 100% due to religion or politics, and the target was purely one of opportunity. But the choice of targets could have been personal in that he had known the people he was going after for years, which does not strike me as insignificant
I'm not pretending to understand the motive, nor am I promoting any kind of politics.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Frazzled wrote: CptJake wrote: 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.
Across the state boarder, probably. Limitations on guns are extremely hard to effectively police from state to state. Most state bans or limitations on guns are basically feel-good measures, that can't have an effect.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 Da Boss wrote:Agreed, and also agreed in the case of the probable Christian terrorist who carried out the shooting in the planned parenthood clinic.
Believe there was a clinic in the same building. Was mention yesterday.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Frazzled wrote: CptJake wrote: 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.
Were they all Cali residents? They could have gone through the extra hassle to buy them in Cali since it seems like they'd have no trouble passing a NICS check. The biggest obstacle in Cali is buying a California compliant gun and then buying parts/accesories to change it back to its intended configuration (illegal in Cali of course but clearly that wouldn't have stopped these people). If any of them still had ID from living somewhere else they could have bought them out of state. For example anyone who lives in a state neighboring Nevada can buy a long gun there but California is an exception to that law so it wouldn't apply in this case if all 3 had Cali IDs.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
CptJake wrote:
And I'll also add in. show one this violent (or even close) that did not end in a perp suicide on site.
suicide by cop is a thing as well. 2 of them are dead.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I suspect that now the two principal actors are dead, we will never know for sure the reason for the attack.
The involvement of the wife and the other guy rules out any purely personal motive. The use of AK47s and military style clothing argues for preparation.
I think there has to be some kind of radical motive involved. He picked the county health department to attack because he knew they would be all collected together in one place, possibly drunk (Christmas party) and he may have held some long term grudges against some of them.
|
|
