Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

and like most mass shootings, the guns were bought legally.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-guns-california-shooting-bought-legally-35549913

Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States — two of them by someone who's now under investigation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The involvement of the wife and the other guy rules out any purely personal motive.

The story that seems to be emerging is that there was no third shooter, just the husband and wife.

 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.

Yep

sirlynchmob wrote:
and like most mass shootings, the guns were bought legally.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-guns-california-shooting-bought-legally-35549913

Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States — two of them by someone who's now under investigation.

Did you just deliberately take a quote out of context to misconstrue the information to be supportive of your personal beliefs that oppose the current state of legal gun ownership in the US? Because it sure looks like you did.

Here's what the ATF actually said:

Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States — two of them by someone who's now under investigation.

Meredith Davis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives says investigators are now working to make a connection to the last legal purchaser.

She says all four guns were bought four years ago but she's not saying whether they were purchased out of state or how and when they got into the hands of the two shooters.

Davis says California requires paperwork when guns change hands privately but many other states don't.

She also says the rifles involved were .223-caliber

The guns were legally purchased 4 years ago by somebody who is currently under investigation, which means that person is still alive so unless it's the third shooter (and one would think the authorities would have included that information if it was) the person who last purchased the guns is not one of the shooters. Therefore, it now appears that a fourth person lawfully purchased the guns 4 years ago and then sold them to somebody else, possibly/probably one of the shooters, or another person who then sold the guns to the shooters, even though the possession of a standard configuration AR-15 or .223 caliber AK type rifle is illegal in California. This makes it likely that the rifles used in the shooting were purchased in a private transfer that was in violation of California state laws.

If the rifles had been purchased by the shooters themselves in a legal manner in the state of California then the licensed dealer who sold them the rifles would have the paperwork on record and the shooters would be shown as the last purchaser(s) on record. Since that scenario has been officially debunked by the ATF it's clear that the shooters didn't lawfully purchase the guns in California.

So illegally purchased guns? Then why all the blah blah REGULATE!

I confused. This is not unusual state for me though.

 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.

Its not all that difficult to get a rifle in California, there are just certain features that come on rifles that make them have assault weapon restrictions. I just bought a "feature-less" rifle a couple months ago. Going off memory, in order to be "feature-less" (and thus by-pass all of the dumb assault weapon restrictions, ie. 10 round magazine limit and the magazine lock aka bullet button) it can't have an adjustable stock, pistol grip, front vertical grip or any sort of flash supressors.

But there is no law preventing me from having those accessories laying around. Putting them on the rifle at anytime would make it illegal, but as you can see making an "assault weapon" isn't really hard, just a few turns of a screwdriver.

Interesting. The ATF is being mum on which state/location the ARs were first sold.

 Frazzled wrote:
So illegally purchased guns? Then why all the blah blah REGULATE!

I confused. This is not unusual state for me though.

Because the reason we have more gun crime in the US is because we have more freedom to own guns. Every time a particularly heinous crime is committed with guns some people want to restrict or remove those freedoms. Since the only thing the govt can do is pass more laws some politicians call for more laws to pander to the portion of the electorate that wants them. Since our freedom to own guns has strong constitutional and legal protections and the restriction of those protected rights is a divisive issue with a support in the electorate to maintain or expand those freedoms very few laws that increase restrictions on gun ownership get passed. Since we're still free to own guns there is still gun crime so the game of political football with gun rights continues.

Freedom can be scary and has a lot of associated costs but freedom is also incredibly valuable and worthwhile.

Thats not the only thing government can do. Gov can enforce the existing laws and abide by them. There'snothing keeping states from doing better at reporting items to the national database. nothing keeping the ATF from really pursuing straw purchasers, nothing from sealing the border and stopping illegal drugs and thus the drug fueled gun violence.

Well, cost. Without acquite funding they can't do any of that. So it all depends on how much money they are given.

Is the current US population psychologically stable enough to make the Second Amendment worth protecting?

I know the Second Amendment is a sacred cow to many, but I think it's a fair question. Incidentally, I am a gun owner, and I support my own right to continue to own a gun. But any John Doe with no record....not so sure. I only trust myself with guns really, Second Amendment not withstanding.

 jasper76 wrote:
Is the current US population psychologically stable enough to make the Second Amendment worth protecting?

I know the Second Amendment is a sacred cow to many, but I think it's a fair question. Incidentally, I am a gun owner, and I support my own right to continue to own a gun. But any John Doe with no record....not so sure. I only trust myself with guns really, Second Amendment not withstanding.

Gun crime was less when you could order them in a Sears catalog. Lose the right, lose it forever.
Just looking at Donald trump and the Kardashians confirms one could make a better argument that the First needs to go too.

 jasper76 wrote:
Is the current US population psychologically stable enough to make the Second Amendment worth protecting?

I know the Second Amendment is a sacred cow to many, but I think it's a fair question. Incidentally, I am a gun owner, and I support my own right to continue to own a gun. But any John Doe with no record....not so sure. I only trust myself with guns really, Second Amendment not withstanding.

"The US can't have guns because I only trust myself with them..."

Wonderful logic

I didn't say the US shouldn't have guns. I said I don't trust anyone with guns but myself. I certainly don't trust someone to have a gun simply because they aren't in any "problem child" databases.

And I do questiton whether the ownership of firearms should be an enshrined right. Although I'm not under any delusions that the Second Amendment would ever be repealed in the current political climate.

So a gaggle folks in my gaming group have already flooded facebook with numerous posts about how this is a false flag, a goverment plot to take their toys away, and to push us into a police state.

On a lighter note I finished all my christmas shopping for them by buying a few boxes of tinfoil.

The Washington Post is saying that ATF has stated that 2 of the recovered weapons were legally purchased by one of the suspects, and two of the weapons were traced to an another person, also purchased legally.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not the only thing government can do. Gov can enforce the existing laws and abide by them. There'snothing keeping states from doing better at reporting items to the national database. nothing keeping the ATF from really pursuing straw purchasers, nothing from sealing the border and stopping illegal drugs and thus the drug fueled gun violence.

Straw purchasers are very difficult to prosecute except in very obvious cases, and in those obvious cases it would be best if the FFL stopped the purchase. If Frazzled buys a gun at a local store in the morning and then gives/sells that same gun to a coworker that afternoon how is the ATF supposed to be aware of that second transaction in the first place in order to initiate a prosecution?

There are already a plethora of laws and restriction on gun ownership and purchasing. The government could do a better job of enforcing them, the government has room for improvement in pretty much everything it does. Better budget allocations, better training and enforcement techniques and a better understanding of the laws would all be helpful. But politicians can't hold a press conference to say that they're going to try to get federal agencies to have higher job performance, that doesn't help election campaigns or fund raising.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I didn't say the US shouldn't have guns. I said I don't trust anyone with guns but myself. I certainly don't trust someone to have a gun simply because they aren't in any "problem child" databases.

And I do questiton whether the ownership of firearms should be an enshrined right. Although I'm not under any delusions that the Second Amendment would ever be repealed in the current political climate.

People who haven't done anything wrong get the benefit of the doubt. That's always been true and it extends to just about everything we regulate.

We don't give people benefit of the doubt on any number of issues. Easiest example is drivers licenses.

And even if that were true, when it comes to guns, the fact they we do give people the benefit of the doubt is sepaarate from the question of whether we should.

"We've always done things this way" is hardly ever a good answer to "should we" type questions.

 jasper76 wrote:
We don't give people benefit of the doubt on any number of issues. Easiest example is drivers licenses.

And even if that were true, when it comes to guns, the fact they we do give people the benefit of the doubt is sepaarate from the question of whether we should.

"We've always done things this way" is hardly ever a good answer to "should we" type questions.

Once you get a driver's license you can buy any car you want, even if its one you can't drive well. I know plenty of people who got very nice cars as presents when they turned 17 and got a license and most of them them wrecked those cars to varying degrees shortly thereafter. There is nothing stopping somebody with a DL from driving poorly or driving under the influence. We let everybody with a license drive until such time as they get in too many accidents or commit crimes like DUIs and hit and runs.

You are advocating that we pre-emptively prevent people from exercising a right (and even if it wasn't a right it's still a perfectly legal transaction) based solely on the hypothetical possibility that they might do something bad in the future. There is no precedent for that, our judicial system doesn't allow it to be done. That's why we don't do it, not because it's tradition but because doing what you're suggesting is illegal in our system. We can't punish people for something they haven't done but might do in the future, maybe.

San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
We don't give people benefit of the doubt on any number of issues. Easiest example is drivers licenses.

And even if that were true, when it comes to guns, the fact they we do give people the benefit of the doubt is sepaarate from the question of whether we should.

"We've always done things this way" is hardly ever a good answer to "should we" type questions.

Once you get a driver's license you can buy any car you want, even if its one you can't drive well. I know plenty of people who got very nice cars as presents when they turned 17 and got a license and most of them them wrecked those cars to varying degrees shortly thereafter. There is nothing stopping somebody with a DL from driving poorly or driving under the influence. We let everybody with a license drive until such time as they get in too many accidents or commit crimes like DUIs and hit and runs.

You are advocating that we pre-emptively prevent people from exercising a right (and even if it wasn't a right it's still a perfectly legal transaction) based solely on the hypothetical possibility that they might do something bad in the future. There is no precedent for that, our judicial system doesn't allow it to be done. That's why we don't do it, not because it's tradition but because doing what you're suggesting is illegal in our system. We can't punish people for something they haven't done but might do in the future, maybe.

But you do at least have to take that test to get the drivers license. You dint just show up, get a background check done, and walk away with the license.

I'm not advocating anything, by the way. I am not trying to keep people from exercising their rights nor begrudging people that do so (I am one of them), I am questioning whether the right should continue to exist in the first place.

What other rights are you willing to give up?

Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?

All that's required to buy a car is money. The driver's licence is to prove you have passed the training course to operate one safely. It allows you to drive any car you are qualified for. You also need insurance, of course.

 CptJake wrote:
What other rights are you willing to give up?

Are you willing to see force used to take these rights away from folks who currently enjoy them?

I'd have to think about the first quetion more, but nothing comes to mind.

Yes, if the United States came together and mutually decided to repeal the Second Amendment, then people who owned guns illegally and refused to give them up would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding might apply. This is all a fantasy though, because the 2A in all likelihood will never be repealed, not in my lifetime anyway.

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
We don't give people benefit of the doubt on any number of issues. Easiest example is drivers licenses.

And even if that were true, when it comes to guns, the fact they we do give people the benefit of the doubt is sepaarate from the question of whether we should.

"We've always done things this way" is hardly ever a good answer to "should we" type questions.

Once you get a driver's license you can buy any car you want, even if its one you can't drive well. I know plenty of people who got very nice cars as presents when they turned 17 and got a license and most of them them wrecked those cars to varying degrees shortly thereafter. There is nothing stopping somebody with a DL from driving poorly or driving under the influence. We let everybody with a license drive until such time as they get in too many accidents or commit crimes like DUIs and hit and runs.

You are advocating that we pre-emptively prevent people from exercising a right (and even if it wasn't a right it's still a perfectly legal transaction) based solely on the hypothetical possibility that they might do something bad in the future. There is no precedent for that, our judicial system doesn't allow it to be done. That's why we don't do it, not because it's tradition but because doing what you're suggesting is illegal in our system. We can't punish people for something they haven't done but might do in the future, maybe.

But you do at least have to take that test to get the drivers license. You dint just show up, get a background check done, and walk away with the license.

I'm not advocating anything, by the way. I am not trying to keep people from exercising their rights nor begrudging people that do so (I am one of them), I am questioning whether the right should continue to exist in the first place.

The DL test is just basic operations and being able to read road signs. Even if we required such a thing for gun ownership being able to clean, load and fire a gun is a meaningless test in terms of determining if the the person is going to go on to commit crimes with a gun.

All the people with DLs who have committed crimes like hit and runs, DUIs, negligent accidents, etc. they all passed the DL exam. The exam doesn't prevent them from committing those crimes in any way, shape or form.

Not sure where you're from, but here the driver's test is something you do with a person in the car with you who instructs you to do different things to judge your ability.

How much safer would the roads be if no-one had to be licensed to drive?

@ Prestor Jon: yes, I agree that a driver's license-type exam would not be a suitable prerequisite to gun ownership.

On second thought, maybe I don't. Probably alot of accidents could be avoided if people were required to display competence with firearms prior to purchase. But your correct that his type of exam would not eliminate gun crimes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All that's required to buy a car is money. The driver's licence is to prove you have passed the training course to operate one safely. It allows you to drive any car you are qualified for. You also need insurance, of course.

Only to drive on public roads. You can buy a car without a having DL, not buy any insurance and drive the car all around your property every day with no legal problems. You can also own cars that aren't legal to be driven on public roads. You can also make all kinds of modifications to your car even if doing so makes the car illegal to drive on public roads. Cars really aren't regulated very heavily from a commerce and ownership standpoint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-other-mass-shooting-that-happened-today-in-the-united-states/

Unsure if mentioned, but San Bernardino was not the only mass shooting yesterday.

Sad times