Active shooter, reports of multiple victims in San Bernardino, Calif.

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.

**lonestarr777**

A tank can be an amazing psychological weapon in addition to being a fearsome tool of warfare in it's own right. The same can be said for drones.

I can imagine encountering a tank or hearing the rush of a drone circling overhead can and would be rather demoralizing to a force that largely lacks in anti-armor weaponry.

Which would be a large majority of american rebels at an early stage of a civil war.

Perhaps an Apache would be a more appropriate hunter?

**Nostromodamus**

jasper76 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.

If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.

So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?

A shooting.

**Ashiraya**

Grey Templar wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?

The entire line of thinking is completely absurd. Is it worth it to risk your own life and the lives of your family and friends just to keep a hobby?

'Sorry son, but your life is worth risking if it means I get to keep my AK.'

What right do they come for next? Freedom of speech? Nobody needs that, far more people are abusing it to hurt people's feelings than ever got hurt because of guns. Lets restrict that one too. And that Freedom of Religion thing, can't have the "bad religions" be allowed to remain. They hurt too many people. No freedom of the press or assembly either, they might incite riots or gather to discuss how to hurt people.

Slippery slopes are fun?

A more safe bet seems to be: rebel when something important is taken away, don't rebel just in case it will be later.

Besides, your tongue may be sharp, but it'll be a while before I'll consider it a weapon.

**hotsauceman1**

Ashiraya wrote:
Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?
.'

I dont know, half our country fought for their right to own people.
Another idiot recently decided to start a civil war over his supposed land rights.

**jasper76**

Alex C wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.

If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.

So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?

A shooting.

With you so far. Now what unloaded adjective should I use to indicate "...that involved multiple victims", because that is awkward thing to have to spell out each and every time.

**Grey Templar**

A shooting with multiple victims is about right.

lonestarr777 wrote:

I can imagine encountering a tank or hearing the rush of a drone circling overhead can and would be rather demoralizing to a force that largely lacks in anti-armor weaponry.

Do you have gasoline, a lighter, some cloth, and some glass bottles? You have anti-tank weaponry.

Drones? Well you are hiding among a civilian populace. They can't just start killing everyone now can they.

**Nostromodamus**

jasper76 wrote:
Alex C wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.

If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.

So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?

A shooting.

With you so far. Now what unloaded adjective should I use to indicate "...that involved multiple victims", because that is awkward thing to have to spell out each and every time.

Why does it suddenly matter that someone shot 4 people instead of 3?

I really dislike this notion of a threshold to add further labels onto a shooting. A shooting is a shooting, and is a tragic event no matter how many victims there are.

**hotsauceman1**

Grey Templar wrote:
A shooting with multiple victims is about right.

lonestarr777 wrote:

I can imagine encountering a tank or hearing the rush of a drone circling overhead can and would be rather demoralizing to a force that largely lacks in anti-armor weaponry.

Do you have gasoline, a lighter, some cloth, and some glass bottles? You have anti-tank weaponry.

Drones? Well you are hiding among a civilian populace. They can't just start killing everyone now can they.

IDK, Syria kinda proves that wrong..........

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
Besides, what kind of idiots would start a bloody war against their own state just for the right to carry guns?
.'

I dont know, half our country fought for their right to own people.
Another idiot recently decided to start a civil war over his supposed land rights.

one third actually. I weap for our history classes. IN my day history was better. We just referred to what happened last week when we ambushed the Trexes, because thats all the history there was. Trexes are such wimps, coconut eating wimps.

**jasper76**

Alex C wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Alex C wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@Co'tor: When I hear "mass shooting", I think of a shooting situation involving multiple victims. But here it seems to be hittingn some kind of nerve like it's a loaded phrase or something, and I sincerely don't get why as it seems like as good a descriptor as any to me to.

Because it is a loaded phrase. Most Mass Shootings, as defined by the government, are criminal in nature. But the Left-wing wants everyone to think they're all school shootings or perpetrated by loons trying to make some political statement. When in reality very few mass shootings are anything of the sort.

If you cut out any criminal shootings which happen to hit the victim threshold the picture becomes very different, and more accurate.

So what phrase would you have people use instead for a shooting incident with multiple victims?

A shooting.

With you so far. Now what unloaded adjective should I use to indicate "...that involved multiple victims", because that is awkward thing to have to spell out each and every time.

Why does it suddenly matter that someone shot 4 people instead of 3?

I really dislike this notion of a threshold to add further labels onto a shooting. A shooting is a shooting, and is a tragic event no matter how many victims there are.

I'm not splitting hairs between 3 or 4 victims. Just looking for a phrase to indicate "shooting with multiple victims" that does not elicit so much unnecessary argument

**Kilkrazy**

The difference is that accidents, suicides and crimes passionelles normally only involve one or two deaths (or serious injuries.)

The death toll goes beyond three only because someone is on a killing spree.

**jasper76**

Huffington Post is reporting that the suspect were carrying 1600 rounds of ammunition and three pipe bombs attached to an RC car. 4500 rounds were found at their residence, along with 12 more pipe bombs and lots of tools fit for manufacturing explosive devices.

CNN is reporting that the male suspect was in communication with known terrorists.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The difference is that accidents, suicides and crimes passionelles normally only involve one or two deaths (or serious injuries.)

The death toll goes beyond three only because someone is on a killing spree.

Not at all accurate. Many of the mass shootings are horrible incidents of domestic violence/crimes of passion where some guy caps his wife/kids/who ever else is around/self. According to the following 57% of mass shootings were related to domestic violence.

http://jezebel.com/report-finds-link-between-mass-shootings-and-domestic-v-1684521755

**jasper76**

Also, the FBI has stated the couple made multiple trips to Pakistan.

**Kilkrazy**

That's a killing spree. It's the definition of a killing spree.

People only go and kill more than three people because they want to kill lots of people.

No-one accidentally shoots their daughter while cleaning a gun and thinks, "feth it, I may as well sand the rest of the family too, since my gun is loaded."

**lonestarr777**

Grey Templar wrote:
A shooting with multiple victims is about right.

lonestarr777 wrote:

I can imagine encountering a tank or hearing the rush of a drone circling overhead can and would be rather demoralizing to a force that largely lacks in anti-armor weaponry.

Do you have gasoline, a lighter, some cloth, and some glass bottles? You have anti-tank weaponry.

Drones? Well you are hiding among a civilian populace. They can't just start killing everyone now can they.

I am not entirely certian a molotov cocktail would be effective against a modern tank. I'm willing to admit it might be startling and if you caught the crew at rest with the hatches open yes it could work.

Isn't the point of insurgent tactics to outlast the enemy till he gives up and goes home? To make the cost too great to continue fighting. The problem in this hypothetical tangent is that the 'invader' has no home to go too. Looking at Syria, wasn't the Assad regimes answer to simply become more and more ruthless?

Oh and Frazzeled, concerning Vietnam, look up the OSS's involvement in the region.

**Grey Templar**

I am not entirely certian a molotov cocktail would be effective against a modern tank. I'm willing to admit it might be startling and if you caught the crew at rest with the hatches open yes it could work.

It might surprise people to learn that tanks aren't airtight. Burning liquid on the exterior of a hatch will actually flow into the interior. No vehicle wants burning gasoline anywhere on it.

**jasper76**

Maybe be this whole "who would win, the US Armed Forces or local militias?" debate deserves it's own thread.

**Tactical_Spam**

jasper76 wrote:
Maybe be this whole "who would win, the US Armed Forces or local militias?" debate deserves it's own thread.

Seconded

**Co'tor Shas**

The best part is, it doesn't matter anyway. There would be no civil war, because for a repeal to pass you need at least 3/4ths of the states on board. And politicians aren't really known for taking risky actions, so they'll only do it if they have real support. So that means a 75-80% support, to the point where stuff like that just won't happen. That's my point.

**jasper76**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
The best part is, it doesn't matter anyway. There would be no civil war, because for a repeal to pass you need at least 3/4ths of the states on board. And politicians aren't really known for taking risky actions, so they'll only do it if they have real support. So that means a 75-80% support, to the point where stuff like that just won't happen. That's my point.

Agreed. A repeal of the Second Amendment would require such a massive shift in public opinion as to render a significant rebellion highly unlikely.

Now back on topic, if we can find it again...

**lonestarr777**

Apologies for the derailment.

**yellowfever**

Let me see if I can word this right.

Certain politicians want to say any shooting with 2+ victims is a mass shooting. Fair enough. Pad the statistics.

But why then are they never up in arms or making speeches when a drive by occurs in the hood. Or multiple people die in Chicago. Multiple gang areas have people dying every day. Yet I can't remember a big speech about from a president. Correct me if I'm wrong.

**Nostromodamus**

yellowfever wrote:
Let me see if I can word this right.

Certain politicians want to say any shooting with 2+ victims is a mass shooting. Fair enough. Pad the statistics.

But why then are they never up in arms or making speeches when a drive by occurs in the hood. Or multiple people die in Chicago. Multiple gang areas have people dying every day. Yet I can't remember a big speech about from a president. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because nobody cares about gang-bangers. Politicians can make better political gains by posturing in the aftermath of a school shooting than they can after a drive-by.

**kronk**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
I can understand the motivation behind targets that are political or religious points of contention, not to say that either of those reasons are justification for this sort of thing.

But a center that assists the disabled? Cmon....

Yeah...

fething sick in the head, man.

Why the disabled? Any connection made yet, that I've missed? (I have been traveling a gak ton and not following the News According to Dakka (NAD) very closely).

I miss NADs.

**djones520**

I truly hope that this was a lone wolf attack so to speak.

The report that there were groups of "middle eastern" men visiting their home recently causes concern. It may be a harmless coincidence, it may have been handlers who could be radicalizing others, or men preparing more strikes.

I have no doubt that our authorities are hunting these people down in order to find out. A lone wolf situation, while it was still horrible would be a much better thing over all.

**Easy E**

yellowfever wrote:
Let me see if I can word this right.

Certain politicians want to say any shooting with 2+ victims is a mass shooting. Fair enough. Pad the statistics.

But why then are they never up in arms or making speeches when a drive by occurs in the hood. Or multiple people die in Chicago. Multiple gang areas have people dying every day. Yet I can't remember a big speech about from a president. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is a Presidential speech about that topic....

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/15/news/la-pn-obama-chicago-preventing-violence-20130215

Enjoy.

**CptJake**

kronk wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
I can understand the motivation behind targets that are political or religious points of contention, not to say that either of those reasons are justification for this sort of thing.

But a center that assists the disabled? Cmon....

Yeah...

fething sick in the head, man.

Why the disabled? Any connection made yet, that I've missed? (I have been traveling a gak ton and not following the News According to Dakka (NAD) very closely).

I miss NADs.

The 'disabled' were never the target. The target was a Christmas party being held in a conference room/center rented by the county health department. The male perp was an employee of the county health department.

**Jihadin**

CptJake wrote:
kronk wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
I can understand the motivation behind targets that are political or religious points of contention, not to say that either of those reasons are justification for this sort of thing.

But a center that assists the disabled? Cmon....

Yeah...

fething sick in the head, man.

Why the disabled? Any connection made yet, that I've missed? (I have been traveling a gak ton and not following the News According to Dakka (NAD) very closely).

I miss NADs.

The 'disabled' were never the target. The target was a Christmas party being held in a conference room/center rented by the county health department. The male perp was an employee of the county health department.

Turning into a different dynamic compare to other shootings.

**Dreadclaw69**

Can we drop the discussion on armed insurrection, and its likelihood of success as that usually gets a thread locked very quickly.

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

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

Perhaps you should look inwards before you ask if the rest of the country is allowed to exercise a right that you feel you are free to exercise

jasper76 wrote:
I agree with Spinners definition, and I wonder why there is so much antipathy towards using the words "mass shooting". Anyone care to enlighten? And if we shouldn't use he term "mass shooting" , what's a better term to use?

I would like to see a little definition on this. The FBI considers it to be 4 or more people killed with no cooling off period. Advocacy groups claim it to be 4 or more people wounded in an incident.

djones520 wrote:
I truly hope that this was a lone wolf attack so to speak.

The report that there were groups of "middle eastern" men visiting their home recently causes concern. It may be a harmless coincidence, it may have been handlers who could be radicalizing others, or men preparing more strikes.

I have no doubt that our authorities are hunting these people down in order to find out. A lone wolf situation, while it was still horrible would be a much better thing over all.

I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and say that it was family/friends visiting, if there was something besides I'm sure the FBI will investigate

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't know if anyone else has posted this yet;
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-attackers-left-remote-controlled-bomb-party-n473621

Authorities said there were three pipe bombs tied together in a bag at the scene, and the design indicated that suspects Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik appeared to believe their initial attack would draw a heavy law enforcement and emergency personnel response and left behind a device that would cause still greater casualties.

The device did not explode, and investigators do not know if the controller was too far away to trigger the bomb. Forensic investigation of the device has not been completed.

The attackers had also prepared metal pipe bombs of the type used by the Tsarnaev brothers after the Boston Marathon bombing. San Bernardino Police Department Chief Jarrod Burguan said Thursday at a press conference that 12 pipe bombs were found at a residence in nearby Redlands. Though there is no known link between the Boston and San Bernardino incidents, the California attackers and the Tsarnaev brothers seemed to be using designs found in multiple issues of Inspire magazine, the on-line publication of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Authorities are investigating how the San Bernardino attackers learned to construct their devices, and are looking for any possible accomplices who might have helped them obtain the large supply of ammunition, bombmaking materials and any weapons that may not have been directly purchased by the suspects.

More forensic evidence related to bomb-making was found inside the Redlands residence. Authorities told NBC News that investigators found traces of explosive residue indicating that the bombs may have been built there.