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.

 Jihadin wrote:

 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.

Ah, feth. Thanks, guys. He got his wife to go back and cap people at a Christmas party? fething hell...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Can we drop the discussion on armed insurrection, and its likelihood of success as that usually gets a thread locked very quickly.

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

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 Although I'm not under any delusions that the Second Amendment would ever be repealed in the current political climate.

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

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

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

For the first part, I did not ask if the rest of the country is allowed to exercise 2nd Amendment Rights. I know full well that they are (exceptions in law notwithstanding).
.
For the second part, I guess I wasn't aware til now that "mass shooting" was a term that had come to mean a shooting with a set number, like 4 or more, and wasn't aware that it was a controversial term. I've got no interest in splitting hairs with people over whether it should be used to denote 3 victims, or 4 victims, or 5 victims, or whatever.

So any news on the events? instead of another guns debate thread that is about to be locked.

On the gun thing;

All four weapons were legally purchased

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The Republicans control the house right now, right? Am I wrong that would prevent the Democrats from passing sensible laws?

I mean, my understanding is the go-to excuse for a while from the Republicans has been "guns don't kill people, we need better mental health care to prevent gun violence" but at the same time they appear to oppose mental health services and measures to reduce inequality that might cut down on violent crime.

California is the model of "sensible" gun laws. What laws do you think would have prevented this?

Gun violence has a number of causes. If you want to be as effective as possible, you should approach it from multiple directions. One is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The vast majority of people have no good reason to own a gun. Buy them back and destroy them.

Then you can do stuff like providing proper support for people who are poor or sick. Work on reducing wealth inequality. Build community. Improve your justice system so that people are less likely to reoffend. Promote understanding that maybe the solution to all problems isn't "kill the bad guys." Get a better construction of masculinity, because for some reason most of your mass murderers are dudes (disproportionately white, too).

Just approach it from every angle. You're a huge country, you can do a lot of stuff at the same time. Maybe avoid trying to solve it with an ever-expanding, increasingly intrusive police state, though.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The vast majority of people have no good reason to own a gun.

Utter horse gak, but do go on...

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Build community. Improve your justice system so that people are less likely to reoffend.

That I can get behind. Revolving door prison system is terrible. Community building can really help the police "us and them" problem too. Lots of success stories when police actually get involved in their community and interact with people in a positive way.

Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"


Edit

I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?

 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.

Serious question for you Grey, you consider "mass shooting" a loaded phrase, but what about "active shooter"? That's every bit as euphemistic for "crazed gunman" as "mass shooting" is to "shooting with multiple victims".

Edit why are these quotes confounding me? got it

Active Shooter is just it. One individual with a weapon shooting. No time called to figure out the individual motives, gripe, moan, motivation, anger, cause etc etc. You have a Active Shooter who is a threat that needs to be neutralized either forced into given up or taking out.

I've use
"Active Shooter and/or "Active SHOOTERS" depending on the situation

but then. I know my enemy

Edit

Happens to us all. Its like one of those bugs. Shows up does it thing and goes away. The "quotes"

 Jihadin wrote:
Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"


Edit

I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?

Absolutely, at least if you live in my fair state of NY. I think that's the scariest part of the SAFE act that most people don't even think about. Yeah a 7 rd limit is dumb as feth, but being able to get denied for actually seeking help is whats truly crazy to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Active Shooter is just it. One individual with a weapon shooting. No time called to figure out the individual motives, gripe, moan, motivation, anger, cause etc etc. You have a Active Shooter who is a threat that needs to be neutralized either forced into given up or taking out.

I've use
"Active Shooter and/or "Active SHOOTERS" depending on the situation

but then. I know my enemy

Oh I think it's appropriate, maybe not in this particular cases as there where shooters, but I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of always blaming "the media" when they so very often toe the established line.

CNN reporting that they had been in contact with multiple people suspected of being terrorists.

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

 djones520 wrote:
CNN reporting that they had been in contact with multiple people suspected of being terrorists.

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

What's your over/under for what rights get tossed? 2nd or 1st Amendment, I've got 10:1. 4thA I've got 2:1. 3rdA I've got the longshot 100:1. Solid payout though.
:

 Jihadin wrote:
Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"


Edit

I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?

If you've had suicidal thoughts, then definitely get rid of the weapons, the life you save may be your own.

we lose way to many vets that way.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"


Edit

I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?

If you've had suicidal thoughts, then definitely get rid of the weapons, the life you save may be your own.

we lose way to many vets that way.

As a service member, I appreciate your sentiment, I say that with all seriousness.

Getting rid of a firearm does nothing to help suicidal thoughts though.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"


Edit

I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?

If you've had suicidal thoughts, then definitely get rid of the weapons, the life you save may be your own.

we lose way to many vets that way.

You jest Sir. Everyone knows they have to stay alive to pay all their bills before they expired.

 djones520 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"


Edit

I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?

If you've had suicidal thoughts, then definitely get rid of the weapons, the life you save may be your own.

we lose way to many vets that way.

As a service member, I appreciate your sentiment, I say that with all seriousness.

Getting rid of a firearm does nothing to help suicidal thoughts though.

It doesn't stop the thoughts, but it can stop the thought from becoming an action.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Word coming out of Jihadist materials and some other ISIS inspired "enlightenment"


Edit

I own multiple weapons. I have mental issues (Moderate PTSD). So I guess some think I do not need to own a weapon?

If you've had suicidal thoughts, then definitely get rid of the weapons, the life you save may be your own.

we lose way to many vets that way.

As a service member, I appreciate your sentiment, I say that with all seriousness.

Getting rid of a firearm does nothing to help suicidal thoughts though.

Serious meds here to. Can opt myself out of this game to with a Over Dose. I choose to stay alive and help make sure me I am needed down the road for Future Wars/Apocalypse

It doesn't stop the thoughts, but it can stop the thought from becoming an action.

Bugged Quote

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Gun violence has a number of causes. If you want to be as effective as possible, you should approach it from multiple directions. One is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The vast majority of people have no good reason to own a gun. Buy them back and destroy them.

People have many good reasons to own guns;
- hunting
- sport
- historical collections
- self defense

A buy back is a misnomer - the firearms were never the property of the government to begin with. So if there are 300,000,000 firearms in the US how much do you think would need spent to entice people to surrender them? Where does this money come from? What essential services will you cut back to finance this scheme? When the majority of firearms are not turned in then what?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Then you can do stuff like providing proper support for people who are poor or sick. Work on reducing wealth inequality. Build community. Improve your justice system so that people are less likely to reoffend. Promote understanding that maybe the solution to all problems isn't "kill the bad guys." Get a better construction of masculinity, because for some reason most of your mass murderers are dudes (disproportionately white, too).

Just approach it from every angle. You're a huge country, you can do a lot of stuff at the same time. Maybe avoid trying to solve it with an ever-expanding, increasingly intrusive police state, though.

I believe that the following would help;
- end the War on Drugs
- end the for profit prison system we have
- end the revolving door in prisons
- increased mental health and support services
- better integration of mental health and criminal records with NICS

Punishing millions of law abiding citizens because of the transgressions of the overwhelming minority of people is wholly disproportionate.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The Republicans control the house right now, right? Am I wrong that would prevent the Democrats from passing sensible laws?

I mean, my understanding is the go-to excuse for a while from the Republicans has been "guns don't kill people, we need better mental health care to prevent gun violence" but at the same time they appear to oppose mental health services and measures to reduce inequality that might cut down on violent crime.

California is the model of "sensible" gun laws. What laws do you think would have prevented this?

Gun violence has a number of causes. If you want to be as effective as possible, you should approach it from multiple directions. One is to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The vast majority of people have no good reason to own a gun. Buy them back and destroy them.

You don't need to have a "good reason" to own a firearm in the US (and self defense is always a legitimate reason), ownership is a civil right just like free speech and protection from unreasonable search & seizure.

Some places try voluntary buybacks, but these typically have relatively poor turnouts and even poorer incentives (it's usually something like a $100 grocery store gift card for a gun or something similarly unimpressive).

More to the point, in places where mandatory gun buybacks have been enacted, firearms ownership was never as widespread nor as entrenched. Buying back guns in Australia was possible because they weren't as culturally ingrained and there were far fewer of them, both in absolute terms and per-capita, you'd be talking several orders of magnitude more cost involved with a much more reluctant populace and law enforcement apparatus in the US.

More to the point, firearms violence in general is dropping, the number of deaths due to firearms is dropping steadily every year. The problem is the high profile "shock" killings, where a large number of people are killed in a single incident. These are relatively new (though admittedly, still very few people are killed in this way), and are largely the product of disaffected and socially isolated individuals facing pressures that didn't exist in the same ways in society in the past or that had other outlets for frustration that are not necessarily available at present.

 Jihadin wrote:

It doesn't stop the thoughts, but it can stop the thought from becoming an action.

Not to mention the fact that we'd just miss you to gosh darned much.

Getting back to President Obama's statement that he wanted people on the "no fly list" to be barred from purchasing firearms, the Los Angeles Times has this little tidbit.

LA Times wrote:Federal officials who track terrorists abroad and in the U.S. said neither Farook nor Tashfeen Malik were known to them.

So, yea, even if that were the law, it would not have prevented these two from legally purchasing firearms.

So, let me get this straight.

You guys buy weapons to defend yourselves against guys who bought weapons to allegedly defend themselves from other people who have weapons ?

The main problem isn't buying weapons imo, but restrict them to handguns/hunting rifles and don't let people buy automatic weaponry.


(But that's just my French leftist two cents)

 LethalShade wrote:
don't let people buy automatic weaponry.

It's incredibly difficult to get automatic weapons legally in the US. They are tightly restricted, very rare, and many states ban them period. If you can get around that, a fully automatic AK starts at about $15,000 or so (14,000 EUR). Crimes with lawfully owned automatic weapons do not exist, statistically: I think there have only been like 2 or so since the 1934 law that first restricted them.

Whenever you read a news story about a crime with an automatic weapon, it's virtually always A.) bs or B.) a weapon that was illegally converted to full auto, which is actually fairly difficult to do, and again, already illegal. But it's almost always bs, period.

 Ouze wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
don't let people buy automatic weaponry.

It's incredibly difficult to get automatic weapons legally in the US. They are tightly restricted, very rare, and many states ban them period. If you can get around that, a fully automatic AK starts at about $15,000 or so (14,000 EUR). Crimes with lawfully owned automatic weapons do not exist, statistically: I think there have only been like 2 or so since the 1934 law that first restricted them.

Whenever you read a news story about a crime with an automatic weapon, it's virtually always A.) bs or B.) a weapon that was illegally converted to full auto, which is actually fairly difficult to do, and again, already illegal. But it's almost always bs, period.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It's actually a very, very common misconception so don't feel too bad.

Pistols are the worst problem, actually, not automatic weapons.

"Mass shooting" is not a controversial term.

 Breotan wrote:
Getting back to President Obama's statement that he wanted people on the "no fly list" to be barred from purchasing firearms, the Los Angeles Times has this little tidbit.

LA Times wrote:Federal officials who track terrorists abroad and in the U.S. said neither Farook nor Tashfeen Malik were known to them.

So, yea, even if that were the law, it would not have prevented these two from legally purchasing firearms.

This smacks of not getting a good tragedy go to waste. There were calls before this incident to prohibit people on the no fly list from purchasing firearms, and it was not gaining traction. To use a tragedy like this to push for gun control measures that would not have done anything to prevent the incident is beyond contempt.

Using the no fly list to prevent people owning guns is a dangerous step that strips citizens of many of the protections of due process.

 LethalShade wrote:
You guys buy weapons to defend yourselves against guys who bought weapons to allegedly defend themselves from other people who have weapons ?

Ouza already covered the automatic weapons part very well. People here may buy weapons to protect themselves from others who wish to cause them harm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Pistols are the worst problem, actually, not automatic weapons.

"Mass shooting" is not a controversial term.

Not a controversial term, merely a poorly defined one

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
So any news on the events? instead of another guns debate thread that is about to be locked.

On the gun thing;

Spoiler:

Guns are so much a part of the american psyche/culture, that first changes must be made there, before
changes can be made to the 2nd amendment.

Yes. Evidently one has passed DHS counter terrorism screeening. That will give the anti refugees a lot of ammo.
Multiple contacts or attempted contacts with radicals and looked up ISIL sites.
This is Fort Hood type attacker.

EDIT: And a note against those who use this stuff to pursue their personal bigotry:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-shooters-san-bernardino-20151203-story.html
Brother of one of the attackers: "His older brother, Syed Raheel, who also attended La Sierra, joined the Navy immediately after high school. He served from 2003 to 2007 and was awarded two medals for service in the “Global War on Terrorism.”


Anything noted they actually bought the rifles legally. I've seen conflicting stories on that. Not the pistols but the rifles.

The rifles are not in compliance with CA law. If these people are CA residents then the purchase and ownership was illegal.

 Alex C wrote:
The rifles are not in compliance with CA law. If these people are CA residents then the purchase and ownership was illegal.

As were the magazines.