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.

Who in the US...let alone Canada going to be the first to say that "Terrorist" are operating in the US of A or Canada

I doubt the terrorist wage war in Mexico of Latin America. Cannot imagine what the Cartels will do if Radical Muslims Extremists" blows up a church in their area

Edit
sentence structure

 Crablezworth wrote:
assault-style event?

 Jihadin wrote:
Who in the US...let alone Canada going to be the first to say that "Terrorist" are operating in the US of A or Canada

I doubt the terrorist wage war in Mexico of Latin America. Cannot imagine what the Cartels will do if Radical Muslims Extremists" blows up a church in their area

Edit
sentence structure

To tell the truth, my bet would be on them linking with the cartels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It is now being said the woman made an online pledge to the leader of ISIS.

It's kinda sad that that carries more weight than pulling .556 out of people's fourteen human skulls. Like without knowing motive we'd mistake this incident for rock concert or apple product launch.


What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.

It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.

 Alex C wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
assault-style event?

CNN described them as wearing "assault-style clothing". It's a minor miracle they didn't describe their suv as an "assault-style" suv.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
From what im hearing, it is a combination of disgruntled worker being turned to radicalization for poor treatment

You must hearing different things then.

I read that his co workers had given his wife a baby shower and he was well liked.

Relapse wrote:
It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.

Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.

Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?

I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
assault-style event?

CNN described them as wearing "assault-style clothing". It's a minor miracle they didn't describe their suv as an "assault-style" suv.

Ugh.. the buzz words... they hurt my soul.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
assault-style event?

CNN described them as wearing "assault-style clothing". It's a minor miracle they didn't describe their suv as an "assault-style" suv.

Well to be fair, all SUVs are made for assaulting....atleast thats what my grandma says when she gets behind the wheeel.

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.

Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?

I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?

Nope, I get bent out of shape that the word terrorist is subjective as hell and criteria rarely seems to be the act itself but based on WHO did the act, inferred motive or not. I think columbine could be described as a terrorist attack, I also think collateral damage could be described as a terrorist attack. I thought this event was a terrorist attack from the outset, just like I thought those who perpetrated it were terrorists without knowing their motive, knowing their work was enough for me. When a deleted facebook post is a more important factor than 14 .556 riddled bodies I start losing my gak.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.

Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?

I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?

Nope, I get bent out of shape that the word terrorist is subjective as hell and criteria rarely seems to be the act itself but based on WHO did the act, inferred motive or not. I think columbine could be described as a terrorist attack, I also think collateral damage could be described as a terrorist attack. I thought this event was a terrorist attack from the outset, just like I thought those who perpetrated it were terrorists without knowing their motive, knowing their work was enough for me. When a deleted facebook post is a more important factor than 14 .556 riddled bodies I start losing my gak.

Have you seen and participated in the discussions here of what constitutes a terrorist attack as opposed to someone on a murder spree? There are many who would disagree with you.

 Crablezworth wrote:


What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.

Well, in this case, quite a bit more than a fething tweet.

You have the presence of pipe bombs/IEDs coupled with remote detonating devices, multiple shooters (VERY rare), what looks like a plan for subsequent targets (went back, reloaded, were heading back out) and more.

So, just a TINY bit more than a 'fething tweet'.


But you knew knew that. Or should have

 Crablezworth wrote:
CNN described them as wearing "assault-style clothing". It's a minor miracle they didn't describe their suv as an "assault-style" suv.

More accurately, CNN (and Reuters) repeated the description of "assault-style clothing" as provided to them by the Police Chief. Not that I wouldn't enjoy the low, low hanging fruit that is mocking CNN, but seems kind of narrative-y to pin that one on them.

 CptJake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.

Well, in this case, quite a bit more than a fething tweet.

You have the presence of pipe bombs/IEDs coupled with remote detonating devices, multiple shooters (VERY rare), what looks like a plan for subsequent targets (went back, reloaded, were heading back out) and more.

So, just a TINY bit more than a 'fething tweet'.


But you knew knew that. Or should have

I really don't think he's all the way clued into the news of this incident.

 CptJake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.

Well, in this case, quite a bit more than a fething tweet.

You have the presence of pipe bombs/IEDs coupled with remote detonating devices, multiple shooters (VERY rare), what looks like a plan for subsequent targets (went back, reloaded, were heading back out) and more.

So, just a TINY bit more than a 'fething tweet'.


But you knew knew that. Or should have

I don't think you're understanding me, I'm saying I didn't require information about a deleted facebook post to make the assessment that I would call it a terrorist attack.


"14 dead bodies, 17 injured, pipe bombs found, shootout with police... well that's not enough to call it a terrorist attack" "we found out the wife deleted a facebook comment declaring allegiance to isis" "oh ok, NOW it's a terrorist attack, fewf, good thing too, I was totally going to describe yesterday events as hooliganism, good thing we got that straight".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
CNN described them as wearing "assault-style clothing". It's a minor miracle they didn't describe their suv as an "assault-style" suv.

More accurately, CNN (and Reuters) repeated the description of "assault-style clothing" as provided to them by the Police Chief. Not that I wouldn't enjoy the low, low hanging fruit that is mocking CNN, but seems kind of narrative-y to pin that one on them.

I appreciate you posting that, up till now I thought it was self generated, their talking heads were saying it often without attribution.

 Frazzled wrote:
Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).

I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack;
- perpetrators were not on a No Fly List
- perpetrators were not known to FBI
- ban on "assault weapons" in CA
- magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA
- no open carry in CA
- background checks for public and private transactions in CA
- mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA

Relapse wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


What's the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass shooting assault-style event? Apparently a fething tweet or something.

Well, in this case, quite a bit more than a fething tweet.

You have the presence of pipe bombs/IEDs coupled with remote detonating devices, multiple shooters (VERY rare), what looks like a plan for subsequent targets (went back, reloaded, were heading back out) and more.

So, just a TINY bit more than a 'fething tweet'.


But you knew knew that. Or should have

I really don't think he's all the way clued into the news of this incident.

Again, the facebook message could have been praising scientology and the motive could have been a blood sacrifice to reincarnate l ron hubbard, I'd still have called it terrorism. I'll put it simply though, if a self identified group of nihilists collectively signed a note saying "we believe in nothing, existence is a lie" and mailed it to the president before setting of a nuclear bomb that decimates a city leaving millions dead, is that terrorism or just a crime? I mean hay, they're above politics those nihilists,

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).

I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack;
- perpetrators were not on a No Fly List
- perpetrators were not known to FBI
- ban on "assault weapons" in CA
- magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA
- no open carry in CA
- background checks for public and private transactions in CA
- mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA

Health inspection is a dangerous ideology


I'm firmly in the camp of "there was no preventing it".

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.

Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?

I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?

Be careful - acknowledging an Islamic terrorist's religion as a possible motive is considered "racism" here.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.

Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?

I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?

Be careful - acknowledging an Islamic terrorist's religion as a possible motive is considered "racism" here.

It's not racism to talk about his religion or what might have motivated him same as the Christian religion and praise of Army of God by the other terrorist this week is fair game for discussion.

It only becomes trouble when entire population are painted with a broad brush and you start to claim that all Muslims/Christians are terrorists.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I'm firmly in the camp of "there was no preventing it".

I believe that this attack could have been prevented, but just not in the time it took. Had this attack not taken place and the perpetrators continued to contact radicals, download material online, and made more incriminating posts I believe they would have come to the attention of the FBI eventually.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not racism to talk about his religion or what might have motivated him same as the Christian religion and praise of Army of God by the other terrorist this week is fair game for discussion.

It only becomes trouble when entire population are painted with a broad brush and you start to claim that all Muslims/Christians are terrorists.

Agreed with one exception, people who wear socks with sandals, they're just the worst.

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's now classed as a terrorist attack. We now are getting a motive out of this.

Because before the deleted social media post we were totally suspecting the motive to be saving the manatees or something right?

I bet you get all bent out of shape if someone uses the term Muslim terrorist if a Muslim murders someone, don't you?

Be careful - acknowledging an Islamic terrorist's religion as a possible motive is considered "racism" here.

It's not racism to talk about his religion or what might have motivated him same as the Christian religion and praise of Army of God by the other terrorist this week is fair game for discussion.

It only becomes trouble when entire population are painted with a broad brush and you start to claim that all Muslims/Christians are terrorists.

That's it in a nutshell.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).

I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack;
- perpetrators were not on a No Fly List
- perpetrators were not known to FBI
- ban on "assault weapons" in CA
- magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA
- no open carry in CA
- background checks for public and private transactions in CA
- mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA

repeal the 2nd amendment and round up all the guns from anyone who is not in the states nation guard, the military, or some sort of police roll.

People no matter what. If they want a weapon they will get a weapon. Pipe dream there. Repeal the 2nd and round up all the weapons eh. Gee I sold all mine for fifty dollars at a gun show. Like my flower bed there do ya. Nope not a rifle capsule in there but feel free to check it you want with a search warrant

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because he's using it as an excuse for more gun control and immediately jumped on it (despite California having some of the toughest laws in the US and all the ones he blabbers about).

I'm still waiting to hear one recommendation that would have prevented this attack;
- perpetrators were not on a No Fly List
- perpetrators were not known to FBI
- ban on "assault weapons" in CA
- magazines limited to 10 rounds in CA
- no open carry in CA
- background checks for public and private transactions in CA
- mandatory 10 day waiting period in CA

repeal the 2nd amendment and round up all the guns from anyone who is not in the states nation guard, the military, or some sort of police roll.

So an almost impossible task followed by an actually impossible task. Lets remove Freedom of the Press, Speech, and Religion while we are at it. Those might actually be easier too.

Keep in mind, that to repeal it 75-80% of the population would have to be in favor. Don't keep thinking in current terms.

Now that's not going to happen without an unprecedented shift in public opinion, so it's pretty much all conjecture at this point.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fbi-20151204-story.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=649324

So the weapons were apparently purchased from Texas based online discount gun retailers

Are online or over the phone retailers subject to the same requirements as an in-store purchase?

I believe they do have to follow the laws of the state in which the purchaser lives in.

 Jihadin wrote:


People no matter what. If they want a weapon they will get a weapon. Pipe dream there. Repeal the 2nd and round up all the weapons eh. Gee I sold all mine for fifty dollars at a gun show. Like my flower bed there do ya. Nope not a rifle capsule in there but feel free to check it you want with a search warrant

show me the receipt and the paperwork on the guy you sold it to. oh you don't have it, you must have illegally sold your gun, so come with us.

@Grey Templar
start with a media campaign instead of this is your brains on drugs, this is your brains after being shot message. all gun packaging would be required to have pictures of people murdered in mass shootings, and a nice smear campaign against armor piercing ammo. deer don't wear armor, but cops do. public opinion can and always does shift.

it's not an impossible task, close down all gun manufacturers, the NRA, and take all their assets, close down all places that sell guns & ammo and take all their assets.

surely all the law abiding citizens would follow the new law and hand over their guns, otherwise they'd show themselves for the criminals they are and would be locked up.

the 2nd has been abused far to long, say no to guns.

trump is all about taking away freedom of religion from one religion, if he gets his way removing it from the others would be a easy thing.

you could probably have a substantial shift in opionion and a much lower mass shooting rate. a president could have this done in his first term.

One of my firearms instructors copies the drivers license of the buyer whenever he privately sells one of his guns and draws up a tiny "names, serial number, type of gun, date" contract they both sign and keep a copy of. That way if someone comes back years later he has a record of when he last had it.