Mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA

[Wild Bill]

Wasn't that kid who shot up the church in South Carolina in the Klan?

No, just a subhuman.

 

[GoIrish41]

No not in the klan but definitely a white supremacist. Photos of him had the Rohodesian and South African flags on it and his manifesto was clearly influenced by white supremacist websites and literature.

They all look the same to me.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Kind of. Many people survive trying to OD. They have a tendency to call or text someone that they did it and that person usually gets them help (though some don't reach out or take things that act faster) but if you shoot yourself, there really isn't anything that can be done for you.

Yep. Kinda goes back to what I said about guns making things too easy. When you require time, money, and effort to accomplish X task, I doesn't happen as much.

 

[pumpdog20]

nm

 

[Irish YJ]

Yep. Kinda goes back to what I said about guns making things too easy. When you require time, money, and effort to accomplish X task, I doesn't happen as much.

So you're saying it's a liberal based issue...

 

[NDdomer2]

This has really turned down a winding round.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Solid, substantive, response.

You're response is typical. It's one that's become common place among right wing conservatives. Yes, Radical Islam has declared war on western values/ideologies. There's no question about it and something must be done to fight against ISIS. No, Radical Christian groups like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church or Army of God have not formerly declared war on leftist/progressive ideologies, but that doesn't mean a percentage of them aren't crazy enough to actually take action into their own hands. The biggest issue I have with your OP is that you refuse to label the PP shooter as a radical Christian terrorist. Instead, he's just a "nutjob who committed murder." It's so hypocritical for Christians to get up in arms about "Muslim apologists" when it comes to radical Islamic terrorists but then refuse to except that there are individuals who are radical Christians who terrorize and commit murder in the name of their ideologies as well. It drives me mad. Just because the PP shooter doesn't represent a formal group of radical Christians, doesn't mean he, himself, isn't one.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This hasn't been discussed enough and I feel it's very important to bring to light: Why did the majority of Republicans in the Senate vote against banning those on the terrorist watch list from legally purchasing guns in this country?

Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

A pair of Democratic measures - one to close background check loopholes to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill from buying guns, another to ban those on the terror watch list from buying guns - both went down in flames against near-unanimous GOP opposition.

I'll tell you why. The NRA owns these politicians. The Republican defense to this "Well, not all the people on the terrorist watch list are terrorists so that would be un-American to deny them the right to buy a gun." Are you fucking kidding me w/ that bullshit?! Just a couple weeks ago Republicans were denying any Syrian refugee from getting into this country out of fear they might be a terrorist, eventhough none of them were on the watch list. But the ones already in this country and already on the watch list...yea, lets allow them to get guns. How contradictory is that and why is this not a bigger deal?

 

[goldandblue]

It's interesting that alcohol was brought into the conversation. I have been told by law enforcement that alcohol is the number one killer in the United States. Many people die of diseases and shootings that involved alcohol but is not noted in the cause of death.

What the Research Really Says About the Relationship Between Gun Violence, Alcohol Abuse, and Mental Illness

The substance most often associated with violent crime is alcohol.

To understand the link between substance abuse and gun violence, it is important to distinguish between illicit drugs and alcohol. A major finding from a 1998 review of scientific literature revealed that “despite a number of published statements to the contrary, we find no significant evidence suggesting that drug use is associated with violence.” That same paper revealed that the substance most associated with violent crime isn’t a street drug like PCP or heroin. Rather, it’s alcohol. A 2013 meta-analysis of 23 studies concluded that “48 percent of homicide offenders were reportedly under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offense and 37 percent were intoxicated.”

Several studies have established the relationship between alcohol abuse and firearm-related crimes. Just as an individual is severely handicapped while operating a car under the influence, these studies found that similar failures in judgment and impulse control manifest during the operation of a firearm. Research shows that the risk of homicide, suicide, and violent death by all causes is significantly elevated with chronic alcohol abuse. Another study found a causal relationship between alcohol abuse and “impulsive” crimes such as assault and property damage.

Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine who runs the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, has conducted two recent studies on alcohol use among gun owners and how it might impact their behavior. In 2011, using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System — an annual survey of risk-related behaviors conducted by the Centers of Disease Control — for eight states and more than 15,000 respondents, he found that gun owners are significantly more likely than non-firearm owners to have five or more drinks on one occasion, to drink and drive, and have 60 or more drinks per month.
Additionally, in 2015, Wintemute discovered that firearm owners who drink excessively had a history of risky behavior, including higher rates of non-traffic offenses, an overall higher risk of arrest, and greater reported “trouble with the police.” Alcohol abuse, the 2011 study found, also leads to risky behavior with guns: For instance, alcohol intoxication is likely to impair a firearm owner’s “decision-to-shoot” judgment. And while Wintemute didn’t seek a direct link between alcohol abuse and gun violence, he did conclude that of the nearly 400,000 firearm-related deaths between 1997 and 2009, “it is probable that more than a third of these deaths involved alcohol.”

These findings have profound implications for crafting policy to avert future tragedies. In the wake of mass shootings, politicians from both sides of the aisle often call for including better mental health records in background checks. Though a worthwhile sentiment, the evidence suggests that these efforts would be better spent focusing on alcohol abuse instead.

 

[kmoose]

LOL. About 90% of people want universal background checks. NRA is against it so it will not happen (shockingly they give lots of money to politicians).

Should Congress Support Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases?

The NRA did not cause what happened in California. They are however responsible for buying politicians and are the reason that we can't pass legislation that 90% of the people want.

But is passing ineffective legislation any better than not passing any legislation at all? If your interest is in symbolism, maybe. But if the intent is to save lives and curtail the violence, then you might as well be pissing in the wind. I'm not an NRA supporter. I'm not even a gun owner, at this point. That's not because I don't believe in gun ownership, it's simply because owning one hasn't interested me enough to go out and buy one yet. I think people should be able to own firearms. I don't necessarily believe that all firearms should be treated the same. But what good are Universal Background Checks, if the database doesn't list ALL of the risk factors? Prior arrests are a risk factor that indicate a person is more likely than average, to commit future crimes, and that those crimes may likely increase in severity. But mental health, which is a HUGE risk factor, is a medical issue, and laws say that you cannot put that information into a "public" database. So background checks will not deter a law abiding person with mental illness from getting firearms. I still think we should require them.......... but we have to find a way to include mental health issues in the equation.

 

[EddytoNow]

This hasn't been discussed enough and I feel it's very important to bring to light: Why did every single Rep. in the House vote against banning those on the terrorist watch list from legally purchasing guns in this country?

I'll tell you why. The NRA owns these politicians. The Republican defense to this "Well, not all the people on the terrorist watch list are terrorists so that would be un-American to deny them the right to buy a gun." Are you fucking kidding me w/ that bullshit?! Just a couple weeks ago Republicans were denying any Syrian refugee from getting into this country out of fear they might be a terrorist, eventhough none of them were on the watch list. But the ones already in this country and already on the watch list...yea, lets allow them to get guns. How contradictory is that and why is this not a bigger deal?

Why? You are correct. They are all in the pocket of the NRA. They are more concerned about losing office in the next election than they are with protecting the American people. Democrats are no better. Politicians on both sides are caught up in the partisan rhetoric that has the country at a standstill. They could have easily addressed gun-control and other issues when they held the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Rather than address the problem, both sides would rather keep the issue alive so it can be used to fire up the base in the next election.

The United States needs leadership badly, and it isn't going to come from the current crop of candidates on either side. The Republican position seems to be that any type of gun-control would be ineffective because some terrorists/criminals would still find a way to obtain guns. In other words, if we can't stop 100% of the criminals and terrorists from obtaining weapons, we shouldn't do anything at all. I would argue that stopping 1% or 5% of the criminals/terrorists from obtaining a weapon would go a long way to saving the lives of those who would have been victims of that 1% to 5%. We may not be able to prevent all terrorist acts or crimes through gun-control, but that shouldn't prevent us from saving those lives that might be saved.

I would suggest we begin with legislation that prohibits the sale/possession of guns to non-citizens of all nationalities. This could be followed by legislation prohibiting the sale of guns to the mentally ill, former criminals, etc. Is it too much to ask for a background check on someone wishing to purchase a gun? If such legislation could save one life, it would be worth the effort. Are there leaders that would push for such legislation? Not in the current crop of Democratic or Republican politicians.

 

[EddytoNow]

As an NRA member, I must have missed the meetings where we wrote the laws and decided to have Islamic terrorism in California. I'm not sure what the NRA wrote or how they influenced all of this madness, but the left and you (One in the same?) sure must have caught wind of it.

They do fight unconstitutional Gun laws in court, because they....should.

If it were truly 90%, you wouldn't have an issue....

Ohh and as for the terrorist Gun bill, do you know what else was in that bill?

I'll give you a hint, the NRA didn't write it.

I doubt the leaders of the NRA were lobbying the politicians at your local NRA meeting. So unless you have been personally involved in the NRA's lobbying efforts, I doubt you are any more aware of what the NRA's leaders have lobbied for behind closed doors than I am. We can only base our opinions on what actually gets accomplished in Congress, and they refuse to do anything regarding gun-control. Someone's got their attention. And we all know how money gets the attention of politicians.

 

[kmoose]

Why did every single Rep. in the House vote against banning those on the terrorist watch list from legally purchasing guns in this country?
I'll tell you why. The NRA owns these politicians. The Republican defense to this "Well, not all the people on the terrorist watch list are terrorists so that would be un-American to deny them the right to buy a gun." Are you fucking kidding me w/ that bullshit?! Just a couple weeks ago Republicans were denying any Syrian refugee from getting into this country out of fear they might be a terrorist, eventhough none of them were on the watch list. But the ones already in this country and already on the watch list...yea, lets allow them to get guns. How contradictory is that and why is this not a bigger deal?

1. It was the Senate, not the House.

2. They didn't. Sens. John McCain(Ariz), Mark Kirk (Ill), Pat Toomey (Penn.), and Susan Collins (Maine) all voted for one or both of the amendments put forth yesterday.

 

[tussin]

It is completely baffling that sensible gun laws can't be passed in Washington. I say this as a Rep. who believes in the right to gun ownership.

 

[RDU Irish]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/04/the-crime-wave-in-u-s-cities-doesnt-show-up-in-the-data/

So I am little late to the party here - Is this San Bernardino thing legitimately Al Queda connected? Anyone care to summarize without Fox or MSNBC filters?

Generally speaking, these unsettling events are largely taken out of proportion by average Joes and Janes who feel really threatened. They are isolated and much less dangerous than living in big cities. Look at the attached graph, over the last 30 years Milwaukee has averaged over 100 homicides (under 1 million population there folks), St. Louis probably over 150 and Baltimore over 250 (Baltimore topped 300 the same day of the Paris shooting so looks like the projection was good).

So would you rather deal with whack job mass shootings that equate to lighting never striking the same place twice or live in a city that guarantees the continued killing people in the same place?

CDC - Water-Related Injuries Facts - Home and Recreational Safety - Injury Center

And while we are on the hunt to outlaw everything dangerous, let's outlaw swimming pools. 3500 people die per year on average - 1 in five are kids. For every death there are 5 kids treated for "non fatal immersion injuries".

 

[BleedBlueGold]

1. It was the Senate, not the House.

2. They didn't. Sens. John McCain(Ariz), Mark Kirk (Ill), Pat Toomey (Penn.), and Susan Collins (Maine) all voted for one or both of the amendments put forth yesterday.

Thanks. I'll edit my post. The point still remains.

 

[Booslum31]

Rueters...The woman pledged her allegiance to ISIS, Pipe-bombs in home/depot, smashed their computers and cell-phones, 4,000 rounds of AK-47 ammunition, trips to a handful of middle-eastern countries, etc.

Definitely work place violence...so let's talk about gun control. Drives me crazy.

 

[IrishLax]

Rueters...The woman pledged her allegiance to ISIS, Pipe-bombs in home/depot, smashed their computers and cell-phones, 4,000 rounds of AK-47 ammunition, trips to a handful of middle-eastern countries, etc.

Definitely work place violence...so let's talk about gun control. Drives me crazy.

If this is all accurate, I am seriously pissed off about the narrative that was spun.

 

[GATTACA!]

If this is all accurate, I am seriously pissed off about the narrative that was spun.

Yeah NPR was just saying that multiple news organizations were all reporting the same thing. Apparently one of the big sources of this info was the woman's facebook, which I would assume the authorities would have had pretty early on. Really no excuse for the way this was reported.

 

[phgreek]

If this is all accurate, I am seriously pissed off about the narrative that was spun.

as much as it pains me to say so...I think on the surface it looked like workplace violence. The guy attacked people he worked with...who knew him. He left in a huff, and returned and whacked people. Unless I saw the wrong stuff it looked like his twitter was portraying a guy scared of radicals, and frustrated at the blowback for being Muslim.

Sure there were some things that were odd...like another shooter, bombs, gear. It all pointed to some level of pre-meditation, which at least makes you think something else COULD be up.

I'm just saying there was at least something to base the workplace violence theory upon this time. ...if you can accept the left will seize upon this stuff to politicize it as fast as it happens, at least this one had some basis...initially.

 

[Cackalacky]

Rueters...The woman pledged her allegiance to ISIS, Pipe-bombs in home/depot, smashed their computers and cell-phones, 4,000 rounds of AK-47 ammunition, trips to a handful of middle-eastern countries, etc.

Definitely work place violence...so let's talk about gun control. Drives me crazy.

Ok. I agree... reporting is way off, reactions occured before all the info was in. Typical. So how do people like this manage to secure 4000 rounds of AK-47 ammunition and AK-47s? I understand this delves in to the whole gun control topic though. Its a valid question. One I doubt any of our oligarchs in the beltway will be willing to address.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Ok. I agree... reporting is way off, reactions occured before all the info was in. Typical. So how do people like this manage to secure 4000 rounds of AK-47 ammunition and AK-47s? I understand this delves in to the whole gun control topic though. Its a valid question. One I doubt any of our oligarchs in the beltway will be willing to address.

On the reporting... I don't have a problem getting the facts before jumping to conclusions. What made this radical Islamic terrorist attack different than most others that have occurred is the fact that the perp was actually a co-worker. That alone raised enough red flags for the narrative of WPV. But as the facts have started to emerge, it is becoming clearer and clearer that this was indeed a preplanned terrorist attack and should thus be called that.

On how the perp got the Aks - pretty easy. In most states, there are no laws that state you can't sell your gun outright to another person. As far as purchasing large amounts of ammo. Pretty much the same. You can buy it from private parties and stock pile it up. Also, you can buy large amounts through public places as well. Surplus military ammo is readily available. Now, most people intent on committing terrorist acts probably won't go the public purchase route due to the paper trail. But privately... no trail. All of this is part of legislation I would support as common sense gun control laws. Make it more difficult to sell guns and buy ammo through private parties.

 

[wizards8507]

On how the perp got the Aks - pretty easy. In most states, there are no laws that state you can't sell your gun outright to another person.

Yeah but an AK-47 is a selective-fire weapon, meaning it has both semi-automatic and fully-automatic modes. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. There are a slew of other state-specific laws that AK-47s would violate in California. In other words, the gun control laws that would theoretically prevent this are already on the books and failed to do so.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf?

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf?

 

[Bishop2b5]

If this is all accurate, I am seriously pissed off about the narrative that was spun.

We all should be pissed off if the press or our elected/appointed officials have intentionally misled us about this in order to spin the narrative. OTOH, it certainly wouldn't be surprising given how frequently they do so.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

Ok. I agree... reporting is way off, reactions occured before all the info was in. Typical. So how do people like this manage to secure 4000 rounds of AK-47 ammunition and AK-47s? I understand this delves in to the whole gun control topic though. Its a valid question. One I doubt any of our oligarchs in the beltway will be willing to address.

I am by no means a gun fanatic but I do have a few. I have never walked in to a "store" and bought a gun. Guns are as easy to get as a bag weed. Just gotta know who to ask.

I look at Gun control similar to the war on drugs. If you want a gun you're going to find a gun, likewise, if you want some Heroin, you gonna get it. Politicians and the media acts like everyone just strolls into Field in Stream and rolls out with a AK.

Of course these people could of purchases some of this stuff legally or in a 'store' but I'm willing to wager that a vast majority of there weapons were purchased on the black market. Especially since California has serious gun control laws.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Yeah but an AK-47 is a selective-fire weapon, meaning it has both semi-automatic and fully-automatic modes. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. There are a slew of other state-specific laws that AK-47s would violate in California. In other words, the gun control laws that would theoretically prevent this are already on the books and failed to do so.

If an AK has full auto mode then it is illegal unless you have the stamp authorizing you to own it - thanks to jho for that info yesterday. Most AKs today do not have full auto mode and any individual caught with one would face severe jail time. And owners of those weapons that do have the stamps and own them legally are visited often by the ATF. If you can't produce the weapon, you are in deep sh**. That's my limited understanding of AKs and the laws that affect them. I am surely not an expert in either.

Also, the pics released yesterday I saw looked more like ARs and not AKs.

 

[wizards8507]

If an AK has full auto mode then it is illegal unless you have the stamp authorizing you to own it - thanks to jho for that info yesterday. Most AKs do not have full auto mode and any individual caught with one would face severe jail time. And owners of those weapons that do have the stamps and own them legally are visited often by the ATF. If you can't produce the weapon, you are in deep sh**.

All true, but those stamps are just about impossible to get. Regardless, even the semi-automatic is an "assault weapon" by California statute and is illegal.

 

[T Town Tommy]

All true, but those stamps are just about impossible to get. Regardless, even the semi-automatic is an "assault weapon" by California statute and is illegal.

Agree. No laws would have prevented the attacks. But it still doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it more difficult for people to get guns. I am a huge supporter of gun rights as my posts reflect that. But I also feel I am reasonable as well when it comes to some reforms that may prevent attacks like we have seen recently. If some well defined laws can prevent even one attack, then sign me up. I am tired of the killing.

 

[BGIF]

Sorry to interrupt the urinating contest with an actual report.

Sorry to interrupt the urinating contest with an actual report.

San Bernardino shooting tied to ISIS - CNN.com
By Greg Botelho and Ben Brumfield, CNN
Updated 11:49 AM ET, Fri December 4, 2015

(CNN)Investigators think that as the San Bernardino, California, attack was happening, female shooter Tashfeen Malik posted a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN.

Malik's post was made on an account with a different name, one U.S. official said. The officials did not explain how they knew Malik made the post.

A law enforcement official said it appeared that Wednesday's attack -- which left 14 people dead and 21 wounded before the two attackers, Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, were killed in a shootout with police -- may have been inspired by ISIS. But none of the officials said that ISIS directed or ordered the attack.

"This is looking more and more like self-radicalization," a law enforcement official said.

Another official said authorities haven't ruled out that others may have influenced this radical view. In addition, the law enforcement source said investigators have a greater focus on whether the shooting occurred after a workplace issue with religion.

Lawyers for the Farook family said relatives have no idea why the couple burst into a holiday luncheon for Farook's co-workers and viciously opened fire. Nor did they have an idea the couple had a makeshift bomb lab in the apartment they shared with their 6-month-old daughter and Farook's mother. Nor did they know either of them were radicalized.

"It just doesn't make sense for these two to be able to act like some kind of Bonnie and Clyde or something," Farook family attorney David S. Chesley told CNN's Chris Cuomo. "It's just ridiculous. It doesn't add up."

A LOT MORE AT THE LINK

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No, Radical Christian groups like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church or Army of God have not formerly declared war on leftist/progressive ideologies, but that doesn't mean a percentage of them aren't crazy enough to actually take action into their own hands.

From The Week's Pascal Emmanuel Gobry:

In a sense, you have to feel sorry for the progressives here. One reason why they're clearly grasping at straws is because what's striking about the pro-life movement is how astonishingly little terrorism it produces. First, let's be clear about one thing: Every single mass movement, no matter how peaceful the aims and methods of its leadership, will have a violent fringe. That's just how human nature works. There was the civil rights movement, and there were Black Panthers. Zionism. Arab nationalism. You name it. Under Apartheid South Africa, the armed wing of the African National Congress conducted acts of sabotage and bombings that killed people, including civilians. If you're anything like me, you find it hard to feel too badly about black South Africans responding with force to Apartheid, which, of course, is precisely my point.

Can you name an organization that is to the pro-life movement as the Black Panthers were to the civil-rights movement, or as the IRA was to the cause of Irish independence? No, you can't, because such an organization doesn't exist.

Psychopaths are around 1 percent of the general population. Roughly half of Americans identify as pro-life, which means that if psychopaths are evenly spread among pro-lifers, there are about one million and a half pro-life psychopaths going around. Not even counting the countless "normal" people who surely have been turned into bloodthirsty maniacs by pro-life rhetoric.

So, how many people have these millions of pro-life psychos murdered over the past 40 years that the pro-life movement has been around? Eight.

Eight people is not nothing. It's also less people killed over 40 years than Nidal Hasan killed in 10 minutes, less than were killed in Columbine High School over the span of an hour.

The biggest issue I have with your OP is that you refuse to label the PP shooter as a radical Christian terrorist. Instead, he's just a "nutjob who committed murder." It's so hypocritical for Christians to get up in arms about "Muslim apologists" when it comes to radical Islamic terrorists but then refuse to except that there are individuals who are radical Christians who terrorize and commit murder in the name of their ideologies as well. It drives me mad. Just because the PP shooter doesn't represent a formal group of radical Christians, doesn't mean he, himself, isn't one.

I've yet to see anyone argue that Christians never commit acts of terrorism. But when you insist on labeling Dear as a "radical Christian terrorist", you're seeking to impugn Christianity along with the terrorist, which isn't fair. Should Progressives be forced to admit that Floyd Lee Corkins II was a radical secular Progressive terrorist who shot up the Family Research Council for being "anti-gay"? Of course not.

The NYT's Ross Douthat explains the difference well in an article titled "What We Fear When We Fear Terrorism":

...[W]hen Americans say they’re worried about “terrorism” they don’t have in mind either disturbed gunmen with idiosyncratic grievances or the frightening foreigner in some very generalized xenophobic sense. They’re worried very specifically about terrorist conspiracies, foreign and domestic — about a well-organized and agenda-driven violence that the government seems powerless against. How much weight this fear deserves relative to others is a matter for debate. But the fact that it’s not likely to fasten permanently on today’s pro-life movement is an entirely reasonable thing.

That's why it's not fair to characterize Dear as a "radical Christian terrorist"; because radical Christian terrorism doesn't really exist, at least not in the way that Islamic terrorism does. I'm assuming here you weren't trying to make a ridiculous point about religious people being more violent than secular ones, but I'll happily have that debate if you'd like.

Regarding the gun control debate, several posters here have repeatedly insisted that "no one is looking to ban gun ownership". If that's truly the case, then you're not serious about reducing mass shootings. There are more guns in this country than there are people. That is the defining difference between America and every other Western democracy; not gun control laws. Wide-spread confiscation paired with stricter regulation would likely reduce our incidence of successful suicide attempts and lone wolf shootings down to the Western norm; but tighter regulations alone won't accomplish anything (except for eroding civil liberties by granting the Feds even wider discretion to spy domestically).

But even that scenario (which is a political near impossibility) wouldn't protect us from terrorist attacks like those in San Bernadino; just look at France.