Mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA

[BGIF]

I'm watching CNN live showing media in a feeding frenzy touring the "killers' home" at the landlord's invitation. The landlord claims police released the unit to the owner.

CNN's police talking heads (former FBI/investigators, etc) are agast that the media is handling mulitple IDs (driver's licenses, passports were mentioned). The CNN reporter noted she would not show a close up of the IDs as the various addresses would be visibile on camera.

Considerable discussion on the media mob trampling the site and contaminating possible evidence. It also appeared that people other than media were touring the unit like it was an open house. One lady had a dog, another had a small child. Not your typical reporter's accessories. Anderson Cooper called this a bizarre incident. One talking head said the agencies have already been through the unit, secured the necessary documents under a search warrant. He noted that only items listed on the search warrant could be seized at the time. Additional items could be seized later with additional documentation. BUT once the scene is realized to the owner (who is also the landlord) the owner can do what he wants with the property.

It was noted that the unit is quite small (no square footage mentioned) and wouldn't take the agencies long to complete their search and secure evidence. Others expressed shock and dismay that a crime of this magnitude would see a key scene released so quickly.

 

[BGIF]

Live White House briefing on massacre.

Josh Earnest refused to confirm Facebook post about ISIS allegiance. Punted to FBI and LEOs.

President has been briefed by FBI, Homeland Security, etc as late as this morning.

Question on wisdom of landlord conducting media tour. Earnest replied FBI is lead agency.

Earnest chiding Republicans for not passing gun control legislation yesterday."It doesn't make an sense that someone on the no fly list can buy a gun." Also mentioned no mental illness bar.

Q. How worried should Americans be about copycats
A. President has advised people to be diligent. Noted that has been the tone since 9/11. agencies now share information with each other and LEOs. Fed gov provides "hundreds of millions of dollars to local agencies to prevent such incidents. More work needs to be done. Mentioned "Boston Strong" response by the American people "in the face of this threat".

BGIF note: PC seems to be a bridge into WH moving a half step closer that this is a terrorist incident.

Earnest just dodged a follow up question regarding "a terrorist attack" with "WH can't comment on an ongoing invesitgation". BUT he keeps using buzz words about "threat", "attacks".

Another follow up on terror connection by Joes Johns, CNN. Earnest replied, "Far too early to draw any conclusion as to motive." "Government takes serious any threat".

Johns asked about level of screening of K-1 visas (finance). Earnest gave canned 18-24 months vetting process on visas but K-1s are not considered a threat.

Johns asked about impact on Syrian refugess OR any other refugees under similar situations. Earnest, "That will be something that will carefull be considered."

New reporter asking about John Ryan. CNN broke off from the PC.

 

[Cackalacky]

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.

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.

I apologize you guys took the time to answer a rhetorical question. But you confirmed what we all know.... it's far TOO easy to get the ammo and guns to carry out these acts. We are bathing in guns in this country. And the logic is circular. We have these problems because we have all these guns. Well we don't do any thing to decrease the guns available. The only thing that stops these guns is more guns. That is what Australia did. They removed the surplus guns from their population. We could do that here. Not take all the guns, not ban all guns.. but sensible buy back or decommissioning and then instate sensible legislation to track private and public sales. Not sure why this is so anathema.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

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":



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.

Perhaps I'm not articulating my points very well but let me try to respond to the bolded. You say it's not fair to impugn Christianity. You're talking to someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, sooo there's that. And let me be clear that when I speak of fundamentalists or radicals in their respective religions, I'm not generalizing the entire population who practices these religions, Muslim and Christians alike. I feel it's extremely prejudice to do so.

Also, I agree that a radical Christian terrorist doesn't exist in the way that radical Islamic terrorism does. Clearly there is specific doctrine that goes along with radical Islam, which doesn't exist with Christians. But, what I'm comparing are that the specific ideologies within the religions, in their own ways, have lead people (groups and individuals) to act out violently. (And it should go w/o saying, but no, I'm not trying to make a correlation between secular and non-secular violence.)

Hopefully that makes sense. I don't want to turn this into a religious thread but wanted to try and reply.

 

[BGIF]

San Bernardino shooters' apartment: Reporters let in - CNN.com

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Perhaps I'm not articulating my points very well but let me try to respond to the bolded. You say it's not fair to impugn Christianity. You're talking to someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, sooo there's that. And let me be clear that when I speak of fundamentalists or radicals in their respective religions, I'm not generalizing the entire population who practices these religions, Muslim and Christians alike. I feel it's extremely prejudice to do so.

Also, I agree that a radical Christian terrorist doesn't exist in the way that radical Islamic terrorism does. Clearly there is specific doctrine that goes along with radical Islam, which doesn't exist with Christians. But, what I'm comparing are that the specific ideologies within the religions, in their own ways, have lead people (groups and individuals) to act out violently. (And it should go w/o saying, but no, I'm not trying to make a correlation between secular and non-secular violence.)

Hopefully that makes sense. I don't want to turn this into a religious thread but wanted to try and reply.

Waiting for a Whiskey response to that...

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/6nGE3BmUlhs3e" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/ron-swanson-parks-and-recreation-laughing-6nGE3BmUlhs3e"></a></p>

 

[wizards8507]

Also, I agree that a radical Christian terrorist doesn't exist in the way that radical Islamic terrorism does. Clearly there is specific doctrine that goes along with radical Islam, which doesn't exist with Christians. But, what I'm comparing are that the specific ideologies within the religions, in their own ways, have lead people (groups and individuals) to act out violently. (And it should go w/o saying, but no, I'm not trying to make a correlation between secular and non-secular violence.)

I think that's the key distinction. There's a huge difference between a religion that says "go murder people" in its official doctrine and one that says "life is sacred from conception to natural death" that someone interprets to mean "go murder people" on his own.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I think that's the key distinction. There's a huge difference between a religion that says "go murder people" in its official doctrine and one that says "life is sacred from conception to natural death" that someone interprets to mean "go murder people" on his own.

That's assuming that Islam is monolithic. The vast majority don't believe that's "doctrine."

Violent people will bring violence to their religion. They'll use the religion to justify their violence.

 

[wizards8507]

Violent people will bring violence to their religion. They'll use the religion to justify their violence.

I understand that, but the violent Islamists are in the hierarchy of the religion itself. They're not just rogue individuals, but clerics and people of power. Even if it was only one diocese, there would be a huge difference between a Catholic bishop telling people to go wage a new crusade and a single Catholic individual going out and shooting an abortion doctor.

 

[wizards8507]

Democrats to pray in solidarity with Muslims at Va. mosque where Anwar al-Awlaki was imam - Washington Times

This is completely fucking backwards. Two Islamists shoot up a bunch of non-Islamists and House Democrats are out showing solidarity with Islam.

 

[IrishLax]

Perhaps I'm not articulating my points very well but let me try to respond to the bolded. You say it's not fair to impugn Christianity. You're talking to someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, sooo there's that. And let me be clear that when I speak of fundamentalists or radicals in their respective religions, I'm not generalizing the entire population who practices these religions, Muslim and Christians alike. I feel it's extremely prejudice to do so.

Also, I agree that a radical Christian terrorist doesn't exist in the way that radical Islamic terrorism does. Clearly there is specific doctrine that goes along with radical Islam, which doesn't exist with Christians. But, what I'm comparing are that the specific ideologies within the religions, in their own ways, have lead people (groups and individuals) to act out violently. (And it should go w/o saying, but no, I'm not trying to make a correlation between secular and non-secular violence.)

Hopefully that makes sense. I don't want to turn this into a religious thread but wanted to try and reply.

I feel dumb wading in to the middle of this, but here is the main distinction between "radical" Islam and every other religion's "radicals."

Islamic terrorist groups are supported by a large proportion of the faith's followers. Almost 20% of AMERICAN Muslims supported Al Qaeda in a 2011 poll. Nearly 80% of Palestinians liked Bin Laden, and 50% of Pakistanis -- an "ally" -- supported Bin Laden. 60% of Jordanians support Hamas, 55% support Hezbollah. And so on and so forth.

What percent of Christians support the KKK? Or any kind of "Christian" terrorism?

So, IMO, it's not generalizing or prejudice to say Muslims support terrorism. It's borderline objective, inarguable fact that a large chunk of them do.

My 2 cents.

 

[BGIF]

"We are now investigating this as a terrorist act"

"We are now investigating this as a terrorist act"

David Bowdich, Assistant FBI Director LA office, at live PC in San Bernadino.

Based upon mounting evidence being investigated now as a terrorist act.

No other suspects under arrest. It is possible there are others. We don't know.

We are continuing to look into the motivation.

Is aware of Facebook pledge. FBI looking into it.

Killer's unit was turned over to the owner/landlord by law enforcement.

We know the person that purchased the weapons. They are not under arrest. ATF will address question.

Does not know if wife influenced husband. Joked that as a husband "we are all influenced by our wives" but he doesn't know details.

"Yes, we are concerned they were not on our radar." Added that the FBI is not allowed to do wide sweeping data collections (intel).

Asked for public help, if you see something alert LEO's BUT avoid hysteria.

Sheriff John McMahon, San Bernadino Co, "we are not aware of any other threat but ask you remain vigilance. Crime often occurs with no advance warning.

 

[wizards8507]

Islamic terrorist groups are supported by a large proportion of the faith's followers. Almost 20% of AMERICAN Muslims supported Al Qaeda in a 2011 poll.

20% of American Muslims admitted to supporting Al Qaeda.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I apologize you guys took the time to answer a rhetorical question. But you confirmed what we all know.... it's far TOO easy to get the ammo and guns to carry out these acts. We are bathing in guns in this country. And the logic is circular. We have these problems because we have all these guns. Well we don't do any thing to decrease the guns available. The only thing that stops these guns is more guns. That is what Australia did. They removed the surplus guns from their population. We could do that here. Not take all the guns, not ban all guns.. but sensible buy back or decommissioning and then instate sensible legislation to track private and public sales. Not sure why this is so anathema.

I really have no problems with that, except the fact that the criminal element in our society sure as hell isn't going down to the local police station and give up their guns for a gift certificate to the local WalMart.

I am in favor of common sense laws for some gun control measures as I have stated. I am also in favor of very lengthy prison stays for those who violate gun laws and commit a violent crime. The problem is cacky... the very same side of the argument that is pushing gun control is going to be the very same side that condemns the paid vacations to the local penitentiary when the criminal gets arrested. I would bet that an overwhelming majority of pro gun Americans would support such measures and prison sentences. Wanting to blame guns and/or gun owners for senseless acts of terror is ridiculous, a non starter with most pro gun advocates, and sure as hell don't address the real factors that cause one human to kill another.

 

[drayer54]

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.

Thanks for correcting the blind.

And yes, they used a Smith & Wesson M&P and a DPMS AR-15. The guns were illegal under California state law. I know it will confuse some that people have guns that aren't allowed by law and that gun control didn't work here (or anywhere else ever), but they modified them to make them illegal. All I can see that is modified is the larger magazines, which isn't really a modification. . It also appears they mounted red dots on top of the AR's. The handguns look like a S&W 9mm and possibly a Kahr? Both small caliber pistols that were likely legal, even in California.

I'm not sure why anyone would think an AK was involved.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm not sure why anyone would think an AK was involved.

Because the media said so.

 

[drayer54]

I really have no problems with that, except the fact that the criminal element in our society sure as hell isn't going down to the local police station and give up their guns for a gift certificate to the local WalMart.

I am in favor of common sense laws for some gun control measures as I have stated. I am also in favor of very lengthy prison stays for those who violate gun laws and commit a violent crime. The problem is cacky... the very same side of the argument that is pushing gun control is going to be the very same side that condemns the paid vacations to the local penitentiary when the criminal gets arrested. I would bet that an overwhelming majority of pro gun Americans would support such measures and prison sentences. Wanting to blame guns and/or gun owners for senseless acts of terror is ridiculous, a non starter with most pro gun advocates, and sure as hell don't address the real factors that cause one human to kill another.

Gun buybacks are always a joke, except for the occasional grenade launcher that gets turned in. Most of the solutions provided by the left offer solutions that don't prevent crime and are carried out at the expense of law abiding citizens. I would absolutely support longer prison sentences. I think that our current system is a joke and should be much harsher. We are going the wrong way with that by trying to eliminate drug sentences. I think that some people find blaming the tool as the easy solution and already have a disposition against guns/gun owners.

 

[drayer54]

Because the media said so.

Rifles Used in San Bernardino Shooting Illegal Under State Law - WSJ

That's all I've seen. Other stuff on these guns too.


I guess looks can be deceiving.

 

[calvegas04]

So why is there no mention of the 3rd gunmen everyone was talking about? I haven't heard any news outlet say there was no 3rd gunmen

 

[goldandblue]

Democrats to pray in solidarity with Muslims at Va. mosque where Anwar al-Awlaki was imam - Washington Times

This is completely fucking backwards. Two Islamists shoot up a bunch of non-Islamists and House Democrats are out showing solidarity with Islam.

Mind Blowing....

 

[BobbyMac]

Mind Blowing....

6.66 million voters to pander, I mean pray with.

And I see the smoke coming out of your ears about that number you Christian Radicals!!!

 

[T Town Tommy]

So why is there no mention of the 3rd gunmen everyone was talking about? I haven't heard any news outlet say there was no 3rd gunmen

I think it was established that the initial report of a third gunman was actually an innocent person running away from the shooting. Apparently the person was detained and questioned and their story was verified.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Perhaps I'm not articulating my points very well but let me try to respond to the bolded. You say it's not fair to impugn Christianity. You're talking to someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, sooo there's that.

Did any part of my quoted post above rely on Christian doctrine as authority?

Also, I agree that a radical Christian terrorist doesn't exist in the way that radical Islamic terrorism does. Clearly there is specific doctrine that goes along with radical Islam, which doesn't exist with Christians. But, what I'm comparing are that the specific ideologies within the religions, in their own ways, have lead people (groups and individuals) to act out violently. (And it should go w/o saying, but no, I'm not trying to make a correlation between secular and non-secular violence.)

What "ideology within [Christianity]" led Dear--an obviously insane loner--to commit murder? And assuming you meant it more generally than that, how is that apropos of anything? As the Gobry article states above, every mass movement--even secular Progressive ones that you surely support--has a violent fringe.

You (and others) explicitly called out Christians for hypocrisy in condemning Islamic terrorism while refusing to recognize Dear's murders as an act of "Christian" terrorism. But one can easily object to that comparison for objective reasons:

• Islamic terrorism is carried about by well-organized, theologically-driven conspiracies that our government has difficulty opposing. No such Christian organization exists.
• Violence against infidels has a real, undeniable basis in the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad. Not so in the Gospels.
• A significant % of Muslims worldwide support Islamist organizations. Not so with Christians.

Your comment reminded me of the following blurb from an article about the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

The taboos of secularism interlock in other odd ways. Modern Western secularists feel no anxiety whatsoever when they encounter harsh criticism and satire of Christianity. But if you offer a particularly barbed remark about Islam among the enlightened, someone will ask you to politely agree that Christianity is just as bad. And ironically, this instinct to protect the powerless is a leftover instinct of Christian civilization, which put sayings like "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last" at the heart of its worship and moral imagination.

We used to say of comedians, "He can make that joke because he's Jewish." In this respect, the Western world's comfort with attacking Christianity is an inadvertent admission that Christianity is "our" religion. And so it elicits from us none of the respect, deference, or fear we give to strangers. Viewed this way, secularism looks less like universal principle than a moral and theological critique derived from Christian sources and pitched back at Christian authorities.

 

[ND NYC]

(I know now impossible) but can we try to keep this thread to the salient facts and findings of the massacre?

all you guys need to do is copy and paste the sandy hook thread posts, or the planned parenthood thread postsetc into this one.

same old arguments on both sides, and this debate will NEVER be settled in this or our grandchildrens lifetime.

exhausting...

 

[phgreek]

(I know now impossible) but can we try to keep this thread to the salient facts and findings of the massacre?

all you guys need to do is copy and paste the sandy hook thread posts, or the planned parenthood thread postsetc into this one.

same old arguments on both sides, and this debate will NEVER be settled in this or our grandchildrens lifetime.

exhausting...

well, they started it! ...point taken.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Democrats to pray in solidarity with Muslims at Va. mosque where Anwar al-Awlaki was imam - Washington Times

This is completely fucking backwards. Two Islamists shoot up a bunch of non-Islamists and House Democrats are out showing solidarity with Islam.

I'd call that an unholy alliance. Unless they're going in with warrants and the FBI, these Dems should undergo a full psych eval

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

AG Loretta Lynch Promises to ‘Take Action’ Against ‘Anti-Muslim Rhetoric’ | Mediaite

The president is trying to find any way possible around the Constitution with gun laws, Lynch talking like this, Democrats praying at mosques...sounds like fundamental transformation.

 

[irishff1014]

Terrorist are just that nothing you can do to stop them other then be aggressive and blow them the F up. They don't care about laws, they don't care about people.

And for the record how come all this talk is about gun control but there is no mention of the multiple pipe bombs they built and were building at their apartment. Guess what they are completely illegal. So see my first point above.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

I'd call that an unholy alliance. Unless they're going in with warrants and the FBI, these Dems should undergo a full psych eval

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[drayer54]

Terrorist are just that nothing you can do to stop them other then be aggressive and blow them the F up. They don't care about laws, they don't care about people.

And for the record how come all this talk is about gun control but there is no mention of the multiple pipe bombs they built and were building at their apartment. Guess what they are completely illegal. So see my first point above.

The pipe bombs don't support the narrative. Scary things must go to achieve false security. That's why they go after knives in Europe. The big government party is now picking which speech and which weapons must go next. It's a never ending push.


As for the Lynch article,
We're now selecting which rhetoric must be prosecuted? I guess if you have no respect for the second amendment, why would the first amendment matter?

Anti- everything but Muslim is ok though.