Mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA

[T Town Tommy]

You guys literally have zero facts yet, but you're already opining on terrorism and our President's response?

Why don't you wait for the dust to settle before turning it into a political debate?

While I agree wooly... the fact that the Ft. Hood incident is still referred to as WPV is complete BS. I am all for getting the facts before jumping to conclusions, but if it is indeed what it appears to be at this moment, then it should be called what it is. I have no patience for political correctness when innocent American lives are being lost.

 

[NDBoiler]

One suspect named Sayeed Farook, per MSNBC.

 

[Booslum31]

One suspect named Sayeed Farook, per MSNBC.

Was that the woman or the man?

 

[wizards8507]

You guys literally have zero facts yet, but you're already opining on terrorism and our President's response?

Why don't you wait for the dust to settle before turning it into a political debate?

The first person to politicize this was President Obama, who was calling for gun control as early as 4:30ish ET. Me observing how others are politicizing this is not, in itself politicizing it.

 

[NDBoiler]

Was that the woman or the man?

I believe they said it was the man.

 

[drayer54]

350 shootings this year killing/wounding four or more people.
Mass Shootings in 2015 - Mass Shooting Tracker

Edit: the link's website crashed.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ny-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

But Mass Shooting Tracker uses an extremely broad definition of what many people would consider a mass shooting. If she had used a more restrictive definition that only counts incidents with deaths, as the federal government does, she would have come up with a much lower number. The Congressional Research Service counted 25 incidents in 2013, compared with 363 incidents counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.

 

[GoIrish41]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ny-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

But Mass Shooting Tracker uses an extremely broad definition of what many people would consider a mass shooting. If she had used a more restrictive definition that only counts incidents with deaths, as the federal government does, she would have come up with a much lower number. The Congressional Research Service counted 25 incidents in 2013, compared with 363 incidents counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.

Multiple people get shot ... That seems fair criteria for a mass shooting.

 

[BobbyMac]

I believe they said it was the man.

Saeed Farooq

 

[drayer54]

The first person to politicize this was President Obama, who was calling for gun control as early as 4:30ish ET. Me observing how others are politicizing this is not, in itself politicizing it.

Not quite....

The blue team could hardly contain themselves.

Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley Race to Politicize San Bernardino Mass Shooting (Update: Sanders, too) - The Gateway Pundit

 

[Cackalacky]

Wasserman Schultz claims 294 mass shootings in 2015 alone | PolitiFact Florida

But Mass Shooting Tracker uses an extremely broad definition of what many people would consider a mass shooting. If she had used a more restrictive definition that only counts incidents with deaths, as the federal government does, she would have come up with a much lower number. The Congressional Research Service counted 25 incidents in 2013, compared with 363 incidents counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.

Mass shootings can be a form of mass murder, which is commonly categorized as the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period.It is also defines the discharge of firearms in a group of unarmed people resulting in the injury or death of persons.

The fact remains that over 350 incidents have occurred this year that involved shooting and the killing and wounding of more than four people. Whether or not the federal government and its NRA lobbyists restrict that definition means little to me.

 

[GATTACA!]

The fact remains that over 350 incidents have occurred this year that involved shooting and the killing and wounding of more than four people. Whether or not the federal government and its NRA lobbyists restrict that definition means little to me.

I think weather or not there is a fatality is a pretty big distinction.

 

[drayer54]

The fact remains that over 350 incidents have occurred this year that involved shooting and the killing and wounding of more than four people. Whether or not the federal government and its NRA lobbyists restrict that definition means little to me.

I have more issue over the fact that its a crowdsourced data figure being thrown around.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think weather or not there is a fatality is a pretty big distinction.

Why would a fatality be any less problematic than those wounded by the same shooter? It somehow makes the shooting less violent? More acceptable?

 

[Cackalacky]

I have more issue over the fact that its a crowdsourced data figure being thrown around.

Why? All of.the data is sourced. You can check.the raw data sources. They provide links.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'm not trying to make a political statement or have a political debate, but I have to say that this cannot keep happening. I don't know the answer. I just know I'm sick of hearing about these shootings, and I am sick that we aren't better than this. If everyone were as sick of it as I am, then we would figure out a way to stop this from happening - if not completely then at least far less frequently.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I'm not trying to make a political statement or have a political debate, but I have to say that this cannot keep happening. I don't know the answer. I just know I'm sick of hearing about these shootings, and I am sick that we aren't better than this. If everyone were as sick of it as I am, then we would figure out a way to stop this from happening - if not completely then at least far less frequently.

I think we all feel the same way Rhode...

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm not trying to make a political statement or have a political debate, but I have to say that this cannot keep happening. I don't know the answer. I just know I'm sick of hearing about these shootings, and I am sick that we aren't better than this. If everyone were as sick of it as I am, then we would figure out a way to stop this from happening - if not completely then at least far less frequently.

Totally agree. I hate guns. I am definitely sick of it. If it is not guns and access what is wrong with Americans such that they have such a higher propensity to use them to solve problems.

 

[drayer54]

Why? All of.the data is sourced. You can check.the raw data sources. They provide links.

Hard to respond with that site down.

Totally agree. I hate guns. I am definitely sick of it. If it is not guns and access what is wrong with Americans such that they have such a higher propensity to use them to solve problems.

The "pro-gun" NRA types like me struggle to accept more gun control when none of the "common sense" proposals or current laws on the books do anything to stop criminals. It's also frightening to know that when more laws don't succeed, then the anti's will come back with... more laws. Sacrificing our freedoms and right to self defense isn't a price that I'm willing to pay for perceived safety.

I think the NRA needs to do more to tackle this issue and people on both sides need to tone down the rhetoric. I would suggest linking mental health records to gun background checks and requiring psych evals for people who meet certain criteria. Red flags were all over in some of these killers. Aurora being the most glaring.

I also put some blame on the media. I don't need to know the story and manifesto of a killer. I don't need to see them glamorized or made famous. I think this creates somewhat of a copycat effect. Most of these guys are deranged loners who want attention. The media continues to provide it.

More and more shootings makes it harder and harder for me to not support concealed carry. I know some will never like the idea, but I think they should respect my right to it.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Totally agree. I hate guns. I am definitely sick of it. If it is not guns and access what is wrong with Americans such that they have such a higher propensity to use them to solve problems.

I am all for gun ownership and the right to own them. I am also for tougher laws in order to own guns. But we have to get past the idea that guns are causing the problems when that simply isn't the case. It's the people using the guns as their weapon of choice... and the answer to what is wrong with them is much harder to define.

 

[irishff1014]

Totally agree. I hate guns. I am definitely sick of it. If it is not guns and access what is wrong with Americans such that they have such a higher propensity to use them to solve problems.

It has nothing to do with Guns themselves. It is stupid people, Mentally challenged/unstable, people that don't give a rats ass about others. Do i think there could be more stick buying procedures YES I DO. People want to blame the gun instead of looking at the real issue the people using the gun is the problem. People don't care anymore and don't respect anyone in general trust me i deal with the public everyday at work. IF you don't believe me go to your closest 911 center and ask if you can sit in and listen. (some let you some don't) You will see for your self how much humanity has gone down.

In this case "if" it is work place violence what happened to ignoring the other person or telling them to leave you alone. Since when was it ever a good idea to go how mad and get you gun.

Just like alcohol. When it is every good to drive drinking? When is it good to get in an argument of any kind after drinking? The same out come is going to happen time and time again and that's nothing good.

 

[yankeehater]

I just heard on local news that the suspects recently moved into the apartment in Redlands, CA. They were receiving a lot of packages of late and doing a lot of "suspicious activity" in their garage. So much so a female neighbor was suspicious and mentioned it to another neighbor. The female neighbor did not report it even though it was not normal "because she did not want to profile because they were Middle Eastern."

This is all early and we do not know where it will end, but in this day and age I would rather profile and be wrong then have what occurred today on my conscious.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

In the interest of having a conversation and coming from my perspective as a progressive (though I grew up in a small town in "real America")...

The common response is to say that we shouldn't politicize things too early. It's legitimately seen as uncouth. The only problem is that we have a short attention span. The opponents of increased gun control know that. The nation loses interest within about 7 days. If we don't politicize something early, nothing changes. In some cases, we need to politicize things. Political will is the only way we can actually make changes to policy.

I know that not everyone thinks that policy changes would do any good here. That's a discussion we should actually have. I don't believe we have had the discussion.

It seems to me that the data are pretty clear...increased gun ownership leads to more accidental deaths, suicides, homicides, etc. Researchers know that. As a nation, we have decided that the right to bear arms is worth that trade off.

 

[yankeehater]

RIP to those poor souls!

The bolded might be the strangest event of the day If the word is true?

Let me clarify as their behavior I believe was normal. These were employees of a neighboring city. San Bernardino has plenty of resources (even for a city that is bankrupt) along with the County Sheriff. I am sure if it escalated they would have requested help from some of their neighboring counterparts. Since it was not I am assuming, then they were just going about their daily business.

 

[T Town Tommy]

In the interest of having a conversation and coming from my perspective as a progressive (though I grew up in a small town in "real America")...

The common response is to say that we shouldn't politicize things too early. It's legitimately seen as uncouth. The only problem is that we have a short attention span. The opponents of increased gun control know that. The nation loses interest within about 7 days. If we don't politicize something early, nothing changes. In some cases, we need to politicize things. Political will is the only way we can actually make changes to policy.

I know that not everyone thinks that policy changes would do any good here. That's a discussion we should actually have. I don't believe we have had the discussion.

It seems to me that the data are pretty clear...increased gun ownership leads to more accidental deaths, suicides, homicides, etc. Researchers know that. As a nation, we have decided that the right to bear arms is worth that trade off.

But that's the same old tired argument made against guns. And that type of debate just won't take off in America. Guns is simply a symptom of a more far reaching issue. If we stop at the symptom, the real issues never get addressed.

While I don't think anyone in their right mind needs to own a Barrett 50 cal, I also understand the desire to keep gun ownership a fundamental right of all law abiding citizens that choose to own a gun. Tougher laws I am all for. Making guns illegal I would fight till my death.

 

[yankeehater]

In the interest of having a conversation and coming from my perspective as a progressive (though I grew up in a small town in "real America")...

The common response is to say that we shouldn't politicize things too early. It's legitimately seen as uncouth. The only problem is that we have a short attention span. The opponents of increased gun control know that. The nation loses interest within about 7 days. If we don't politicize something early, nothing changes. In some cases, we need to politicize things. Political will is the only way we can actually make changes to policy.

I know that not everyone thinks that policy changes would do any good here. That's a discussion we should actually have. I don't believe we have had the discussion.

It seems to me that the data are pretty clear...increased gun ownership leads to more accidental deaths, suicides, homicides, etc. Researchers know that. As a nation, we have decided that the right to bear arms is worth that trade off.

Not to get all political also, but the head of the FBI out in here in LA just uttered the possibility of terrorism being a motive in the last press conference. A few things are sending them in that direction, but he did not say for certain it would end in that direction.

Why does President Obama, Hillary and ever other candidate on the left immediately jump on the gun issue, but shy away from the terrorism problem? Also if this ends up being terrorism like the recent shooting in France, do you think gun control in the USA will stop terrorist shootings?

 

[NDdomer2]

]Not to get all political also[/B], but the head of the FBI out in here in LA just uttered the possibility of terrorism being a motive. A few things are sending them in that direction, but he did not say for certain it would end in that direction.

Why does President Obama, Hillary and ever other candidate immediately jump on the gun issue, but shy away from the terrorism problem? Also if this ends up being terrorism like the recent shooting in France, do you think gun control in the USA will stop terrorist shootings?

Might as well. This threads fvcked anyways.

 

[Booslum31]

Based on what we know thus far...work place violence or terrorism? Both?

 

[yankeehater]

Based on what we know thus far...work place violence or terrorism? Both?

Too early to tell. From what the "experts" have been saying on the local shows is a work place incident you do not usually have multiple shooters. They said the same for a lovers triangle type question.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I am all for gun ownership and the right to own them. I am also for tougher laws in order to own guns. But we have to get past the idea that guns are causing the problems when that simply isn't the case. It's the people using the guns as their weapon of choice... and the answer to what is wrong with them is much harder to define.

I don't get this line of thinking. Guns make mass murder much easier than it should be. Of course people could build a bomb...but that requires effort, skill, determination, etc. People are likely to fail, change their mind, get caught, etc when their plot to murder requires more time, money, and effort.

I'm fine with concealed carry, but semi-automatic rifles and such were not around when the Bill of Rights was drafted. Back then, if you wanted to wreck shit in a school for example, good luck reloading your musket. I mean the image is almost comical, some jackass trying to bite powder and stuff it down the barrel... I guess what I'm saying is the "but the 2nd Amendment gives us rights to guns!" holds about no weight with me.

((I also don't get the fools who thinking they're "the last defense against government oppression and tyranny!" This is dumb on so many levels. For one, the government has drones, so good fucking luck. Soon they'll (publicly) have all sorts of autonomous tanks and shit too. So, again, ya ain't stoppin' shit all you George Washington Wannabes.

Additionally the military is all-volunteer and consists of many of the most patriotic Americans, so take a chill pill. But I will add it was deeply troubling that the people most likely to be loud and proud about government oppression also got right in line as the Patriot Act was passed and, more recently, were silent as news stories of government officials killing an alarming number of innocent citizens came out in the last year or so.))

In the conversation of what to do about handguns and hunting rifles, an overwhelming majority of Americans want common sense regulations. If you want to buy a gun, take the damn class and register that shit. Hell they should make you buy a gun safe too.

Sorry for the rant. This isn't directed at you per se at all. Sleep beckons. But yeah I largely agree with your last sentence. Systemic poverty, the drug war, radical Islam, radical anything, and mental health issues are the real problems. But the idea of any jackass walking around with an AR-15 is unsettling. James Madison and Co could barely comprehend such a weapon. Automatic? Smokeless? Rifling? Magazines? Dafuq.

 

[GATTACA!]

Based on what we know thus far...work place violence or terrorism? Both?

I had read that the shooters were targeting whatever group was holding a gathering inside the facility not the actual employees themselves. That would make me think workplace violence is unlikely. But who knows at this point.