Shooting in California

BattleCorp

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Increasingly looking like a link to terrorism.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

And its blatantly obvious he and his wife were planning this for a long long time. It was just a case of when not if.

I read online they had 6000 rounds in total which only cost them about 2000 dollars. And they bought the gun from a shop that was last week advertising Black Friday deals on guns.

But hey, no need for gun control!

I agree that it does look like they were planning it for a long time.

I have one question for you. What do you consider to be gun control?

darkpagandeath

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree that it does look like they were planning it for a long time.

I have one question for you. What do you consider to be gun control?

Prob get torn to shreds for this and not trying to be condescending.

Not giving Americans free access to firearms. No other country has this problem with mass shootings. It can't just be the Amount of guns its cultural.

Billy86

kettlehead wrote: »

Good man, Billy. It's all whiteys fault! Jesus wept.

No, it's an issue caused by, and suffered from, by society at large. You do realise that a poor white person in the USA is more likely to commit a crime than a wealthy black or Hispanic person, right?

But for some it's easier to just say "their skin colour makes them worse people" I guess.

Shurimgreat

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Prob get torn to shreds for this and not trying to be condescending.

Not giving Americans free access to firearms. No other country has this problem with mass shootings. It can't just be the Amount of guns its cultural.

Not sure I'd agree. America isn't even the worst country in the world for shootings, although it is bad for mass shootings.

Countries like South Africa, El Salvador, Mexico, Guatamala I would say definitely have more shootings per head of population and possibly even more in total than the US.

Anywhere you have easy availability of guns, you are going to have high gun crime. Look at the Pistorious case in South Africa. Hot heads with guns often settle arguments with their guns. Hot heads without guns settle arguments in less lethal ways.

darkpagandeath

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Not sure I'd agree. America isn't even the worst country in the world for shootings, although it is bad for mass shootings.

Countries like South Africa, El Salvador, Mexico, Guatamala I would say definitely have more shootings per head of population and possibly even more in total than the US.

Anywhere you have easy availability of guns, you are going to have high gun crime. Look at the Pistorious case in South Africa. Hot heads with guns often settle arguments with their guns. Hot heads without guns settle arguments in less lethal ways.

I don't agree no other western democracy has this problem with Mass shootings. I think we need to separate Gun crime I.e. Gangs and alike from People just shooting up the place. No where else has that problem. its extremely rare in stable democracy's.

Strumms

The more violent the US becomes and the more of these shootings that happen will actually in a way lessen the chance for gun regulation or control or whatever you want to call it. Even today the Ulster County Police over there released a press release asking for all citizens to exercise their right to carry arms in public to make society safer. Gun control will never happen. The Second Amendment will only be reinforced and the gun lobby over there was strong enough already making Obama's pleas sound like very thin tired rhetoric at this stage. The fact you can walk down the street will a military issue automatic rifle... madness. The world is only going to get more violent and bloody and unjust and this I think is just the start of it. The complexities of the relationships between the middle east, Russia and the west is something that will take a hell of a lot of diplomacy so solve if the will is there ahead of the urge to fight that is.

Shurimgreat

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree that it does look like they were planning it for a long time.

I have one question for you. What do you consider to be gun control?

I think the European model of gun control works very well, particularly in Ireland. Basically the less guns you have the better. That means though criminals shouldn't have access to them either.

I do agree with darkpagandeath that there is an element of cultural in the American case, ie always have to own more, bigger, better than the neighbour. So more guns, bigger guns, more powerful and so on.

Americans will never go for European style gun control. The best you'd hope for is allowing hand guns. Its the high powered automatic weapons that are responsible for most of the mass shootings in the US. Not sure their constitution said anything about the right to own a glock automatic or AK47. It just said the right to bear arms, so maybe they need to tighten up the interpretation of that.

darkpagandeath

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think the European model of gun control works very well, particularly in Ireland. Basically the less guns you have the better. That means though criminals shouldn't have access to them either.

I do agree with darkpagandeath that there is an element of cultural in the American case, ie always have to own more, bigger, better than the neighbour. So more guns, bigger guns, more powerful and so on.

Americans will never go for European style gun control. The best you'd hope for is allowing hand guns. Its the high powered automatic weapons that are responsible for most of the mass shootings in the US. Not sure their constitution said anything about the right to own a glock automatic or AK47. It just said the right to bear arms, so maybe they need to tighten up the interpretation of that.

Its a nightmare of interpretation set against the need to form a militia if needed. You could interpret it as civilians having the exact same kit and the military so they could fight them. You know access to cruise missiles warplanes all that if you could afford them. It's all on a backdrop of being able to topple the government if needed.

AbusesToilets

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think the European model of gun control works very well, particularly in Ireland. Basically the less guns you have the better. That means though criminals shouldn't have access to them either.

I do agree with darkpagandeath that there is an element of cultural in the American case, ie always have to own more, bigger, better than the neighbour. So more guns, bigger guns, more powerful and so on.

Americans will never go for European style gun control. The best you'd hope for is allowing hand guns. Its the high powered automatic weapons that are responsible for most of the mass shootings in the US. Not sure their constitution said anything about the right to own a glock automatic or AK47. It just said the right to bear arms, so maybe they need to tighten up the interpretation of that.

Most shootings by far utilise handguns.

rizzodun

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think the European model of gun control works very well, particularly in Ireland. Basically the less guns you have the better. That means though criminals shouldn't have access to them either.

I do agree with darkpagandeath that there is an element of cultural in the American case, ie always have to own more, bigger, better than the neighbour. So more guns, bigger guns, more powerful and so on.

Americans will never go for European style gun control. The best you'd hope for is allowing hand guns. Its the high powered automatic weapons that are responsible for most of the mass shootings in the US. Not sure their constitution said anything about the right to own a glock automatic or AK47. It just said the right to bear arms, so maybe they need to tighten up the interpretation of that.

Virginia Tech - 32 dead - Handguns only used
Luby's Shooting - 23 dead - Handguns only used
Binghamton Shooting - 13 dead - Handguns only used
Charleston Shooting - 9 dead - Handguns only used
Umpqua Community College shooting - 9 dead - Handguns only used

There's a lot of talk about automatic rifles, seems that the perpetrators can do plenty of damage without them.

kettlehead

Billy86 wrote: »

No, it's an issue caused by, and suffered from, by society at large. You do realise that a poor white person in the USA is more likely to commit a crime than a wealthy black or Hispanic person, right?

But for some it's easier to just say "their skin colour makes them worse people" I guess.

The ten poorest counties in America are in Appalachia, a predominantly white region. The region has the lowest crime rates in America. White people make up 42 percent of America's poor, black people about 28 percent. Yet, even though they only make up 13% of the overall population, the majority of murders and other violent crimes are committed by black people.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420565/charleston-shooting-obama-race-crime

Good try though. It's easier just to blame all other groups shortcomings and failings on whitey.

BattleCorp

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Prob get torn to shreds for this and not trying to be condescending.

Not giving Americans free access to firearms. No other country has this problem with mass shootings. It can't just be the Amount of guns its cultural.

Yep, you are right. It's not just the guns. It's loads of things.

People calling for guns to be removed don't really understand the culture over there.

Suggesting that Yanks ban all guns is akin to trying to ban drink and fags here. Aint gonna happen.

And even if guns were banned, there'd still be hundreds of millions of guns that wouldn't be handed in.

Billy86

kettlehead wrote: »

The ten poorest counties in America are in Appalachia, a predominantly white region. The region has the lowest crime rates in America.

Appalachia has a population density of 47 people per square kilometer - about the same as Westmeath. Trying to compare that against cities is frankly ridiculously disingenuous, and incredibly transparent. Funny enough though, Appalachia has some of the blackest (and poorest) areas in the US, and they also are well below the national average for crime rates. Funny, eh? It's almost as if poor people are less likely to commit crime when not living in cities, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of richer people they don't know at all, flaunting things that they will likely never otherwise have.

White people make up 42 percent of America's poor, black people about 28 percent.

You brought up something interesting in your post by the way - black people make up 13% of the US population, about 41.5mn, and of those over 13mn live in poverty. In other words, if you are born black in the USA, there is a 1-in-3 chance of living in poverty. The USA has 197.7 white people, of which 19.7mn live in poverty... so if you are white, there is a 1-in-10 chance you will live in poverty.

Yet you completely deny that societal issues have anything to do with this. So is it safe to assume you feel this is entirely to do with the inherent superiority of the white man? Because you really haven't offered much else to draw any other conclusion.

Yet, even though they only make up 13% of the overall population, the majority of murders and other violent crimes are committed by black people.

Not sure where you're getting your info from, but white people actually make up about 60% of all violent crime arrests in the USA, compared to about 37% for black people.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420565/charleston-shooting-obama-race-crimeThe National Review? Hold on while I get back to you with something from Communist Weekly since you seem interested in going all the way out to the fringes with this! :pac:

Good try though. It's easier just to blame all other groups shortcomings and failings on whitey.

So again I'll ask... what is your theory on why you think black people in the US are more prone to crime and poverty? Because right now it is just coming over as "because they're black, white people are simple better".

Surely your thought process on the matter is even a little more complete than that?

Amazingfun

Not sure where you're getting your info from, but white people actually make up about 60% of all violent crime arrests in the USA, compared to about 37% for black people.

Are you for real?

Let's take New York as an example, as Jared Taylor has kindly done this work recently in correcting a re-tweet of Donald Trump's (the correct stats were much worse than Trump thought):

https://twitter.com/AmRenaissance/status/669581871521669121/photo/1

These figures are from New York City’s annual crime report. The report does not calculate crime rates for a hypothetical all-white New York City–the police chief would be fired if he did that–but it includes demographics for the city as follows: Whites: 32.8 percent, Blacks: 22.6 percent, Hispanics: 28.9 percent. To calculate the murder rate if the city were all white, you divide the percentage of arrests that are white by the white percentage of the population: 2.9 percent ÷ 32.8 percent = 8.84 percent. That results in a reduction in the crime rate of: 100 percent – 8.84 percent = 91.16 percent. [See below if you didn’t follow that.]

You can also calculate how much more likely a black or Hispanic is to be arrested for a violent crime than a white. For murder, a black is 31 times more likely and a Hispanic is 9 times more likely. A black is an astonishing 77 times more likely than a white to be arrested for a lethal or non-lethal shooting, and a Hispanic 18 times more likely. Guns are a problem alright–but the problem is overwhelmingly because of blacks and Hispanics, not whites.

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/11/what-donald-trump-should-have-tweeted/

kettlehead

America as a whole is 63% White. Appalachia is 83.7%. It's the poorest region within the US yet the violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2010 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 56.76%.

White people make up 42 percent of America's poor, black people about 28 percent. Yes, proportionately black people are more likely to live in poverty but there are vastly more white people in poverty than black people.

Young black men are fourteen times likely to kill compared to young white males -
http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/22/viewpoint-dont-ignore-race-in-christopher-lanes-murder/#ixzz2ciWBxj00

Black people commit 53% of all murder, despite being only 13% of the population - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

Now, I don't know why they are vastly over represented in the crime stats but it's not whiteys fault like you're trying to make out.

RobertKK

The gunman had been in contact with terror suspects and may have become radicalised.

darkpagandeath

RobertKK wrote: »

The gunman had been in contact with terror suspects and may have become radicalised.

I love the may part after being in contact with Terrorists...

Billy86

kettlehead wrote: »

America as a whole is 63% White. Appalachia is 83.7%. It's the poorest region within the US yet the violent crime rate for Appalachia in 2010 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 56.76%.

Again, as was pointed out this is a vastly rural area. The crime rates for black areas in Appalachia are also far below the national average. Why do you think there is a higher crime rate in Dublin than there is in Westmeath?

White people make up 42 percent of America's poor, black people about 28 percent. Yes, proportionately black people are more likely to live in poverty but there are vastly more white people in poverty than black people.

And as a whole in terms of population size, there are vastly more white people in the US than black people, which was already addressed. If you are born black in the US, you are more than three times more likely to be in poverty than if you are white.

But again, you seem to think this has nothing to do with socio-economic conditions and historical discrimination, and everything to do with the inherent superiority of that white man.

Young black men are fourteen times likely to kill compared to young white males -
http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/22/viewpoint-dont-ignore-race-in-christopher-lanes-murder/#ixzz2ciWBxj00

Black people commit 53% of all murder, despite being only 13% of the population - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

Again there you go on the emotive, anecdotal buzz with the Christoper Lane story.

You said "the majority of murders and other violent crimes are committed by black people." Now your own source says that white people commit just under 20% more violent crimes than black people. Feel free to just go ahead and admit you were wrong on that, rather than ignoring it which I am assuming you will do instead.

And also as per your source, white people (who make up 63% of the US population) commit 68.9% of all crimes. Yes, white people are indeed also over represented when it comes to US crime statistics. Strange how you seem to have overlooked that?

Now, I don't know why they are vastly over represented in the crime stats but it's not whiteys fault like you're trying to make out.

It is a larger societal issue, which you seem happy to ignore. These issues were in large part caused by over a century of cultural oppression that allowed white people to be the only people at the highest echelons of society (and almost always, even anywhere near them), which you seem happy to ignore. This has led to ghettos in areas with few-to-no facilities or activities for young males which never leads to anything good, which you seem happy to ignore. This is only made worse by the fact that the educational system has huge issues over there and the schools in poor urban areas are often massively underfunded, which you seem happy to ignore.

Thankfully these issues have gone some of the way to being fixed, and in turn, crime black crime has gone down pretty much across the board. But these types of situation never get fixed overnight, and there is no easy fix for this.

In the last 20 years in particular, the FBI reports, rates of crime among African American youth have plummeted: All offenses (down 47%), drug offenses (down 50%), property offenses (down 51%), serious Part I offenses (down 53%), assault (down 59%), robbery (down 60%), all violent offenses (down 60%), rape (down 66%), and murder (down 82%).

You clearly have a very strong opinion on this, so you should have a opinion as to why. An opinion without reasoning is pretty worthless, after all. So I will pose it to you again - why do you think are black people more likely on a per capita basis to commit crimes or face poverty than white people in the US?

kettlehead

Black people commit the majority of murders - 52.2%. Also, the FBI stats lump the Hispanics in with whites. You will note their omission on the table. Don't know why they do that, but there we go. So no, whites are not over represented.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

Are you for real?

Let's take New York as an example, as Jared Taylor has kindly done this work recently in correcting a re-tweet of Donald Trump's (the correct stats were much worse than Trump thought):

https://twitter.com/AmRenaissance/status/669581871521669121/photo/1




http://www.amren.com/news/2015/11/what-donald-trump-should-have-tweeted/

Make that 58.7% of all violent crimes, and 68.9% of all crimes being by white people in the US, compared to 38.7% for black people when it comes to violent crimes, and 28.3% for murder.

You and your ultra right wing publication can take those numbers up with the FBI if you want. It's their data, not mine.

dixiefly

I am not sure if this has been discussed above but it was actually a married couple that carried out this shooting. Very strange and a terrorist attack has not been ruled out

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

kettlehead

The FBI consider Arabs and Hispanics to be white. Check out Texas' most wanted list - www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

Billy86

kettlehead wrote: »

Black people commit the majority of murders - 52.2%. Also, the FBI stats lump the Hispanics in with whites. You will note their omission on the table. Don't know why they do that, but there we go. So no, whites are not over represented.

Where does it say that? All I could find was "The ethnicity totals are representative of those agencies that provided ethnicity breakdowns. Not all agencies provide ethnicity data; therefore, the race and ethnicity totals will not be equal" which never says the lump all Hispanics in the whites exclusively.

You're still not answering anything here, by the way why do you think black people are more prone to crime and poverty?

You also said the majority of violent crimes were committed by black people, when actually that is completely untrue - again do you wish to retract that statement and just admit you were wrong, or will you continue to ignore it?

Amazingfun

Billy86 wrote: »

Make that 58.7% of all violent crimes, and 68.9% of all crimes being by white people in the US, compared to 38.7% for black people when it comes to violent crimes, and 28.3% for murder.

You and your ultra right wing publication can take those numbers up with the FBI if you want. It's their data, not mine.

The data is sourced (and linked right in the article) from New York City’s annual crime report. It is accurate.

**It was interesting to learn that Chicago used to keep record of such numbers as well..........until one Rahm Emanuel took office.

Amazingfun

Billy86 wrote: »

You're still not answering anything here, by the way why do you think black people are more prone to crime and poverty?

Why are you insisting he answer the unanswerable?

It doesn't change a thing: the numbers are what they are.

kettlehead

Hispanics are lumped in with whites so the figures are skewed.

Darrell Steffensmeier, professor of sociology, crime, law and justice, at Penn State University published an analysis of violent crime statistics in the most recent issue of Criminology that indicate the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey has been reporting skewed data about violent crime for the last twenty years. The report was reviewed at the EurekaAlert web site on March 28, 2011.

The bias of the FBI reporting hinges on one single fact – Hispanic criminals were reported as white.

There is no Hispanic category in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey.

This bias increased the number of violent crimes reportedly perpetrated by whites and reduced the number of violent crimes reportedly perpetrated by blacks.

http://www.examiner.com/article/crime-statistics-distorted-by-race-for-last-20-years

Why are you so eager to downplay one groups stats and overplay another's? Most odd.

kettlehead

dixiefly wrote: »

I am not sure if this has been discussed above but it was actually a married couple that carried out this shooting. Very strange and a terrorist attack has not been ruled out

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

A married couple with a young baby. That's what makes this whole thing even more bizarre.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

The data is sourced (and linked right in the article) from New York City’s annual crime report. It is accurate.

**It was interesting to learn that Chicago used to keep record of such numbers as well..........until one Rahm Emanuel took office.

You responded to a post saying "white people actually make up about 60% of all violent crime arrests in the USA, compared to about 37% for black people.white people actually make up about 60% of all violent crime arrests in the USA, compared to about 37% for black people."

If you want to argue against that comment, you need to be referring to the US in full.

Amazingfun

Billy86 wrote: »

You responded to a post saying "white people actually make up about 60% of all violent crime arrests in the USA, compared to about 37% for black people.white people actually make up about 60% of all violent crime arrests in the USA, compared to about 37% for black people."

If you want to argue against that comment, you need to be referring to the US in full.

No, I don't, as New York City is in the USA.

We can go State by State if you like, but I will give you a preview:
the numbers look much the same no matter where we go.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

No, I don't, as New York City is in the USA.

Yes, you do. NY is not all of the USA. It is that simple. If you want to disagree with the numbers on the racial breakdown of criminals in the whole of the USA, you need to argue against it for the whole USA, not just one city in it that accounts for 2.6% of the entire population. It's called cherry picking, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase.

We can go State by State if you like, but I will give you a preview:
the numbers look much the same no matter where we go.

Feel free to go ahead and do that then - but you're just doing what the FBI have already done, and the link has been posted several times in this thread. If you have an issue with them on this, I suggest you contact the FBI and let them know.

hatrickpatrick

People are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous by refusing to differentiate between organised crime and random psychos shooting people for ideological or personal reasons.

Yes, the former will always be able to have access to guns. There's very little that can be done about that. But if you make it so that guns are not legal for the majority of ordinary citizens to buy and access, then your random 25 year old ordinary person who just got fired, rejected and pulled over for speeding will have to take their aggression out in the gym or on a video game rather than actually killing people in order to work through their anger.

Most mass shootings in the US are committed by people who subsequently turn out to have mental health issues, or social rejection and bullying. Those same issues exist in Ireland, but in Ireland a teenager who just got beaten up by his crush's new BF can't buy a gun and shoot everyone in his class in revenge. At most he might beat the sh!te out of the guy, but that's it.

Personally I find it bizarre that so many people are deliberately ignoring this elephant in the room. It was widely documented that one of the recent mass shootings was probably committed by a guy who posted about it in advance on a web forum dedicated to people who experience social rejection. Now, I used to be one of those people and believe me I have every sympathy and respect for people who go through that as teenagers, but as I say the difference is I never had the option to go and shoot the people who made my life miserable, so instead I joined the gym, learned guitar, adopted a "you can't beat them physically, so become happier than they are and make them jealous" approach. That worked. But if irrational, emotional, hormonal 18 year old me could have bought himself a gun which could hold enough ammo for each of the 10 or so people who had made my life miserable? Who knows. I certainly fantasised about it often enough.

Now I agree that we have to tackle the root causes of bullying etc, but for God's sake people need to realise that measures like that will take time, probably generations, to see results. In the meantime, ordinary people need to be prevented from having access to firearms because it's a sad but simple fact that far too many ordinary people suffer from emotional and psychological health issues which make them unstable.

Amazingfun

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, you do. NY is not all of the USA. It is that simple. If you want to disagree with the numbers on the racial breakdown of criminals in the whole of the USA, you need to argue against it for the whole USA, not just one city in it that accounts for 2.6% of the entire population. It's called cherry picking, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase.


Feel free to go ahead and do that then - but you're just doing what the FBI have already done, and the link has been posted several times in this thread. If you have an issue with them on this, I suggest you contact the FBI and let them know.

No one claimed New York City was "all of the USA"; I said we could start with New York City's stats.

You've already been shown evidence that the classification "white" re: FBI crime stats includes people such as EUSEBIO DELEON:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitiveDetails.aspx?id=270

Close up here: http://valleycentral.com/resources/media/ff9220a0-6705-42bf-ab6b-db959e79f43b-Chevo.jpg?1440577231400

No one would consider that man white, he is clearly non-white, a Hispanic.
But yet "Hispanic" crime is included in the "white" column.

But not in the New York City example.

So, yes, the numbers will be just about the same as the New York city ones when White and Hispanic crimes are separated.

take everything

Apparently all the guns involved were legally owned. These guns are machine guns from what i can see (my knowledge of guns is poor). Can someone explain to me how an ordinary civilian can legally own a machine gun.

As I say I'm not well versed in this.

JPNelsforearm

take everything wrote: »

Apparently all the guns involved were legally owned. These guns are machine guns from what i can see (my knowledge of guns is poor). Can someone explain to me how an ordinary civilian can legally own a machine gun.

As I say I'm not well versed in this.

Its a rifle, they passed background checks/their neighbors did. They also had up to twenty bombs and pipe bombs, which are illegal.... Legality does not matter to terrorists, as seen in Paris attacks.

TeaBagMania

It wasn’t a machine gun per say, machineguns are typically full automatic and used by the military. Hold the trigger and the gun will keep firing until you remove your finger from the trigger or run out of ammo.

The rifles they used were semi-automatic meaning you have to pull the trigger once for every round fired

That being said most semi-automatic rifles can be converted to full automatic rather easily and instructions can be find on the internet, however, this is VERY illegal and you’re looking at major jail time if caught

Paramite Pie

Apparently the shooters have a six month old daughter. While it's apparent that they planned to survive the attack it's still hard to imagine parent's planning a massacre that could cost their lives.

As for terrorism, it seems to be an 'opt in' operation these days, like they don't even have to recruit. Harder to trace. Work related or not -- they were apparently in contact with known Islamic extremist, maybe two birds one stone.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Apparently the shooters have a six month old daughter. While it's apparent that they planned to survive the attack it's still hard to imagine parent's planning a massacre that could cost their lives.

As for terrorism, it seems to be an 'opt in' operation these days, like they don't even have to recruit. Harder to trace. Work related or not -- they were apparently in contact with known Islamic extremist, maybe two birds one stone.

They couldn't have expected to get away with it and go on as normal with their baby. They must have known there were only two possible outcomes for them, shot by police or detained, charged, convicted, death penalty.

Orangebrigade

Piers Morgan should just shut up about gun control. It is NEVER going to happen, it is so ingrained in American culture.

Nekarsulm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And it all falls down with legal gun ownership in other countries not having mass shooting all the time.

Legal gun ownership in most other western countries involves fairly strict application processes.
Here in Ireland the prospective owner must show good reason to own one. hunting, or target shooting in an approved target club.
These are the ONLY reasons you can have a gun in this country.
( Unless you are a high Court Judge under threat from INLA, etc)
To get one for hunting you must either own the land on which you intend to hunt, or get written permission from the owner, you must provide folio numbers/ townland addresses of these land parcels.
You will need two references from people of good standing in the community.
You must agree to the Gardaí entering your home at any time, without a warrant, and inspecting your gun and its safe storage.
You must give the Gardaí permission to contact your Doctor and examine your private medical records whenever they wish.
Then you submit the 10 page application form, complete with photographs, to the local Superintendent and await his reply. Further info can be sought if he so wishes.
Permission/refusal can take up to six months. Usually less, in some cases only a month.

Some other European countries are stricter, others less so.

So you can see the vast difference between legal gun ownership here in Ireland, and walking into a gun store or wal-mart in the US and plonking your money on the counter and showing proof of residency .

listermint

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Legal gun ownership in most other western countries involves fairly strict application processes.
Here in Ireland the prospective owner must show good reason to own one. hunting, or target shooting in an approved target club.
These are the ONLY reasons you can have a gun in this country.
( Unless you are a high Court Judge under threat from INLA, etc)
To get one for hunting you must either own the land on which you intend to hunt, or get written permission from the owner, you must provide folio numbers/ townland addresses of these land parcels.
You will need two references from people of good standing in the community.
You must agree to the Gardaí entering your home at any time, without a warrant, and inspecting your gun and its safe storage.
You must give the Gardaí permission to contact your Doctor and examine your private medical records whenever they wish.
Then you submit the 10 page application form, complete with photographs, to the local Superintendent and await his reply. Further info can be sought if he so wishes.
Permission/refusal can take up to six months. Usually less, in some cases only a month.

Some other European countries are stricter, others less so.

So you can see the vast difference between legal gun ownership here in Ireland, and walking into a gun store or wal-mart in the US and plonking your money on the counter and showing proof of residency .

hey man there is like a 10 day waiting list before you can pick up that Semi Automatic.

Its hard yo

ceadaoin.

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Apparently the shooters have a six month old daughter. While it's apparent that they planned to survive the attack it's still hard to imagine parent's planning a massacre that could cost their lives.

As for terrorism, it seems to be an 'opt in' operation these days, like they don't even have to recruit. Harder to trace. Work related or not -- they were apparently in contact with known Islamic extremist, maybe two birds one stone.

Why is it apparent they planned to survive the attack? I'm sure they weren't that stupid to think killing people that were known to them and going head to head with the extremely well armed police would be a walk in the park.

Officials have said that during he attack his wife 'pledged allegiance' to ISIS on a Facebook account under a different name. I'm not sure why they are still holding back on calling this terrorism.

él statutorio

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why is it apparent they planned to survive the attack? I'm sure they weren't that stupid to think killing people that were known to them and going head to head with the extremely well armed police would be a walk in the park.

Officials have said that during he attack his wife 'pledged allegiance' to ISIS on a Facebook account under a different name. I'm not sure why they are still holding back on calling this terrorism.

Why?

I'll tell you why, because the right wing elements over here will lose their $hit. Having IS on US soil will be all the ammunition they need to bring hard core Islamophobia into the mainstream. Badges for Muslims and all that rubbish that Trump was spouting on about.

ceadaoin.

él statutorio wrote: »

Why?

I'll tell you why, because the right wing elements over here will lose their $hit. Having IS on US soil will be all the ammunition they need to bring hard core Islamophobia into the mainstream. Badges for Muslims and all that rubbish that Trump was spouting on about.

I had forgotten Trump said that. How anyone thinks this guy is serious candidate for president is beyond me. It's like he is just trolling everyone at this stage.

I guess you're right, it's pointless trying to read the reddit comments now because they are full of that sh!te. I suppose if they do say terrorism all the gun control talk goes out the window too.

It still seems wrong to play it off as workplace violence when that is clearly not what it was though. These people were murdered as an act of terrorism. Workplace violence kind of implies they had some hand in it which I've already seen in some articles claiming he was bullied for being Muslim, as if that justifies his actions.

lazza14

Why are the media holding back on calling this what it is ?

IS inspired terrorism ?

I will never understand the BBC and the Guardianista's support of Jihad ..

Bizarre.

bilston

In some respects this is a more terrifying attack than Paris as this appears to have been a "lone wolf" attack (albeit there were two of them) rather than a planned Daesh attack. Anyone could do this at anytime in any place. How the authorities prevent that sort of thing is beyond me.

Manic Moran

take everything wrote: »

Apparently all the guns involved were legally owned. These guns are machine guns from what i can see (my knowledge of guns is poor). Can someone explain to me how an ordinary civilian can legally own a machine gun.

As I say I'm not well versed in this.

They are not machine guns. California is one of the few States where such things are banned. Welcome, however, to the wonderful world of the difficulties of firearm legislation where it meets perception.

The Federal government (BATFE) has a definition of "machine gun" which, while not perfectly accurate, at least has the merit of being based around the mechanics of how the firearm works and is not subject to arbitrary decisions: More than one round is fired per pull of the trigger. In effect, when you pull the trigger, bullets keep coming out until the trigger is released, or you run out of bullets. These are what people ordinarily will imagine when they think of machine guns. The things the Army has, or the bad guys in Hollywood movies, etc. To my knowledge, the Federal definition is the only such legal definition of "machine gun". Assault rifles also fall under the "machine gun" category, incidentally.

Most other firearms are either semi automatic (one round per pull of trigger) or manual, such as bolt action. These sorts of firearms are all legal world wide, but with varying degrees of limitation. You are looking at semi automatic rifles.

California, and a few other jurisdictions, including between 1994 and 2004, the Federal government, has a category of semi automatic firearm called "assault weapon." (They had to invent the term as the firearms industry hasn't considered such a category). These are firearms which usually have a detachable magazine, and which also have a number of ergonomic or aesthetic features which make them externally resemble assault rifles. It doesn't make them any more dangerous than other magazine fed semi autos of the same calibre, but they look evil, according to some.

Mechanically there is no difference between a traditional configuration semi auto rifle and an "assault weapon".

Visual examples:
This is a Mini 14, a very popular sporting rifle, in a common hunting configuration (small magazine)
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/files/2007/07/RSranch_071807D-4.jpg

This is a California legal mini 14.
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4fcfbddaa02c6394e9b27f8d554ca0fa?convert_to_webp=true

This a Mini 14 which is illegal in California as an "assault weapon".
http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/attachments/mini-14-mini-30-gallery/22394d1341699503-post-your-mini-porn-pu-edit-1-jpg

Somewhere in between those three are the Mini 14s used by the A-Team.
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Brandiwynter/media/4_zpsxafnkzf6.jpg.html

It's all down to external furniture, the interior mechanism is all the same. Takes about three minutes with a screwdriver to change from one configuration to another. The assault weapon one is a bit lighter, and a easier to hold because of the hand grip, but that's it. CA law has a few other quirks involving balancing out the ergonomic/aesthetics with the magazine release mechanism, but you don't need to worry about that right now.

As a point of comparison, this is an M1 Garand, arguably the best weapon in WW2. Very popular in the years after WW2, still collected today. It also is a semi automatic rifle, but fires much bigger rounds than the Mini 14. This is literally a weapon of war. (Mini 14s generally are not accepted for military use.)

http://s25.postimg.org/8rh1dlucv/43_WRA_M1_Garand_2899.jpg

Unfortunately, firearms legislation world wide, epecially in Europe) is littered with what the boards shooting forum calls "Idunlikedalookadat" laws, restricting weapons as "assault rifles or weapons which look like assault rifles", a very subjective description which two people may not agree upon, and which doesn't reflect the relative danger the weapons pose.

Of all the arguments which have been put forward on Boards with respect to restricting the types of weapons available, the only ones which have any practical merit are those which focus on the semi auto vs bolt action debate. It is a clear, mechanical distinction, and has an effect on the firearm's capability and utility. That said, a huge majority of firearms in the US are semi-auto for a number of reasons, and the perceived bolt action safety is debatable.

That help?

JPNelsforearm

They pledged allegiance to ISIS, you can stop talking about gun control and start talking about border control


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-female-shooter-reportedly-pledged-allegiance-to-isis-investigators-believe-a6760721.html

ceadaoin.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

They pledged allegiance to ISIS, you can stop talking about gun control and start talking about border control


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-bernardino-shooting-female-shooter-reportedly-pledged-allegiance-to-isis-investigators-believe-a6760721.html

How would border control have helped? The guy was US born and raised

bnt

There's news being reported that one of the shooters had pledged her allegiance to Islamic State, and so that would make this a "terrorist" attack.

I'm not so quick to make that connection, however. The point of a terrorist attack is to instil terror. but for that to work there can be no confusion about the intent of the attack - as there is in this case.

Nekarsulm

I think they (USA) don't want to acknowledge that this is an example of domestic terrorism, as opposed to "foreign" attackers. As indeed Timothy McVeigh was.
Much easier to control people's emotions if the feel they are being attacked by "outside" forces. Not so easy if the terrorist is a Municipal restaurant inspector from down the street.