Shooting in California

Herb Powell

Lilith Rhythmic Racism wrote: »

A row at a christmas party, so you go home, get the guns and murder people. Maniacs.

But remember, guns are grand. :rolleyes:

Orangebrigade wrote: »

So it was a terrorist attack like I said. Seemed obvious then and even more so now.

Orangebrigade wrote: »

ISIS attack.

Nothing confirmed yet, and no group has claimed responsibilty, so keep it in your pants for a while.

asherbassad

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Sad but true unfortunately, this seems to be a regular occurrence in the US.

It doesn't seem to be a regular occurrence it IS a regular occurrence

asherbassad

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Restricting guns won't stop terrorists. How about we wait until the full facts before getting on the anti gun soap box

Restricting guns WILL stop mass slayings and do you want to know why? Because the proof is right there in plain sight. After Australia implemented harsh gun restrictions, guess what? mass slaughter fell away to near zero.

.45auto

asherbassad wrote: »

Restricting guns WILL stop mass slayings and do you want to know why? Because the proof is right there in plain sight. After Australia implemented harsh gun restrictions, guess what? mass slaughter fell away to near zero.

Ye and you know what took its place. Violent home invasion robberies. Same thing in england. Jesus you are brainwashed. Look at the IRA, faced the might of the british war machine yet managed to sneak in tonnes of AK's and the likes. Hate to tell ya pal gun control doesnt work. Where there is a will there is a way.

The Randy Riverbeast

.45auto wrote: »

Ye and you know what took its place. Violent home invasion robberies. Same thing in england. Jesus you are brainwashed. Look at the IRA, faced the might of the british war machine yet managed to sneak in tonnes of AK's and the likes. Hate to tell ya pal gun control doesnt work. Where there is a will there is a way.

Gun owners will resort to organizing themselves into terrorist organizations and bombing innocent people?

Suppose it makes a change from shooting up schools.

Herb Powell

.45auto wrote: »

Ye and you know what took its place. Violent home invasion robberies. Same thing in england. Jesus you are brainwashed. Look at the IRA, faced the might of the british war machine yet managed to sneak in tonnes of AK's and the likes. Hate to tell ya pal gun control doesnt work. Where there is a will there is a way.

No violent home invasion robberies in the USA at all so? Seeing as people are happy to just carry out random killing sprees instead?

.45auto

Herb Powell wrote: »

No violent home invasion robberies in the USA at all so? Seeing as people are happy to just carry out random killing sprees instead?

Theres violent home invasions all the time. My point is that they skyrocketed after the gun bans. Sure they were muslims that did it. Your all too pc to say the obvious. #notallmuslims

Orangebrigade

Herb Powell wrote: »

But remember, guns are grand. :rolleyes:





Nothing confirmed yet, and no group has claimed responsibilty, so keep it in your pants for a while.

Same people, not much difference.

El Weirdo

.45auto wrote: »

My point is that they skyrocketed after the gun bans. I]citation needed[/I

FTFY

RobertKK

So they had bombs ready, which suggests a terrorist event had been planned, whether this was it, or if the argument that started the series of events made them change it and use that centre for terrorism instead.
One of them had travelled to Saudi Arabia.
Heavily armed.

We don't know if they were part of a group, or were simply copycat terrorists.

Jelle1880

.45auto wrote: »

Ye and you know what took its place. Violent home invasion robberies. Same thing in england. Jesus you are brainwashed. Look at the IRA, faced the might of the british war machine yet managed to sneak in tonnes of AK's and the likes. Hate to tell ya pal gun control doesnt work. Where there is a will there is a way.

Erm, nobody is saying take away all their guns.

But when you have **** like the NRA who are even opposed to mental checks before you buy a gun then you have a massive problem.
Because it's apparently insane to not hand out guns to people who have signs of depression, who are schizophrenic, who have anger issues,...

I tend to post this in a lot of gun debate topics, since it's just so spot on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

Herb Powell

.45auto wrote: »

Theres violent home invasions all the time. My point is that they skyrocketed after the gun bans. Sure they were muslims that did it. Your all too pc to say the obvious. #notallmuslims

Well you specifically said the robberies replaced the shootings. Don't know how that works, but that's not really my problem. The "obvious" in this case is not really obvious though. Had they been shouting Allahu akbar or made some other statement as was the case in Paris, then they would clearly be islamic terrorists. So far this case has not been so clear cut.

Orangebrigade wrote: »

Same people, not much difference.

Middle eastern name = ISIS?

Nah.

BattleCorp

asherbassad wrote: »

Restricting guns WILL stop mass slayings and do you want to know why? Because the proof is right there in plain sight. After Australia implemented harsh gun restrictions, guess what? mass slaughter fell away to near zero.

How do you plan on removing the approximately 300,000,000 guns from US citizens?

I'm being serious here but that can't be done.

JustShon

Herb Powell wrote: »

Middle eastern name = ISIS?

Nah.

I agree. It is possible for someone from the middle east / Islamic faith to be a different flavour of crazy from the usual religious fanaticism.

It goes back to the old thing of, a white guy shoots a bunch of people and he's mentally unstable but when someone vaguely middle-eastern does it then it's terrorism.

BattleCorp

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Erm, nobody is saying take away all their guns.

But when you have **** like the NRA who are even opposed to mental checks before you buy a gun then you have a massive problem.
Because it's apparently insane to not hand out guns to people who have signs of depression, who are schizophrenic, who have anger issues,...

The reason the NRA don't give an inch is because as soon as they give an inch, the authorities will come back looking for "another inch".

Orangebrigade

Herb Powell wrote: »

Well you specifically said the robberies replaced the shootings. Don't know how that works, but that's not really my problem. The "obvious" in this case is not really obvious though. Had they been shouting Allahu akbar or made some other statement as was the case in Paris, then they would clearly be islamic terrorists. So far this case has not been so clear cut.



Middle eastern name = ISIS?

Nah.

They sound like Islamic terrorists to me.

JustShon

BattleCorp wrote: »

How do you plan on removing the approximately 300,000,000 guns from US citizens?

I'm being serious here but that can't be done.

You're right, and regulating the guns that are already out there wouldn't work at all. There's too many guns and they can illegally change hands very easily.

I do think there's a lot to be said for mental health / psychiatric checks being involved when purchasing a new gun though.

I don't think that would help in this case though, this doesn't seem like the usual lone nutter with dad / mom's gun and a grudge. I'd be surprised if the guns used in this incident were legal.

Sheeps

I think America is stupid for gun control even being an issue, but at the same time if I had a gun there's no way I'd give it up. They're far too cool.

wes

.45auto wrote: »

Ye and you know what took its place. Violent home invasion robberies. Same thing in england. Jesus you are brainwashed. Look at the IRA, faced the might of the british war machine yet managed to sneak in tonnes of AK's and the likes. Hate to tell ya pal gun control doesnt work. Where there is a will there is a way.

Your comparing apples and oranges. A organized terrorist group is a world away from the lone wolf mass shootings we see in the US.

The number of gun deaths don't match up between the US and UK at all, even when adjusted for population:

8,124 Murders by Firearm in US in 2014 vs. 29 (Equiv. 144) in UK

The numbers clearly show that for the most part that gun control does work.

Jelle1880

BattleCorp wrote: »

The reason the NRA don't give an inch is because as soon as they give an inch, the authorities will come back looking for "another inch".

Not even close.

It's because they're extremists who think that what they want trumps the lives of innocent children being shot up on school.

BattleCorp

JustShon wrote: »

You're right, and regulating the guns that are already out there wouldn't work at all. There's too many guns and they can illegally change hands very easily.

I do think there's a lot to be said for mental health / psychiatric checks being involved when purchasing a new gun though.

I don't think that would help in this case though, this doesn't seem like the usual lone nutter with dad / mom's gun and a grudge. I'd be surprised if the guns used in this incident were legal.

I read that on Black Friday, 190,000 guns were sold on that day alone. That's a lot of psychiatric testing to be done.

The old 2nd Amendment is a problem too. I can just picture it: "Hey man, just because I suffered from depression in the past doesn't mean I have to give up my Constitutional rights, now gimme that gun."

BattleCorp

wes wrote: »

The numbers clearly show that for the most part that gun control does work.

It's also a lot to do with how readily the Yanks seem to be inclined to resort to violence.

If I insulted a Brit, they'd probably either insult me back or get in a huff.

If I insulted a Yank, they'd probably resort to violence in the first instant.

That's just personal observation from having lived in both places.

There's nearly as many guns per head of population in Switzerland but the Swiss are far less likely to reach for a gun during a dispute.

JustShon

BattleCorp wrote: »

I read that on Black Friday, 190,000 guns were sold on that day alone. That's a lot of psychiatric testing to be done.

The old 2nd Amendment is a problem too. I can just picture it: "Hey man, just because I suffered from depression in the past doesn't mean I have to give up my Constitutional rights, now gimme that gun."

Yeah, the particulars of it will be difficult. If there was a clean-cut solution to the problem it would've been solved by now.

As for the volume of psychiatric texting, I wouldn't propose on-the-spot tests. I'd propose requiring the tests to be done on application for a gun license and maybe that gun licenses need to be renewed at certain time intervals to ensure gun owners are sound of mind.

Anyway, this is straying off-topic into a general gun control conversation. Thanks for keeping it civil

Jelle1880

I genuinely think the way the UK does it is the best way.

You apply with your local police station for a gun license and yuc an only get a normal firearm (hunting rifle for example) or a shotgun, so none of that full assault rifle **** in the US, they do a thorough background check to see if you have a criminal record, you provide 2 witnesses (or 1, depending on the weapon you want) that know you for a certain amount of time (so not someone you just met the night before in the pub), police come to your house to check if the case where you will lock the gun is up to scratch and I believe you need a separate certificate too to actually buy ammo for said guns.

asherbassad

Whosthis wrote: »

There was a suspects name mentioned on the scanner earlier, it didn't sound like the name of a WASP.

To be honest, why would Islamic fundamentalists wear body armour?
Doesn't really make sense. They do want to kill but they generally hope to be martyred during the killing. A kevlar vest is anathema to that.

asherbassad

Jinonatron wrote: »

I would just like to point out this to those who will inevitably bash America's gun policy and call for gun control.

France was a gun free zone 3 weeks ago during the attacks. Food for thought.

And have 600 people been killed by guns in France in the 3 weeks since, like they have in the US?

InTheTrees

I'm listening to a republican politician on tv right now trying to talk about how they cant have background checks in the USA and that "gun control" means mental health testing.

He actually said "we're focusing on the "instrumentality" of the event too much".

These people are basically in the pay of the "national rifle association" and its bizarre to hear them speak publicly.

conorhal

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm listening to a republican politician on tv right now trying to talk about how they cant have background checks in the USA and that "gun control" means mental health testing.

He actually said "we're focusing too much on the "instrumentality" of the event too much".

These people are basically in the pay of the "national rifle association" and its bizarre to hear them speak publicly.

Well he's right in a certian respect. Of course guns are part of the problem, but only half of the problem. The rest of the problem is the answer to the question, why do so many people feel a compulsion to pick one up and commit mass murder?

Half soloutions are no solution at all, in the same way that removing public toilets and phone boxes from our streets don't fix the antisocial behaviour associated with drug abuse.

wes

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's nearly as many guns per head of population in Switzerland but the Swiss are far less likely to reach for a gun during a dispute.

It could potentially be cultural the reason why we see these kind of spree killings in the US, but I do think the high availability of gun doesn't help the matter.

InTheTrees

conorhal wrote: »

Well he's right in a certian respect.

He was arguing against background checks. Not even a ban or anything. Just a background check.

asherbassad

Deleted User wrote: »

Reuters

Wow, they really have no idea where they've gone.

Which would beg the question......why was Boston locked down after the Marathon bombing? Why was martial law effectively declared? Seemingly they were hunting for two brothers who may or may not have been armed. In San Bernardino they are searching for 2 or 3 or maybe more armed to the teeth guys who have already killed a dozen and there's only an announcement to be "vigilant"

asherbassad

Letree wrote: »

Get the waterboard machine set up.

For what exactly?

And there's no such thing as a "waterboard machine" FFS.......or do you mean a JUG?

asherbassad

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is why the whole "Let's take back the spare ex-military armored vehicles from the police" thing that's been going on recently is stupid. People keep asking "Why does this town or that town need an armored vehicle? It's not New York or LA". The problem is that these things don't just happen in New York or LA, as this incident shows.

Oh brother! More fantasyland hollywood bullshit

c_man

asherbassad wrote: »

To be honest, why would Islamic fundamentalists wear body armour?
Doesn't really make sense. They do want to kill but they generally hope to be martyred during the killing. A kevlar vest is anathema to that.

Not really. For example, the Charlie Hebdo killers were wearing body armour

asherbassad

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Have ISIS ever been part of a terrorist attack in the US?

Most of the time it's white gun owner or their child doing the shooting, more than likely its the same thing.

Which just goes to show that the whole terror alert / DHS / TSA / no-fly-lists / "see something, same something" bullsh1t is just a massive farce.

asherbassad

Deleted User wrote: »

Hispanic male, shaved head, orange shirt, camo pants. Police are trying to apprehend on East Briar Dr.

Guess what. Not ISIS.

You can just imagine Donald Trump salivating along with the security apparatus people. He gets to use this as yet another stick to beat Mexicans with and the cops get to bang on about how they obviously need tanks and drones and hellfire missiles. The fucking clowns will probably say they need F-16's now.

Nodin

asherbassad wrote: »

Which just goes to show that the whole terror alert / DHS / TSA / no-fly-lists / "see something, same something" bullsh1t is just a massive farce.

Well you can't really plan for a random lunatic, in fairness, while you can monitor the slightly more rational who have a known agenda.

Dohnjoe

asherbassad wrote: »

Which would beg the question......why was Boston locked down after the Marathon bombing? Why was martial law effectively declared? Seemingly they were hunting for two brothers who may or may not have been armed. In San Bernardino they are searching for 2 or 3 or maybe more armed to the teeth guys who have already killed a dozen and there's only an announcement to be "vigilant"

Different situations

Boston bombing had no suspects until 3 days later, and when it became apparent they were active again, then it became a manhunt - a city on lockdown is easier to track/pursue suspects

San Bernardino was more fluid, the suspects fled directly after, so the chase was on - every minute passing the window was closing

Seemingly they were hunting for two brothers who may or may not have been armed.

They had just shot an officer, this triggered the manhunt

BattleCorp

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Not even close.

It's because they're extremists who think that what they want trumps the lives of innocent children being shot up on school.

Polls show that approximately 42% - 50% of US households have guns. In reality these figures are probably incorrect. The true number is probably higher as the poll depended on citizens answering honestly. Some citizens might be suspicious and not admit to owning a gun.

That's a lot of people who own guns. Of the other roughly 50% of households that don't have guns, a lot of them would still believe in the right to have one if the so desired.

So it's not a tiny minority of people that believe in the right to own guns. It's not a tiny number of people who support the NRA and their aims. There are over 5,000,000 active members in the NRA and a lot of other people who are not members would also back them.

I wouldn't consider the NRA an extremist group. They are pretty much a Union who look after the interests of their members. They don't only fight for gun owner's rights, they are also the largest firearms safety trainers/instructors in the States.

Hard as it might be for you to believe, but the NRA don't want to see schools being shot up or innocent children getting killed. Apart from them being human and not wanting to see innocent people being killed, mass shootings cause them no end of hassle and makes their job much harder.

TeaBagMania

I don’t understand how this could happen; California is one of the few stats with very strict gun laws.

Im willing to bet the weapons used weren’t registered or 100% compliant with Californians assault weapon and magazine capacity laws. So why didn’t these killers abide by the laws?

Just more proof gun laws do nothing more than restrict and hamper the law abiding gun owner community

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14

Superhorse

Watching that story unfold last night one thing became crystal clear to me. The San Bernandino police department look like they are more heavily armed than the Irish army and if an ISIS or Islamic terrorist type situation occurred here are the Gardaí armed with something better than 20 year old uzi's to neutralise the threat?

Amazingfun

asherbassad wrote: »

You can just imagine Donald Trump salivating along with the security apparatus people. He gets to use this as yet another stick to beat Mexicans with and the cops get to bang on about how they obviously need tanks and drones and hellfire missiles. The fucking clowns will probably say they need F-16's now.

What about the illegal Mexicans that beat, rape and kill innocent Americans? THAT is what Trump is talking about-he wants the law of the country upheld, and why the hell should they not be upheld anyways?

Or do illegal Mexicans committing crimes against Americans make you "salivate".

Jesus, the amount of ignorant comments on here....

Superhorse

BattleCorp wrote: »

Polls show that approximately 42% - 50% of US households have guns. In reality these figures are probably incorrect. The true number is probably higher as the poll depended on citizens answering honestly. Some citizens might be suspicious and not admit to owning a gun.

That's a lot of people who own guns. Of the other roughly 50% of households that don't have guns, a lot of them would still believe in the right to have one if the so desired.

So it's not a tiny minority of people that believe in the right to own guns. It's not a tiny number of people who support the NRA and their aims. There are over 5,000,000 active members in the NRA and a lot of other people who are not members would also back them.

I wouldn't consider the NRA an extremist group. They are pretty much a Union who look after the interests of their members. They don't only fight for gun owner's rights, they are also the largest firearms safety trainers/instructors in the States.

Hard as it might be for you to believe, but the NRA don't want to see schools being shot up or innocent children getting killed. Apart from them being human and not wanting to see innocent people being killed, mass shootings cause them no end of hassle and makes their job much harder.

There are 310 million registered guns in America, registered. Frightening numbers. This stuff is only going to get more common. Obama hasn't a hope in hell of solving it.

JustShon

Amazingfun wrote: »

What about the illegal Mexicans that beat, rape and kill innocent Americans?

What about American citizens who beat, rape and kill other innocent Americans?

JPNelsforearm

Islamists in Islamic terrorism shocker.....

The Randy Riverbeast

TeaBagMania wrote: »

I don’t understand how this could happen; California is one of the few stats with very strict gun laws.

Im willing to bet the weapons used weren’t registered or 100% compliant with Californians assault weapon and magazine capacity laws. So why didn’t these killers abide by the laws?

Just more proof gun laws do nothing more than restrict and hamper the law abiding gun owner community

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14

Might as well make nothing illegal then, criminals dont follow the law. They will still speed or get nuclear weapons. Fast cars and nuclear weapons for all!

I'm sure some common sense would kick in eventually to say its impossible to prevent any crimes being committed.

asherbassad

The_Mac wrote: »

They obviously know some things but investigations take some time. You can't throw tidbits to the media, they'll eat it up and present it as the true case. I mean for **** sake CNN are speculating over what could have happened rather than wait for the truth, if they released any info atm that would be reported as what definitely happened.

When it's a genuine attack they are usually quite clueless. When it's a false flag hoax they have, and immediately release, the details of who is "responsible"

BattleCorp

Superhorse wrote: »

There are 310 million registered guns in America, registered. Frightening numbers. This stuff is only going to get more common. Obama hasn't a hope in hell of solving it.

Yup, like you said, that's registered guns. I'd bet there's an incredibly large number of unregistered guns over there too.

If you banned every single gun in America, it would be impossible to take them back out of circulation.

The combined armies of the US, Russia, China, UK and anybody else that you think of couldn't do this.

Sheeps

TeaBagMania wrote: »

I don’t understand how this could happen; California is one of the few stats with very strict gun laws.

Im willing to bet the weapons used weren’t registered or 100% compliant with Californians assault weapon and magazine capacity laws. So why didn’t these killers abide by the laws?

Just more proof gun laws do nothing more than restrict and hamper the law abiding gun owner community

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14

lmfao is the only response I have to your post.

Mesrine65

Superhorse wrote: »

Watching that story unfold last night one thing became crystal clear to me. The San Bernandino police department look like they are more heavily armed than the Irish army and if an ISIS or Islamic terrorist type situation occurred here are the Gardaí armed with something better than 20 year old uzi's to neutralise the threat?

Militarization of police forces is nothing new, one only has to look at the US, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia etc.

Concerns about the militarization of police have been raised by both ends of the political spectrum in the United States, with both the right-of-center/libertarian CATO Institute & the left-of-center American Civil Liberties Union voicing criticisms of the practice.

The Fraternal Order of Police has spoken out in favour of equipping law enforcement officers with military equipment, on the grounds that 'it increases the officers' safety & enables them to protect civilians.'(sic)

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States...hence the militarization of police.

The Act does not apply to the Army & Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor.